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 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-gave-rafale-contract-to-his-friend-rahul-gandhi-32416">Rafale deal</a>.&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.

&nbsp;Advocate Sanjay Singh argued, “This document (centre’s response) is silent on whether a lot of steps involved in defence acquisitions were followed. The matter reached Defence Acquisition Council after the announcement of the deal by prime minister."&nbsp;

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that apart from the issues of procedure, offset and pricing, there was a fourth issue — the intergovernment agreement between India and France.&nbsp;

According to Bhushan, the clauses governing an intergovernmental agreement have not been satisfied and crucial questions remain&nbsp;unanswered. For example, what happens if Dassault Aviation does not deliver?&nbsp;

Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court that the Indian government does not have a guarantee from the French government but it does have a letter of comfort.&nbsp;

Venugopal also added that India had fallen behind its rivals due to a shortage of fighter aircraft.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi meanwhile made it clear that the deal's pricing details would be debated if the court decided to put them out in the public domain.

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.

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. Advocate Sanjay Singh argued, “This document (centre’s response) is silent on whether a lot of steps involved in defence acquisitions were followed. The matter reached Defence Acquisition Council after the announcement of the deal by prime minister." Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that apart from the issues of procedure, offset and pricing, there was a fourth issue — the intergovernment agreement between India and France. According to Bhushan, the clauses governing an intergovernmental agreement have not been satisfied and crucial questions remain unanswered. For example, what happens if Dassault Aviation does not deliver? Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court that the Indian government does not have a guarantee from the French government but it does have a letter of comfort. Venugopal also added that India had fallen behind its rivals due to a shortage of fighter aircraft. Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi meanwhile made it clear that the deal's pricing details would be debated if the court decided to put them out in the public domain.

Rafale deal: SC reserves judgement on petitions seeking court-monitored probe

The law ministry recently notified the appointments of four judges, justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi to the Supreme Court within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Collegium recommending them to the government.

Though it appears to be a welcome move, the modus operandi of the government, vis-a-vis judicial appointments, looks doubtful.

The Union government was under pressure early this year for resisting Justice KM Joseph’s elevation to Supreme Court on the ground that in the All India High Court judges’ seniority list, he was placed at serial number 42 and there were presently 11 chief justices of various high courts who were senior to him.

A brief survey of past appointments makes it evident that seniority either an appointment to the post of chief justice of the high courts or to elevation from high courts to Supreme Court have only been given little weight.

Justice JR Mudholkar, a judge of the Bombay High Court and number 7 among permanent judges of the various high courts was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 3.10.1960) in preference to all the chief justices of the high courts. Justice RS Bachawat was at No. 2 in the list of permanent judges of various high courts when he was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 7.9.1964) in preference to the then chief justices of the high courts.

Justice GK Mitter, No. 8 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 29.8.1966) bypassing three judges senior to him at the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice.

Likewise, Justice CA Vaidialingam was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 10.10.1966) when there were two other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice. His position in the list of permanent judges of various high courts was number 23. Justice AN Grover was elevated to the Supreme Court on 12.2.1968 when there were two other judges senior to him in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including the chief justice and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts stood at 39.

Justice AN Ray, who was number 30 among permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to three other judges in the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice, was elevated to the Supreme Court on 1.8.1969. As was Justice KK Mathew to the Supreme Court (on 4.10.1971) when there were three other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice, and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts was number 70.

Likewise, there are many instances that can be narrated. Justice YV Chandrachud was at number 19 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to two judges of his own high court, including the then chief justice, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court on 23.8.1972.

This trend has continued. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 23.04.2012) before his Supreme Court colleagues justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, AM Khanwilkar, AM Sapre and DY Chandrachud, who were all senior to him.

Justices Deepak Gupta and Naveen Sinha were both appointed Supreme Court judges on (17.02.2017) over the heads of 30 high court judges senior to them as of now. At the time of their appointment on February 17, 2017, they had around 40 high court judges senior to them in various high courts.

Similarly, Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, both were elevated to Supreme Court (on 17.02.2017) in preference to 20 high court judges senior to them.

The most recent appointments of justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi who stand at numbers 4, 5, 17 and 25 respectively in the all-India combined seniority of high court judges, has once again established that seniority has been given the go by and the choice has always been made in the name of quality and a judge’s worth on the bench.

Judicial appointments seemed to be influenced by political preferences across the world, particularly in the UK, US and India. Historically in UK, ruling political parties make every effort to appoint judges who share their ideology, and who in turn, begin to staff junior and senior ranks of the judiciary with political allies.

Similarly, politics plays an important role in the appointment of judges in the United States of America. Political influence in judicial appointments in India has a long history. George H Gadbois Jr, in his book Judges of the Supreme Court of India (1950-1989), gives crucial insights about the role of Chief Justice of India and the sway of prime minister in such appointments.

Appointment of four judges within 48 hours of collegium’s recommendation does not unveil the government’s concerns towards the judiciary. It rather postulates that these four judges fit in within the schematic framework of the government. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-there-s-nothing-legal-about-it-2684682">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

The law ministry recently notified the appointments of four judges, justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi to the Supreme Court within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Collegium recommending them to the government.

The law ministry recently notified the appointments of four judges, justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi to the Supreme Court within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Collegium recommending them to the government. Though it appears to be a welcome move, the modus operandi of the government, vis-a-vis judicial appointments, looks doubtful. The Union government was under pressure early this year for resisting Justice KM Joseph’s elevation to Supreme Court on the ground that in the All India High Court judges’ seniority list, he was placed at serial number 42 and there were presently 11 chief justices of various high courts who were senior to him. A brief survey of past appointments makes it evident that seniority either an appointment to the post of chief justice of the high courts or to elevation from high courts to Supreme Court have only been given little weight. Justice JR Mudholkar, a judge of the Bombay High Court and number 7 among permanent judges of the various high courts was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 3.10.1960) in preference to all the chief justices of the high courts. Justice RS Bachawat was at No. 2 in the list of permanent judges of various high courts when he was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 7.9.1964) in preference to the then chief justices of the high courts. Justice GK Mitter, No. 8 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 29.8.1966) bypassing three judges senior to him at the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice. Likewise, Justice CA Vaidialingam was appointed to the Supreme Court (on 10.10.1966) when there were two other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice. His position in the list of permanent judges of various high courts was number 23. Justice AN Grover was elevated to the Supreme Court on 12.2.1968 when there were two other judges senior to him in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including the chief justice and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts stood at 39. Justice AN Ray, who was number 30 among permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to three other judges in the Calcutta High Court, including the chief justice, was elevated to the Supreme Court on 1.8.1969. As was Justice KK Mathew to the Supreme Court (on 4.10.1971) when there were three other judges senior to him in the Kerala High Court, including the chief justice, and his position among permanent judges of the various high courts was number 70. Likewise, there are many instances that can be narrated. Justice YV Chandrachud was at number 19 in the list of permanent judges of the various high courts and junior to two judges of his own high court, including the then chief justice, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court on 23.8.1972. This trend has continued. Justice Ranjan Gogoi was elevated to the Supreme Court (on 23.04.2012) before his Supreme Court colleagues justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, AM Khanwilkar, AM Sapre and DY Chandrachud, who were all senior to him. Justices Deepak Gupta and Naveen Sinha were both appointed Supreme Court judges on (17.02.2017) over the heads of 30 high court judges senior to them as of now. At the time of their appointment on February 17, 2017, they had around 40 high court judges senior to them in various high courts. Similarly, Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, both were elevated to Supreme Court (on 17.02.2017) in preference to 20 high court judges senior to them. The most recent appointments of justices Hemant Gupta, R Subhash Reddy, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi who stand at numbers 4, 5, 17 and 25 respectively in the all-India combined seniority of high court judges, has once again established that seniority has been given the go by and the choice has always been made in the name of quality and a judge’s worth on the bench. Judicial appointments seemed to be influenced by political preferences across the world, particularly in the UK, US and India. Historically in UK, ruling political parties make every effort to appoint judges who share their ideology, and who in turn, begin to staff junior and senior ranks of the judiciary with political allies. Similarly, politics plays an important role in the appointment of judges in the United States of America. Political influence in judicial appointments in India has a long history. George H Gadbois Jr, in his book Judges of the Supreme Court of India (1950-1989), gives crucial insights about the role of Chief Justice of India and the sway of prime minister in such appointments. Appointment of four judges within 48 hours of collegium’s recommendation does not unveil the government’s concerns towards the judiciary. It rather postulates that these four judges fit in within the schematic framework of the government. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Politics plays important role in appointment of judges

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that fresh pleas relating to the Sabarimala Temple will be heard only after it decides the earlier petitions seeking review of the judgement allowing entry of women of all age groups into the shrine in Kerala.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that a five-judge bench is scheduled to hear in the chamber the review petitions at 3 pm today.

"Writ petitions will be heard after the orders in the review petitions," the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said while hearing the three fresh petitions filed by G Vijaya Kumar, S Jaya Rajkumar and Shailaja Vijayan challenging its September 28 verdict.

If the apex court decides to review the verdict then three fresh petitions will be heard along with review petitions.

If the court rejects review petitions then fresh petitions will be heard independently on merits.

A batch of 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement would be taken up for consideration in-chamber by a bench of Chief Justice Gogoi and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

On September 28, a five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict, had paved the way for the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that fresh pleas relating to the Sabarimala Temple will be heard only after it decides the earlier petitions seeking review of the judgement allowing entry of women of all age groups into the shrine in Kerala.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that fresh pleas relating to the Sabarimala Temple will be heard only after it decides the earlier petitions seeking review of the judgement allowing entry of women of all age groups into the shrine in Kerala. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that a five-judge bench is scheduled to hear in the chamber the review petitions at 3 pm today. "Writ petitions will be heard after the orders in the review petitions," the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said while hearing the three fresh petitions filed by G Vijaya Kumar, S Jaya Rajkumar and Shailaja Vijayan challenging its September 28 verdict. If the apex court decides to review the verdict then three fresh petitions will be heard along with review petitions. If the court rejects review petitions then fresh petitions will be heard independently on merits. A batch of 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement would be taken up for consideration in-chamber by a bench of Chief Justice Gogoi and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. On September 28, a five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict, had paved the way for the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

Sabarimala case: Supreme Court to take up review petitions at 3 pm today

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the legality of the January 5, 2019 snap polls announced by President Maithripala Sirisena on Tuesday, after 13 fundamental rights petitions were filed against the dissolution of the Parliament.

The decision came after the court adjourned hearing on the 13 fundamental rights petitions filed by several political parties including the United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Tamil National Alliance (TNA), All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), civil organization Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), former MP Mano Ganesan and Attorney Aruna Laksiri on November 12. A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena and Justice Prasanna Jayawardene heard the petitions filed during November 12th's hearing.

The petitioners said that the President does not have the power to dissolve the Parliament under the 19th amendment of the constitution and have requested the Supreme Court to issue an order to nullify the gazette notification issued by Sirisena, wherein the dissolved the Sri Lankan Parliament, reports Colombo Page.

They further requested the apex court to suspend the January 5 snap polls until the passing of the verdict. A submission made on behalf of TNA leader R. Sampanthan on Monday noted that the gazette notification issued by Sirisena on November 9 was in violation of the Constitution while outlining that conditions under which a President can dissolve the Parliament.&nbsp;

According to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the first situation in which a President can order for dissolution is when a motion is passed by the Parliament with a two-thirds majority, while the other situation is when a Parliament`s term is beyond four and a half years.

These arguments made by President`s Counsel K. Kanaga Eeshawaran on behalf of the TNA leader were echoed across most submissions made.&nbsp;

Earlier on Monday, UNP`s Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa told Colombo Page, "We firmly believe that we will receive justice and the fair play from the Supreme Court rightly since it is the most honourable place. We have a constitution. We do everything according to that. But the President dissolving the Parliament is a violation of the constitution. If the constitution is continually being violated, the country would become anarchy."Furthermore, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, the General Secretary of UNP remarked, "The court will determine the constitutionality of the matter we have presented. That is why we came to the court," while reaffirming their faith in the judiciary.&nbsp;

On November 11, Sirisena had addressed the nation while mentioning the reasons behind his decision to dissolve the Sri Lankan Parliament and hold snap elections. He noted that the horse-trading of ministers to prove a majority was his first reason to dissolve the Parliament while mentioning former Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya`s behaviour as his second reason.&nbsp;

Lastly, Sirisena claimed to have dissolved the Parliament to avert a physical fight between members once the Parliament reconvened on November 14. He stated, "It appeared to me that, if I allowed the Parliament to be convened on the 14th, without dissolving it, it could have brought about commotion and fights, in every city and every village would lead to very unpleasant and difficult situation for the average citizens of my beloved country."The Asian island-nation is currently facing a political turmoil, that was set into motion when the incumbent President sacked UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister.&nbsp;

Wartime strongman and ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa was brought in place of Wickremesinghe, leading to political upheaval in the neighbouring nation. Sirisena`s party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), later admitted to not having the votes to confirm Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister, leading to latter`s exit from SLFP. Rajapaksa, his son and several prominent political figures joined the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), vowing to come out victorious under the leadership of both Sirisena and Rajapaksa in the 2019 elections. Earlier on Monday, Wickremesinghe said the UNF and other political parties will forge a new alliance to "pull the nation out of the present curse". He also urged all political parties to join this new political force, Daily Mirror reported.

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the legality of the January 5, 2019 snap polls announced by President Maithripala Sirisena on Tuesday, after 13 fundamental rights petitions were filed against the dissolution of the Parliament.

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the legality of the January 5, 2019 snap polls announced by President Maithripala Sirisena on Tuesday, after 13 fundamental rights petitions were filed against the dissolution of the Parliament. The decision came after the court adjourned hearing on the 13 fundamental rights petitions filed by several political parties including the United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Tamil National Alliance (TNA), All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), civil organization Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), former MP Mano Ganesan and Attorney Aruna Laksiri on November 12. A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena and Justice Prasanna Jayawardene heard the petitions filed during November 12th's hearing. The petitioners said that the President does not have the power to dissolve the Parliament under the 19th amendment of the constitution and have requested the Supreme Court to issue an order to nullify the gazette notification issued by Sirisena, wherein the dissolved the Sri Lankan Parliament, reports Colombo Page. They further requested the apex court to suspend the January 5 snap polls until the passing of the verdict. A submission made on behalf of TNA leader R. Sampanthan on Monday noted that the gazette notification issued by Sirisena on November 9 was in violation of the Constitution while outlining that conditions under which a President can dissolve the Parliament. According to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the first situation in which a President can order for dissolution is when a motion is passed by the Parliament with a two-thirds majority, while the other situation is when a Parliament`s term is beyond four and a half years. These arguments made by President`s Counsel K. Kanaga Eeshawaran on behalf of the TNA leader were echoed across most submissions made. Earlier on Monday, UNP`s Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa told Colombo Page, "We firmly believe that we will receive justice and the fair play from the Supreme Court rightly since it is the most honourable place. We have a constitution. We do everything according to that. But the President dissolving the Parliament is a violation of the constitution. If the constitution is continually being violated, the country would become anarchy."Furthermore, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, the General Secretary of UNP remarked, "The court will determine the constitutionality of the matter we have presented. That is why we came to the court," while reaffirming their faith in the judiciary. On November 11, Sirisena had addressed the nation while mentioning the reasons behind his decision to dissolve the Sri Lankan Parliament and hold snap elections. He noted that the horse-trading of ministers to prove a majority was his first reason to dissolve the Parliament while mentioning former Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya`s behaviour as his second reason. Lastly, Sirisena claimed to have dissolved the Parliament to avert a physical fight between members once the Parliament reconvened on November 14. He stated, "It appeared to me that, if I allowed the Parliament to be convened on the 14th, without dissolving it, it could have brought about commotion and fights, in every city and every village would lead to very unpleasant and difficult situation for the average citizens of my beloved country."The Asian island-nation is currently facing a political turmoil, that was set into motion when the incumbent President sacked UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister. Wartime strongman and ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa was brought in place of Wickremesinghe, leading to political upheaval in the neighbouring nation. Sirisena`s party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), later admitted to not having the votes to confirm Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister, leading to latter`s exit from SLFP. Rajapaksa, his son and several prominent political figures joined the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), vowing to come out victorious under the leadership of both Sirisena and Rajapaksa in the 2019 elections. Earlier on Monday, Wickremesinghe said the UNF and other political parties will forge a new alliance to "pull the nation out of the present curse". He also urged all political parties to join this new political force, Daily Mirror reported.

Sri Lanka crisis: Supreme Court to decide snap poll legality today

The Kerala government Tuesday convened an all-party meeting on November 15 to discuss various issues relating to the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, which witnessed widespread protests following the Supreme Court decision to permit entry of women of all ages into the shrine.

The decision to call the meeting comes on a day when <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-case-sc-defers-hear-review-petitions-on-january-22-refuses-to-stay-earlier-verdict-177077">the apex court refused to stay its September 28 verdict</a>, lifting the centuries-old ban on girls and women in the 10-50 age group from entering the shrine and decided to hear a batch of review petitions in open court on January 22.

The two-month-long annual 'Mandala Makkaravillakku' season will start on November 17 and the meeting will also take stock of the arrangements made for devotees.

The temple had witnessed a string of protests from devotees when it opened for monthly pujas for five days in October and two days early this month.

Over 3,700 persons have been arrested so far and 546 cases registered against various people for violence during protests across the state after the top court permitted women of all ages to pray at the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala.

Over 500 young women registered for darshan in the online queue website of Kerala police last week.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Kerala government Tuesday convened an all-party meeting on November 15 to discuss various issues relating to the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, which witnessed widespread protests following the Supreme Court decision to permit entry of women of all ages into the shrine.

The Kerala government Tuesday convened an all-party meeting on November 15 to discuss various issues relating to the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, which witnessed widespread protests following the Supreme Court decision to permit entry of women of all ages into the shrine. The decision to call the meeting comes on a day when the apex court refused to stay its September 28 verdict, lifting the centuries-old ban on girls and women in the 10-50 age group from entering the shrine and decided to hear a batch of review petitions in open court on January 22. The two-month-long annual 'Mandala Makkaravillakku' season will start on November 17 and the meeting will also take stock of the arrangements made for devotees. The temple had witnessed a string of protests from devotees when it opened for monthly pujas for five days in October and two days early this month. Over 3,700 persons have been arrested so far and 546 cases registered against various people for violence during protests across the state after the top court permitted women of all ages to pray at the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala. Over 500 young women registered for darshan in the online queue website of Kerala police last week.

All-party meeting in Kerala on Sabarimala issue on Nov 15

The sensitive pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets, submitted by the Centre in a sealed cover, is scheduled to be examined by the Supreme Court Wednesday.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph will hold a crucial hearing in the case during which the petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the deal, will also make submissions.

The Centre had on Monday handed over a 14-page document titled "Details of the steps in the decision-making process leading to the award of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft order" to the petitioners in the case.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

The government had also filed in the court in a sealed cover the pricing details of the Rafale jets.&nbsp;

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 was negotiated on "better terms" and the Defence Procurement Procedure laid out in 2013 were "completely followed".

The Centre has also said the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France.

The details of the decision-making process and pricing were placed in the court in compliance with its October 31 order.&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 the 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.

The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition.

Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court

The sensitive pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets, submitted by the Centre in a sealed cover, is scheduled to be examined by the Supreme Court Wednesday.

The sensitive pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets, submitted by the Centre in a sealed cover, is scheduled to be examined by the Supreme Court Wednesday. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph will hold a crucial hearing in the case during which the petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the deal, will also make submissions. The Centre had on Monday handed over a 14-page document titled "Details of the steps in the decision-making process leading to the award of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft order" to the petitioners in the case. The government had also filed in the court in a sealed cover the pricing details of the Rafale jets. 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 was negotiated on "better terms" and the Defence Procurement Procedure laid out in 2013 were "completely followed". The Centre has also said the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The details of the decision-making process and pricing were placed in the court in compliance with its October 31 order. India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition. Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court

Rafale deal: Crucial hearing in Supreme Court on Wednesday 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that it would hear the review petitions against its Sabarimala verdict on January 22, adding that it will be an open&nbsp;court hearing. The apex court refused to stay its earlier verdict in the case.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-case-supreme-court-to-take-up-review-petitions-at-3-pm-today-177005">top court on Tuesday made it clear</a> that fresh pleas, relating to the Sabarimala Temple, will be heard only after it decides the earlier petitions seeking review of the judgement allowing entry of women of all age groups into the shrine in Kerala.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SabarimalaTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SabarimalaTemple</a> Case: Supreme Court orders open court hearing in all the 49 review petitions.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1062288751278387201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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>

"Writ petitions will be heard after the orders in the review petitions," the bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said while hearing the three fresh petitions filed by G Vijaya Kumar, S Jaya Rajkumar and Shailaja Vijayan challenging its September 28 verdict.

On September 28, the Supreme Court of India pronounced its verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court has admitted the review petitions and said all the review petitions to be heard on January 22 in the open court: Advocate Mathew Nedumpara. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SabarimalaTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SabarimalaTemple</a> case <a href="https://t.co/HFuwB5dqNz">pic.twitter.com/HFuwB5dqNz</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1062298999808552960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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>

A five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, said the ban amounted to gender discrimination.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that it would hear the review petitions against its Sabarimala verdict on January 22, adding that it will be an open court hearing.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that it would hear the review petitions against its Sabarimala verdict on January 22, adding that it will be an open court hearing. The apex court refused to stay its earlier verdict in the case. The top court on Tuesday made it clear that fresh pleas, relating to the Sabarimala Temple, will be heard only after it decides the earlier petitions seeking review of the judgement allowing entry of women of all age groups into the shrine in Kerala. #SabarimalaTemple Case: Supreme Court orders open court hearing in all the 49 review petitions. — ANI (@ANI) November 13, 2018 × "Writ petitions will be heard after the orders in the review petitions," the bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said while hearing the three fresh petitions filed by G Vijaya Kumar, S Jaya Rajkumar and Shailaja Vijayan challenging its September 28 verdict. On September 28, the Supreme Court of India pronounced its verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple. Supreme Court has admitted the review petitions and said all the review petitions to be heard on January 22 in the open court: Advocate Mathew Nedumpara. #SabarimalaTemple case pic.twitter.com/HFuwB5dqNz — ANI (@ANI) November 13, 2018 × A five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, said the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

Sabarimala: SC to hear review petitions on January 22, refuses to stay earlier verdict

Here are the main players in the volatile political scene of back-stabbing and shifting sands in the strategically important Indian Ocean island of 21 million people.

Maithripala Sirisena

Mild-mannered but steely-nerved President Maithripala Sirisena, 67, was a relative unknown until his shock defeat of Mahinda Rajapakse in presidential elections in 2015.

Sirisena had walked out of Rajapakse's government a day after the two men had dinner together, and accused his former ally of plotting to assassinate him if he lost the election.

"If I had not won the presidency, I would be six feet under by now," he told a public rally after his win.

Usually dressed in spotless white, Sirisena vowed to do all in his power to stop the highly divisive Rajapakse becoming prime minister and appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe instead.&nbsp;

Two weeks ago -- almost four years after he first turned his back on Rajapakse -- Sirisena dismissed Wickremesinghe and appointed Rajapakse in his place. Late Friday he called elections and dissolved parliament.

Mahinda Rajapakse

Having loaned his government billions, China swiftly congratulated Rajapakse, 72, on his new appointment but India and the West were less pleased -- to say little of the Tamil minority.

As president from 2005 until 2015, Rajapakse ended&nbsp;Sri&nbsp;Lanka's four-decade civil war in 2009 by crushing the Tamil Tigers. But 40,000 ethnic Tamils were allegedly massacred in the process.

Sri&nbsp;Lanka's media, remembering the 17 journalists and media workers killed under Rajapakse, are also fearful about his comeback. He and his family are also accused of corruption.&nbsp;

But with his trademark macho moustache, traditional national dress and outsize personality, Rajapakse remains a hero for many Sinhalese, deftly portraying himself as a man of the people.

"A general election will truly establish the will of the people and make way for a stable country," he tweeted in the early hours of Saturday.

Ranil&nbsp;Wickremesinghe

But Wickremesinghe, 69, calls his sacking, the snap elections and the suspension of parliament illegal, and is refusing to vacate the prime minister's official residence, where he has been holed up since October 26.

Silver-haired and often in Western-style suits, Wickremesinghe has been prime minister four times, the first time after the Tamil Tigers assassinated the then-president in 1993.

During his 2001-4 time in office, Wickremesinghe is credited with pulling&nbsp;Sri&nbsp;Lanka&nbsp;out of its first ever recession, in part with reforms that have endeared him to the West.

"You have not let this country be plunged into the darkness of dictatorship," Wickremesinghe said in a video message on Thursday thanking his supporters.

Supreme Court&nbsp;

Sri&nbsp;Lanka's Supreme Court on Tuesday overruled&nbsp;Sirisena's dissolution of parliament and ordered a halt to preparations for snap elections next year.

Wickremesinghe's party led the petitions against the dissolution and the three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice Nalin Perera, read out the decision to a packed court guarded by hundreds of heavily armed police and commandos.

The court suspended a proclamation issued by Sirisena on Friday sacking the legislature and calling for elections on January 5.

The ruling means parliament could go ahead with a vote to test if Sirisena's controversial nominee is able to summon a majority in the 225-member assembly and force Wickremesinghe from office.

The court also ordered the independent Elections Commission to halt preparations for the January 5 vote.

Here are the main players in the volatile political scene of back-stabbing and shifting sands in the strategically important Indian Ocean island of 21 million people.

Here are the main players in the volatile political scene of back-stabbing and shifting sands in the strategically important Indian Ocean island of 21 million people. Maithripala Sirisena Mild-mannered but steely-nerved President Maithripala Sirisena, 67, was a relative unknown until his shock defeat of Mahinda Rajapakse in presidential elections in 2015. Sirisena had walked out of Rajapakse's government a day after the two men had dinner together, and accused his former ally of plotting to assassinate him if he lost the election. "If I had not won the presidency, I would be six feet under by now," he told a public rally after his win. Usually dressed in spotless white, Sirisena vowed to do all in his power to stop the highly divisive Rajapakse becoming prime minister and appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe instead. Two weeks ago -- almost four years after he first turned his back on Rajapakse -- Sirisena dismissed Wickremesinghe and appointed Rajapakse in his place. Late Friday he called elections and dissolved parliament. Mahinda Rajapakse Having loaned his government billions, China swiftly congratulated Rajapakse, 72, on his new appointment but India and the West were less pleased -- to say little of the Tamil minority. As president from 2005 until 2015, Rajapakse ended Sri Lanka's four-decade civil war in 2009 by crushing the Tamil Tigers. But 40,000 ethnic Tamils were allegedly massacred in the process. Sri Lanka's media, remembering the 17 journalists and media workers killed under Rajapakse, are also fearful about his comeback. He and his family are also accused of corruption. But with his trademark macho moustache, traditional national dress and outsize personality, Rajapakse remains a hero for many Sinhalese, deftly portraying himself as a man of the people. "A general election will truly establish the will of the people and make way for a stable country," he tweeted in the early hours of Saturday. Ranil Wickremesinghe But Wickremesinghe, 69, calls his sacking, the snap elections and the suspension of parliament illegal, and is refusing to vacate the prime minister's official residence, where he has been holed up since October 26. Silver-haired and often in Western-style suits, Wickremesinghe has been prime minister four times, the first time after the Tamil Tigers assassinated the then-president in 1993. During his 2001-4 time in office, Wickremesinghe is credited with pulling Sri Lanka out of its first ever recession, in part with reforms that have endeared him to the West. "You have not let this country be plunged into the darkness of dictatorship," Wickremesinghe said in a video message on Thursday thanking his supporters. Supreme Court Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Tuesday overruled Sirisena's dissolution of parliament and ordered a halt to preparations for snap elections next year. Wickremesinghe's party led the petitions against the dissolution and the three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice Nalin Perera, read out the decision to a packed court guarded by hundreds of heavily armed police and commandos. The court suspended a proclamation issued by Sirisena on Friday sacking the legislature and calling for elections on January 5. The ruling means parliament could go ahead with a vote to test if Sirisena's controversial nominee is able to summon a majority in the 225-member assembly and force Wickremesinghe from office. The court also ordered the independent Elections Commission to halt preparations for the January 5 vote.

The key players in Sri Lanka's crisis

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned President Maithripala Sirisena's decision to dissolve the island nation's parliament. The court has stayed President's decision till December 19 and also ordered a halt to preparations for snap elections next year.

Sirisena dissolved Parliament on November 9 and announced snap polls to be held on January 5 next year after it became clear that he did not have enough support in the House to prove the premiership of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, whom he appointed prime minister after abruptly sacking <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/wickremesinghe-vows-new-alliance-to-face-impending-elections-176935">Ranil Wickremesinghe</a> on October 26.

The three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice Nalin Perera read out the landmark decision to a packed court that was guarded by hundreds of heavily armed police and commandos.

Rajapaksa needed the support of at least 113 parliamentarians in the 225-member House to prove his majority.

Major political parties and an election commission member on Monday dragged Sirisena to the Supreme Court, challenging his move of dissolving Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end.

On Monday, dozens of people booed a legislator loyal to Sirisena as he arrived at the court complex, prompting police to declare the site out of bounds on Tuesday.

Wickremesinghe said his United National Party is currently discussing about building a broader people's organization in what he said to save the country from the current political crisis.

The statement comes amid calls by pro-democracy forces for greater efforts to restore democracy and fears that the country may be sliding back to the pre-2015 situation.&nbsp;

The petitioners had called the president's decision as unconstitutional.

The attorney general of Sri Lanka had backed president Sirisena saying that he invoked his plenary executive power to dissolve the parliament.

The attorney general had also added that the top court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine filed petitions.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan freedom party led by president Maithripala Sirisena called a special meeting at the presidential secretariat.

The move comes after Sri Lanka's new prime minister Rajapaksa and 44 former lawmakers have defected from the party led by president Mithripala Sirisena.

The split with the president's party comes barely two weeks after he installed Rajapaksa in office.

An intense power struggle has erupted in Sri Lanka in the past two weeks following president Sirisena’s sudden sacking of prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the appointment of former leader Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned President Maithripala Sirisena's decision to dissolve the island nation's parliament. The court has stayed President's decision till December 19 and also ordered a halt to preparations for snap elections next year.

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned President Maithripala Sirisena's decision to dissolve the island nation's parliament. The court has stayed President's decision till December 19 and also ordered a halt to preparations for snap elections next year. Sirisena dissolved Parliament on November 9 and announced snap polls to be held on January 5 next year after it became clear that he did not have enough support in the House to prove the premiership of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, whom he appointed prime minister after abruptly sacking Ranil Wickremesinghe on October 26. The three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice Nalin Perera read out the landmark decision to a packed court that was guarded by hundreds of heavily armed police and commandos. Rajapaksa needed the support of at least 113 parliamentarians in the 225-member House to prove his majority. Major political parties and an election commission member on Monday dragged Sirisena to the Supreme Court, challenging his move of dissolving Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end. On Monday, dozens of people booed a legislator loyal to Sirisena as he arrived at the court complex, prompting police to declare the site out of bounds on Tuesday. Wickremesinghe said his United National Party is currently discussing about building a broader people's organization in what he said to save the country from the current political crisis. The statement comes amid calls by pro-democracy forces for greater efforts to restore democracy and fears that the country may be sliding back to the pre-2015 situation. The petitioners had called the president's decision as unconstitutional. The attorney general of Sri Lanka had backed president Sirisena saying that he invoked his plenary executive power to dissolve the parliament. The attorney general had also added that the top court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine filed petitions. Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan freedom party led by president Maithripala Sirisena called a special meeting at the presidential secretariat. The move comes after Sri Lanka's new prime minister Rajapaksa and 44 former lawmakers have defected from the party led by president Mithripala Sirisena. The split with the president's party comes barely two weeks after he installed Rajapaksa in office. An intense power struggle has erupted in Sri Lanka in the past two weeks following president Sirisena’s sudden sacking of prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the appointment of former leader Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Sri Lanka Supreme Court overturns President Sirisena's decision to dissolve parliament

The Supreme Court Tuesday fixed December 4 for final arguments in the petitions filed by Congress chief Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi challenging the Delhi High Court's order related to a case of re-opening of their 2011-12 tax assessments.

The high court had refused to give them relief in the case, giving the opportunity to the Income Tax (I-T) Department to scrutinise their records.

The Supreme Court did not issue any notice on their petitions as the I-T department was represented by its counsel.

The department had filed a caveat in the apex court that it should be heard if any appeal is filed against the high court order.

A caveat is a legal procedure by which an application is filed by any party to the litigation to pre-empt an ex-parte order.

After a brief hearing, a bench comprising justices A K Sikri and S A Abdul Nazeer said, "Since the respondent (I-T department) has put in an appearance, we are not issuing a formal notice. However, we are fixing the matter for final arguments on December 4."&nbsp;

The appeals were filed by Rahul, Sonia and veteran Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. They have challenged the September 10 verdict of the high court.

The income tax matter against the Congress leaders is linked to the National Herald case in which they are also facing a criminal case.

Senior advocates P Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar appeared for the Congress leaders.&nbsp;

When Chidambaram tried to make a submission by narrating the backgrounds leading to the income tax case, the bench said, "We are not concerned with the background but the question here is about the notice (issued by the I-T department) of the reassessment of income tax. The issue is whether the notice is valid or not".&nbsp;

At the outset, the bench was of the view that the Gandhis can raise the issue before the assessing officer.&nbsp;

However, Chidambaram said the question is about the income tax notice to them and it has to be determined whether it is correct or not.&nbsp;

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the I-T department, said the premise raised by the Gandhis and Fernandes is wrong.&nbsp;But, the bench said the issues raised in the petitions requires consideration. During the hearing, the bench also said there are two options.&nbsp;

"We will issue notice but we will say that assessing officer will proceed with the assessment. However, the final decision will not be given effect to and be placed before this court.&nbsp;

"The second option is we will hear the matter after two weeks and you all can assist us. The high court judgment is lengthy", the bench said.&nbsp;

On September 10, the Gandhis had failed to get any relief from the Delhi High Court which dismissed their challenge on reopening of their tax assessments for 2011-12.

Denial of any relief by the high court had paved the way for the I-T department to scrutinise the Congress leaders records for the assessment year.

"...The assessees' rights to urge them are reserved in the income tax proceedings," the high court had said, while "dismissing" the three separate petitions filed by Gandhis and Fernandes, which were decided through a common order.

The income tax probe against the Congress leaders has arisen from the investigation into the private criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a trial court 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), a not-for-profit organisation, had obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore that the 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 shareholdings of the AJL, which was running the National Herald newspaper.

In this process, YI had also acquired AJL's debt of Rs 90 crore.

The tax 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 department's move followed its probe on a complaint alleging that the Gandhis had misappropriated AJL's assets while transferring their shares to the newly formed YI.

The high court had noted in its order that the premise of the reassessment notices was that the non-disclosure of the taxing event-- allotment of shares of YI-- deprived the assessing officer of the opportunity to look into the records.

It had said that in Rahul's case, the non-disclosure of share acquisition constituted tangible material justifying reassessment.

In case of Sonia and Oscar, the bench said returns filed by them were processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to 'Notice or intimation', and are not treated as "assessments".

The Supreme Court Tuesday fixed December 4 for final arguments in the petitions filed by Congress chief Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi challenging the Delhi High Court's order related to a case of re-opening of their 2011-12 tax assessments.

The Supreme Court Tuesday fixed December 4 for final arguments in the petitions filed by Congress chief Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi challenging the Delhi High Court's order related to a case of re-opening of their 2011-12 tax assessments. The high court had refused to give them relief in the case, giving the opportunity to the Income Tax (I-T) Department to scrutinise their records. The Supreme Court did not issue any notice on their petitions as the I-T department was represented by its counsel. The department had filed a caveat in the apex court that it should be heard if any appeal is filed against the high court order. A caveat is a legal procedure by which an application is filed by any party to the litigation to pre-empt an ex-parte order. After a brief hearing, a bench comprising justices A K Sikri and S A Abdul Nazeer said, "Since the respondent (I-T department) has put in an appearance, we are not issuing a formal notice. However, we are fixing the matter for final arguments on December 4." The appeals were filed by Rahul, Sonia and veteran Congress leader Oscar Fernandes. They have challenged the September 10 verdict of the high court. The income tax matter against the Congress leaders is linked to the National Herald case in which they are also facing a criminal case. Senior advocates P Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar appeared for the Congress leaders. When Chidambaram tried to make a submission by narrating the backgrounds leading to the income tax case, the bench said, "We are not concerned with the background but the question here is about the notice (issued by the I-T department) of the reassessment of income tax. The issue is whether the notice is valid or not". At the outset, the bench was of the view that the Gandhis can raise the issue before the assessing officer. However, Chidambaram said the question is about the income tax notice to them and it has to be determined whether it is correct or not. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the I-T department, said the premise raised by the Gandhis and Fernandes is wrong. But, the bench said the issues raised in the petitions requires consideration. During the hearing, the bench also said there are two options. "We will issue notice but we will say that assessing officer will proceed with the assessment. However, the final decision will not be given effect to and be placed before this court. "The second option is we will hear the matter after two weeks and you all can assist us. The high court judgment is lengthy", the bench said. On September 10, the Gandhis had failed to get any relief from the Delhi High Court which dismissed their challenge on reopening of their tax assessments for 2011-12. Denial of any relief by the high court had paved the way for the I-T department to scrutinise the Congress leaders records for the assessment year. "...The assessees' rights to urge them are reserved in the income tax proceedings," the high court had said, while "dismissing" the three separate petitions filed by Gandhis and Fernandes, which were decided through a common order. The income tax probe against the Congress leaders has arisen from the investigation into the private criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a trial court 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), a not-for-profit organisation, had obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore that the 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 shareholdings of the AJL, which was running the National Herald newspaper. In this process, YI had also acquired AJL's debt of Rs 90 crore. The tax 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 department's move followed its probe on a complaint alleging that the Gandhis had misappropriated AJL's assets while transferring their shares to the newly formed YI. The high court had noted in its order that the premise of the reassessment notices was that the non-disclosure of the taxing event-- allotment of shares of YI-- deprived the assessing officer of the opportunity to look into the records. It had said that in Rahul's case, the non-disclosure of share acquisition constituted tangible material justifying reassessment. In case of Sonia and Oscar, the bench said returns filed by them were processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to 'Notice or intimation', and are not treated as "assessments".

SC to hear final arguments in IT case against Rahul, Sonia on December 4

The Supreme Court will on Monday, November 19 hear Zakia Jafri's plea challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, other top politicians, and bureaucrats&nbsp;in the Gulberg massacre case.&nbsp;

Sixty-nine Muslims, including Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, had been killed in the Gulberg massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Jafri had been dragged out of his Gulberg Society home and hacked to death. Jafri's frantic calls to politicians and senior policemen had gone unanswered.&nbsp;

Zakia Jafri, 80, is his widow. Her plea to the Supreme Court alleges a "larger conspiracy".&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court to hear on 19th November a plea by filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi, other top politicians and bureaucrats in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1062252648152395778?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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 Gujarat High Cout had last year rejected Jafri's plea telling her to approach higher forums for further investigation into the massacre.&nbsp;

The clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi — he was then chief minister of Gujarat — had been given by a Supreme Court-monitored <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/2002-gujarat-riots-ex-army-officer-dubs-sit-report-as-blatant-lie-171374">SIT or special investigation team</a>.&nbsp;

The SIT report concluded that Gujarat chief minister Modi did everything he could to stop the riots.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will on Monday, November 19 hear Zakia Jafri's plea challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, other top politicians, and bureaucrats in the Gulberg massacre case.

The Supreme Court will on Monday, November 19 hear Zakia Jafri's plea challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, other top politicians, and bureaucrats in the Gulberg massacre case. Sixty-nine Muslims, including Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, had been killed in the Gulberg massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Jafri had been dragged out of his Gulberg Society home and hacked to death. Jafri's frantic calls to politicians and senior policemen had gone unanswered. Zakia Jafri, 80, is his widow. Her plea to the Supreme Court alleges a "larger conspiracy". Supreme Court to hear on 19th November a plea by filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi, other top politicians and bureaucrats in the 2002 Gujarat riots. — ANI (@ANI) November 13, 2018 × The Gujarat High Cout had last year rejected Jafri's plea telling her to approach higher forums for further investigation into the massacre. The clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi — he was then chief minister of Gujarat — had been given by a Supreme Court-monitored SIT or special investigation team. The SIT report concluded that Gujarat chief minister Modi did everything he could to stop the riots.

Gulberg massacre: On Monday, SC to hear plea challenging clean chit given to PM Modi

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Monday filed its preliminary probe report relating to CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul took the report on record and fixed the matter for next hearing on November 16.

During the hearing, interim CBI Director M Nageswar Rao also filed a report on decisions taken by him since October 23 to 26, when the apex court had ordered for the CBI probe.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CVC, told the court that former apex court judge A K Patnaik supervised the CVC inquiry which was completed on November 10.

The CJI observed that the Registry was open on Sunday also but no intimation was given to the Registrar regarding the filing of the report.

Later the SG tendered an apology and said though he was not explaining the circumstances there was a delay on their part in submitting the report.

On October 26, the top court had appointed Justice Patnaik to supervise the ongoing inquiry of CVC against Verma.

The apex court had also issued notices to the Centre and the CVC seeking their replies on Verma's petition challenging the government's decision to divest him of his powers as CBI chief and sending him on leave.

Verma's deputy Rakesh Asthana, Special Director CBI, was also sent on leave by the Centre.

The court on October 26 had also set a deadline of two weeks for the CVC to complete the preliminary inquiry against the CBI director.

It had also barred Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision.

It had said that a list of all the decisions taken by Rao since October 23 including decisions with regard to transfer of investigations, change of investigating officer(s) etc will be furnished to the court in a sealed cover on or before November 12, 2018 whereafter orders, as would be appropriate, will be passed by the court."

Mehta had said that the CVC has been conducting an inquiry into the allegations made in the August 24 note/letter of the Cabinet Secretary with regard to Verma.

Besides the plea filed by Verma, the court is also seized of the PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, which has sought a probe by special investigation team against CBI officers including Asthana, and had issued notices to the Centre, CBI, CVC, Asthana, Verma and Rao asking them to respond to it by November 12.

Asthana has also moved the Supreme Court with a separate petition in the matter and has sought removal of Verma from the post of CBI Director. 
Later, on November 4, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge had moved the top court contending that divesting Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary".

In an interlocutory application filed in the pending petition, Kharge, who is also a member of the three-member selection committee which appoints the CBI director, said, "As a concerned stakeholder he brings to the attention of the court the brazen and illegal actions" of the political executive in interfering with the independent functioning of the CBI director.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Monday filed its preliminary probe report relating to CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Monday filed its preliminary probe report relating to CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul took the report on record and fixed the matter for next hearing on November 16. During the hearing, interim CBI Director M Nageswar Rao also filed a report on decisions taken by him since October 23 to 26, when the apex court had ordered for the CBI probe. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CVC, told the court that former apex court judge A K Patnaik supervised the CVC inquiry which was completed on November 10. The CJI observed that the Registry was open on Sunday also but no intimation was given to the Registrar regarding the filing of the report. Later the SG tendered an apology and said though he was not explaining the circumstances there was a delay on their part in submitting the report. On October 26, the top court had appointed Justice Patnaik to supervise the ongoing inquiry of CVC against Verma. The apex court had also issued notices to the Centre and the CVC seeking their replies on Verma's petition challenging the government's decision to divest him of his powers as CBI chief and sending him on leave. Verma's deputy Rakesh Asthana, Special Director CBI, was also sent on leave by the Centre. The court on October 26 had also set a deadline of two weeks for the CVC to complete the preliminary inquiry against the CBI director. It had also barred Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision. It had said that a list of all the decisions taken by Rao since October 23 including decisions with regard to transfer of investigations, change of investigating officer(s) etc will be furnished to the court in a sealed cover on or before November 12, 2018 whereafter orders, as would be appropriate, will be passed by the court." Mehta had said that the CVC has been conducting an inquiry into the allegations made in the August 24 note/letter of the Cabinet Secretary with regard to Verma. Besides the plea filed by Verma, the court is also seized of the PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, which has sought a probe by special investigation team against CBI officers including Asthana, and had issued notices to the Centre, CBI, CVC, Asthana, Verma and Rao asking them to respond to it by November 12. Asthana has also moved the Supreme Court with a separate petition in the matter and has sought removal of Verma from the post of CBI Director. Later, on November 4, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge had moved the top court contending that divesting Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary". In an interlocutory application filed in the pending petition, Kharge, who is also a member of the three-member selection committee which appoints the CBI director, said, "As a concerned stakeholder he brings to the attention of the court the brazen and illegal actions" of the political executive in interfering with the independent functioning of the CBI director.

CBI feud: CVC submits probe report in Supreme Court, hearing on November 16

Pollution in New Delhi rose to a "severe" level on Thursday after revellers let off fireworks long into the night to mark the Hindu festival of Diwali.

Two central government pollution indices showed air at "very poor" and "severe" levels, indicating that prolonged exposure could lead to respiratory illnesses.

The indices mostly measure the concentration of tiny poisonous particulate matter, or PM 2.5, particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter, which can be carried deep into the lungs.

The US&nbsp;embassy said PM 2.5 levels in its part of central Delhi had soared to 689, indicating emergency conditions, posing a serious health risk.

A level of 50 or less is considered safe.

A task-force under the pollution control board was scheduled to meet at 11 am&nbsp;(0530 GMT) to assess the situation, a city government spokesman told Reuters.

Few Delhi residents wear face masks when they go out in heavy smog and joggers and passersby were out as normal near parliament early on Thursday.

Last month, the Supreme Court allowed the use of "green" firecrackers for Diwali, but only for two hours in the evening.

However, there were no "green" fireworks available for sale and countless fireworks were let off through the evening.

Authorities have been reluctant to ban fireworks to avoid offending members of the majority Hindu community. Diwali is one of their biggest festivals.

"The Supreme Court order on fireworks was not followed and health warnings from the government were limited to few newspapers and some websites," said Greenpeace campaigner Sunil Dahiya.

The apparent lack of concern about the toxic air - whether through ignorance or apathy - gives politicians the cover they need for failing to address the problem, say environmental activists and others.

Tiny particulate matter can cause major health problems.

In recent weeks, Delhi doctors have reported an increase in patients with respiratory problems.

Adding to the smog has been smoke from the surrounding countryside, where farmers at this time of the year burn the stubble in their fields to prepare for winter sowing.

More gentle winds and cool air, which can trap pollution, exacerbate the problem.

For a second year, Delhi's chief minister has likened the city to a "gas chamber". Last year, he declared a public health crisis, shut schools for a week and told residents to remain indoors.

Pollution in New Delhi rose to a "severe" level on Thursday after revellers let off fireworks long into the night to mark the Hindu festival of Diwali. Two central government pollution indices showed air at "very poor" and "severe" levels, indicating that prolonged exposure could lead to respiratory illnesses.

Pollution in New Delhi rose to a "severe" level on Thursday after revellers let off fireworks long into the night to mark the Hindu festival of Diwali. Two central government pollution indices showed air at "very poor" and "severe" levels, indicating that prolonged exposure could lead to respiratory illnesses. The indices mostly measure the concentration of tiny poisonous particulate matter, or PM 2.5, particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter, which can be carried deep into the lungs. The US embassy said PM 2.5 levels in its part of central Delhi had soared to 689, indicating emergency conditions, posing a serious health risk. A level of 50 or less is considered safe. A task-force under the pollution control board was scheduled to meet at 11 am (0530 GMT) to assess the situation, a city government spokesman told Reuters. Few Delhi residents wear face masks when they go out in heavy smog and joggers and passersby were out as normal near parliament early on Thursday. Last month, the Supreme Court allowed the use of "green" firecrackers for Diwali, but only for two hours in the evening. However, there were no "green" fireworks available for sale and countless fireworks were let off through the evening. Authorities have been reluctant to ban fireworks to avoid offending members of the majority Hindu community. Diwali is one of their biggest festivals. "The Supreme Court order on fireworks was not followed and health warnings from the government were limited to few newspapers and some websites," said Greenpeace campaigner Sunil Dahiya. The apparent lack of concern about the toxic air - whether through ignorance or apathy - gives politicians the cover they need for failing to address the problem, say environmental activists and others. Tiny particulate matter can cause major health problems. In recent weeks, Delhi doctors have reported an increase in patients with respiratory problems. Adding to the smog has been smoke from the surrounding countryside, where farmers at this time of the year burn the stubble in their fields to prepare for winter sowing. More gentle winds and cool air, which can trap pollution, exacerbate the problem. For a second year, Delhi's chief minister has likened the city to a "gas chamber". Last year, he declared a public health crisis, shut schools for a week and told residents to remain indoors.

Smog in Delhi severe after unfettered Diwali fireworks

In the mid 19th Century, when the persona of Santa Claus began to gain popularity in the United States, gifts became part of the imagery. Slowly, this trend grew, until in 1924, the department store Macy’s included a Santa in their Thanksgiving Parade and soon after Selfridges started decorating its shop front window for Christmas, urging customers to buy stuff around Christmas time.

Until then, Christmas had been a family function, not the crazy commercial shopping extravaganza that it has now grown into in the West. Over the past 100-odd years, gift giving has become a competitive, exhausting activity, so much so that the American mom fretting over lists of who gets what gift in the holiday season has become a cliché in popular entertainment.

Commercialisation of Christmas and the whole forced cheer of a Santa lookalike in every high street store is known to psychologically affect all the lonely people who do not feel so ho-ho-ho.

It led to the creation of the oxymoronic phrase “holiday season blues” to indicate how those who are single or are not able to be with their families, end up feeling lonely and depressed, watching the hyper celebrations of others.

The culture of conspicuous consumption is also leaving out all the poorer people of rich countries who cannot afford to go on a buying spree.

So the effects of this practice have implications for many sections of society.

But the governments of these countries are not interfering and ordering a trial ban on gift purchases or limiting gift buying to one weekend only during the holiday season. I am obviously drawing a parallel to our own courts intervening in how festivals should be celebrated.

In India, we have been told that not lighting crackers on Diwali is no big deal because crackers were not always there and got added on Diwali about a hundred years ago for commercial reasons by some Sivakasi businessmen.

Well, there are Mughal miniature paintings showing lighting of sparklers on Diwali and historical records that go back much further. If you check in any family, at least three generations will attest to having burst crackers on Diwali as children. That’s enough of a tradition, even if you don’t want to delve into history. In one fell swoop, being dismissive of a tradition that has endured all through living memory of most people, is disrespectful, to put it mildly.

So I get it that crackers are harmful to the environment. But I have to roll my eyes at this because everyday, on the road I see at least one auto, two-wheeler, tempos or truck spewing black exhaust with impunity right on the face of the car behind and whizz past.

We have to slow down and let the offender pass in order to avoid the toxic cloud. In the construction frenzy that prevails in NCR throughout the year, dust clouds are always rising around the whizzing cement churner and JCB when one passes any under-construction building of which there are hundreds around Delhi.

These are perineal sources of air pollution while crackers happen for a few hours annually. Are crackers the main culprit or are the people who find a few hours of pleasure in them, ie, typically children celebrating Diwali, just easy prey to impose rules on?

An activist for air quality has been quoted saying crackers were “low hanging fruit”. That’s another word for soft targets. The high hanging fruit —those in the construction business or truck owners or stubble-burning farmers who are potential vote banks — are too prickly to be touched.

How about cigarette smoke? Tobacco smoke particles and outdoor PM2.5 pollution share some similar chemical compounds and have a similar role in cancer causation.

A controlled experiment in Italy found that fine particulate matter emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust. But who can dare to say that cigarettes can only be smoked for a few hours, as specified by the court, to help reduce air pollution?

Yes, crackers add to air pollution. But there are bigger fish in the sea who are the main wrongdoers! No one is meddling with them because there are powerful lobbies, money and vote banks involved. Crackers are a lesser evil, but they are being targeted because their users are children and families who will meekly comply.

It is this bias that jars. It is a bit like the income tax department threatening small entrepreneurs and white collared workers while beer barons and diamond czars have flown the coop.

The nanny State interfering in all aspects of life is anyway pointless. Everywhere one hears people asking “But how are they going to ensure no one lights a cracker after 10 pm? Is the police coming to each verandah to check?” 
 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-cracker-regulations-aimed-at-soft-targets-not-powerful-lobbies-2682707">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

In the mid 19th Century, when the persona of Santa Claus began to gain popularity in the United States, gifts became part of the imagery. Slowly, this trend grew, until in 1924, the department store Macy’s included a Santa in their Thanksgiving Parade and soon after Selfridges started decorating its shop front window for Christmas, urging customers to buy stuff around Christmas time.

In the mid 19th Century, when the persona of Santa Claus began to gain popularity in the United States, gifts became part of the imagery. Slowly, this trend grew, until in 1924, the department store Macy’s included a Santa in their Thanksgiving Parade and soon after Selfridges started decorating its shop front window for Christmas, urging customers to buy stuff around Christmas time. Until then, Christmas had been a family function, not the crazy commercial shopping extravaganza that it has now grown into in the West. Over the past 100-odd years, gift giving has become a competitive, exhausting activity, so much so that the American mom fretting over lists of who gets what gift in the holiday season has become a cliché in popular entertainment. Commercialisation of Christmas and the whole forced cheer of a Santa lookalike in every high street store is known to psychologically affect all the lonely people who do not feel so ho-ho-ho. It led to the creation of the oxymoronic phrase “holiday season blues” to indicate how those who are single or are not able to be with their families, end up feeling lonely and depressed, watching the hyper celebrations of others. The culture of conspicuous consumption is also leaving out all the poorer people of rich countries who cannot afford to go on a buying spree. So the effects of this practice have implications for many sections of society. But the governments of these countries are not interfering and ordering a trial ban on gift purchases or limiting gift buying to one weekend only during the holiday season. I am obviously drawing a parallel to our own courts intervening in how festivals should be celebrated. In India, we have been told that not lighting crackers on Diwali is no big deal because crackers were not always there and got added on Diwali about a hundred years ago for commercial reasons by some Sivakasi businessmen. Well, there are Mughal miniature paintings showing lighting of sparklers on Diwali and historical records that go back much further. If you check in any family, at least three generations will attest to having burst crackers on Diwali as children. That’s enough of a tradition, even if you don’t want to delve into history. In one fell swoop, being dismissive of a tradition that has endured all through living memory of most people, is disrespectful, to put it mildly. So I get it that crackers are harmful to the environment. But I have to roll my eyes at this because everyday, on the road I see at least one auto, two-wheeler, tempos or truck spewing black exhaust with impunity right on the face of the car behind and whizz past. We have to slow down and let the offender pass in order to avoid the toxic cloud. In the construction frenzy that prevails in NCR throughout the year, dust clouds are always rising around the whizzing cement churner and JCB when one passes any under-construction building of which there are hundreds around Delhi. These are perineal sources of air pollution while crackers happen for a few hours annually. Are crackers the main culprit or are the people who find a few hours of pleasure in them, ie, typically children celebrating Diwali, just easy prey to impose rules on? An activist for air quality has been quoted saying crackers were “low hanging fruit”. That’s another word for soft targets. The high hanging fruit —those in the construction business or truck owners or stubble-burning farmers who are potential vote banks — are too prickly to be touched. How about cigarette smoke? Tobacco smoke particles and outdoor PM2.5 pollution share some similar chemical compounds and have a similar role in cancer causation. A controlled experiment in Italy found that fine particulate matter emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust. But who can dare to say that cigarettes can only be smoked for a few hours, as specified by the court, to help reduce air pollution? Yes, crackers add to air pollution. But there are bigger fish in the sea who are the main wrongdoers! No one is meddling with them because there are powerful lobbies, money and vote banks involved. Crackers are a lesser evil, but they are being targeted because their users are children and families who will meekly comply. It is this bias that jars. It is a bit like the income tax department threatening small entrepreneurs and white collared workers while beer barons and diamond czars have flown the coop. The nanny State interfering in all aspects of life is anyway pointless. Everywhere one hears people asking “But how are they going to ensure no one lights a cracker after 10 pm? Is the police coming to each verandah to check?” (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Cracker regulations aimed at soft targets, not powerful lobbies

A senior Pakistani minister on Sunday said that appeasement to "avoid bloodshed" sends a dangerous message to non-state actors, a day after the radical Islamist parties reached a deal with the government to end their protests against a Supreme Court verdict acquitting a Christian woman of blasphemy charges.

Asia Bibi, 47, was convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting Islam in a row with her neighbours. A three-judge apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar last week overturned her conviction, sparking protests led by the radical religious parties and other groups across Pakistan.

In a series of tweets, Pakistan's Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari said that the history shows that appeasement never works.

"Appeasement to avoid 'bloodshed' in a war-weary Europe led to massive bloodshed &amp; destruction in the form of WW II," Mazari said.

"Appeasement to "avoid bloodshed" sends a dangerous msg to non-state actors &amp; undermines the very concept of democratic peaceful protest. The State has to enforce the Rule of Law, Constitution &amp; standby state institutions esp when they are targeted. #IStandWithSupremeCourt," she tweeted.

".. &amp; despite sceptics &amp; beyond despondency I trust PM (Imran) Khan to deliver on his commitment to Rule of Law, Constitution &amp; defence of state institutions as well as to human rights guaranteed in Constitution - not just in present situation but also on issues like Enforced Disappearances," she added.

Mazari's comments come in the wake of the three-day long protests led by the radical group Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) and other parties that paralysed the country from October 31 to November 2.

The TLP only ended their ended sit-ins across the country following a deal with the government on the issue of acquittal of Aasia Bibi on Friday.

As per the agreement, the government will immediately initiate a process to place the name of Asia Bibi on the no-fly list (exit control list).

The government has also promised to take appropriate legal action to redress any deaths that may have occurred during the protests against the verdict and to release all people picked up in connection with the agitation starting October 30.

Meanwhile, the interior ministry has initiated criminal proceedings against the rioters and booked 5,000 people, including TLP chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi and senior leader Afzal Qadri, on charges of rioting and disrupting peace during the demonstrations.

A senior Pakistani minister on Sunday said that appeasement to "avoid bloodshed" sends a dangerous message to non-state actors, a day after the radical Islamist parties reached a deal with the government to end their protests against a Supreme Court verdict acquitting a Christian woman of blasphemy charges.

A senior Pakistani minister on Sunday said that appeasement to "avoid bloodshed" sends a dangerous message to non-state actors, a day after the radical Islamist parties reached a deal with the government to end their protests against a Supreme Court verdict acquitting a Christian woman of blasphemy charges. Asia Bibi, 47, was convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting Islam in a row with her neighbours. A three-judge apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar last week overturned her conviction, sparking protests led by the radical religious parties and other groups across Pakistan. In a series of tweets, Pakistan's Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari said that the history shows that appeasement never works. "Appeasement to avoid 'bloodshed' in a war-weary Europe led to massive bloodshed & destruction in the form of WW II," Mazari said. "Appeasement to "avoid bloodshed" sends a dangerous msg to non-state actors & undermines the very concept of democratic peaceful protest. The State has to enforce the Rule of Law, Constitution & standby state institutions esp when they are targeted. #IStandWithSupremeCourt," she tweeted. ".. & despite sceptics & beyond despondency I trust PM (Imran) Khan to deliver on his commitment to Rule of Law, Constitution & defence of state institutions as well as to human rights guaranteed in Constitution - not just in present situation but also on issues like Enforced Disappearances," she added. Mazari's comments come in the wake of the three-day long protests led by the radical group Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) and other parties that paralysed the country from October 31 to November 2. The TLP only ended their ended sit-ins across the country following a deal with the government on the issue of acquittal of Aasia Bibi on Friday. As per the agreement, the government will immediately initiate a process to place the name of Asia Bibi on the no-fly list (exit control list). The government has also promised to take appropriate legal action to redress any deaths that may have occurred during the protests against the verdict and to release all people picked up in connection with the agitation starting October 30. Meanwhile, the interior ministry has initiated criminal proceedings against the rioters and booked 5,000 people, including TLP chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi and senior leader Afzal Qadri, on charges of rioting and disrupting peace during the demonstrations.

Appeasement to 'avoid bloodshed' sends dangerous message to non-state actors: Pak minister

Pakistani Police on Saturday booked over 2,000 people, including the chief of a radical Islamist party, under terrorism and other charges of rioting, attempting murder and hurling threats in different parts of Punjab province during the three-day protests following the acquittal of Christian woman Aasia Bibi.

"Eleven FIRs have been registered in Lahore alone against more than 1,500 people including Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi and patron-in-chief Pir Afzal Qadri under terrorism, attempted murder and other charges," Lahore police spokesperson Hammad Ahmad told PTI.

Ahmad said 40 of them are nominated suspects.

In all cases, police officials have become complainants, he added.

Asia Bibi, a 47-year-old mother of four, was convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting Islam in a row with her neighbours. She always maintained her innocence but has spent most of the past eight years in solitary confinement.

In a landmark judgement Wednesday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar overturned the conviction of Aasia Bibi facing execution for blasphemy, sparking protests led by the TLP and other groups across Pakistan.&nbsp;

The spokesperson said the suspects attacked the policemen, torched dozens of public and private vehicles and damaged the public and private property.

"A number of policemen have been injured as the protesters had blocked the city on at least 46 points during Wednesday to Friday," Ahmad said, adding police have detained around 20 nominated suspects.

A source in the police department said there has been an instruction from the "top" not to arrest the TLP leadership with whom the government reached an agreement on Friday to end country-wide protests on the acquittal of Aasia Bibi.

According to police, Sheikhupra and Faisalabad districts police have registered FIRs against 300 and 200 people, including the local leadership of TLP, respectively for causing injuries to policemen and torching vehicles and damaging public-private properties.

Hours after the killing of Godfather of Taliban Maulana Samiul Haq, the TLP Friday announced ending sit-ins across the country following reaching a deal with the government on the issue of acquittal of Aasia Bibi.

As per the agreement, the government will immediately initiate a process to place the name of Asia Bibi on the no-fly list (exit control list).

The government has also promised to take appropriate legal action to redress any deaths that may have occurred during the protests against the verdict and to release all people picked up in connection with the agitation starting October 30.

According to a source in the government, the military establishment played its role in persuading the TLP to end the protest. In TLP's November 2017 Faizabad Islamabad sit-in on the issue of finality of Prophet Muhammad, a top officer of the spy agency ISI brokered a deal between the TLP and the then PML-N government.

The TLP leadership during the protests had declared the Supreme Court bench judges liable for death for acquitting Aasia Bibi and Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa 'non-Muslim'. They also instigated the Muslim generals to revolt against the army chief.

The Imran Khan government has not yet confirmed about the status of Aasia Bibi whether she is released from the Multan jail or still languishing there or left the country. However, TLP leader Pir Afzal Qadri has claimed that Aasia Bibi has been sent back to jail again on "our demand."&nbsp;

Pakistani Police on Saturday booked over 2,000 people, including the chief of a radical Islamist party, under terrorism and other charges of rioting, attempting murder and hurling threats in different parts of Punjab province during the three-day protests following the acquittal of Christian woman Aasia Bibi.

Pakistani Police on Saturday booked over 2,000 people, including the chief of a radical Islamist party, under terrorism and other charges of rioting, attempting murder and hurling threats in different parts of Punjab province during the three-day protests following the acquittal of Christian woman Aasia Bibi. "Eleven FIRs have been registered in Lahore alone against more than 1,500 people including Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi and patron-in-chief Pir Afzal Qadri under terrorism, attempted murder and other charges," Lahore police spokesperson Hammad Ahmad told PTI. Ahmad said 40 of them are nominated suspects. In all cases, police officials have become complainants, he added. Asia Bibi, a 47-year-old mother of four, was convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting Islam in a row with her neighbours. She always maintained her innocence but has spent most of the past eight years in solitary confinement. In a landmark judgement Wednesday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar overturned the conviction of Aasia Bibi facing execution for blasphemy, sparking protests led by the TLP and other groups across Pakistan. The spokesperson said the suspects attacked the policemen, torched dozens of public and private vehicles and damaged the public and private property. "A number of policemen have been injured as the protesters had blocked the city on at least 46 points during Wednesday to Friday," Ahmad said, adding police have detained around 20 nominated suspects. A source in the police department said there has been an instruction from the "top" not to arrest the TLP leadership with whom the government reached an agreement on Friday to end country-wide protests on the acquittal of Aasia Bibi. According to police, Sheikhupra and Faisalabad districts police have registered FIRs against 300 and 200 people, including the local leadership of TLP, respectively for causing injuries to policemen and torching vehicles and damaging public-private properties. Hours after the killing of Godfather of Taliban Maulana Samiul Haq, the TLP Friday announced ending sit-ins across the country following reaching a deal with the government on the issue of acquittal of Aasia Bibi. As per the agreement, the government will immediately initiate a process to place the name of Asia Bibi on the no-fly list (exit control list). The government has also promised to take appropriate legal action to redress any deaths that may have occurred during the protests against the verdict and to release all people picked up in connection with the agitation starting October 30. According to a source in the government, the military establishment played its role in persuading the TLP to end the protest. In TLP's November 2017 Faizabad Islamabad sit-in on the issue of finality of Prophet Muhammad, a top officer of the spy agency ISI brokered a deal between the TLP and the then PML-N government. The TLP leadership during the protests had declared the Supreme Court bench judges liable for death for acquitting Aasia Bibi and Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa 'non-Muslim'. They also instigated the Muslim generals to revolt against the army chief. The Imran Khan government has not yet confirmed about the status of Aasia Bibi whether she is released from the Multan jail or still languishing there or left the country. However, TLP leader Pir Afzal Qadri has claimed that Aasia Bibi has been sent back to jail again on "our demand."

TLP chief Rizvi among 2,000 booked for rioting, disrupting peace in Pakistan

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday moved Supreme Court over Centre's decision to send CBI director Alok Verma on leave, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

Kharge contended that the Centre's action of sending CBI director on leave illegal, the report added.

He said that&nbsp;It's a clear-cut PMO's direct involvement in autonomous body and added&nbsp;he had filed a petition before SC requesting them to quash the order of Centre as it's illegal.&nbsp;

The Centre should've called a meeting of all 3-PM, CJI and me, he said and added without a meeting, without committee's consent, they overnight asked him to go on leave indefinitely, he said.&nbsp;

The Congress leader also said that CVC does not have the power to act against CBI director, who is appointed by a committee of PM, CJI and leader of the Opposition party.&nbsp;

CBI director Alok Verma, who has been involved in a bitter feud with the agency's No. 2 officer Rakesh Asthana, was sent on leave on October 23 
and M Nageshwar Rao, a joint director within the CBI, was given the charge as the interim CBI director.

Verma has also challenged the Centre's decision in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday moved Supreme Court over Centre's decision to send CBI director Alok Verma on leave, news agency PTI reported. Kharge contended that the Centre's action of sending CBI director on leave illegal, the report added.

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday moved Supreme Court over Centre's decision to send CBI director Alok Verma on leave, news agency PTI reported. Kharge contended that the Centre's action of sending CBI director on leave illegal, the report added. He said that It's a clear-cut PMO's direct involvement in autonomous body and added he had filed a petition before SC requesting them to quash the order of Centre as it's illegal. The Centre should've called a meeting of all 3-PM, CJI and me, he said and added without a meeting, without committee's consent, they overnight asked him to go on leave indefinitely, he said. The Congress leader also said that CVC does not have the power to act against CBI director, who is appointed by a committee of PM, CJI and leader of the Opposition party. CBI director Alok Verma, who has been involved in a bitter feud with the agency's No. 2 officer Rakesh Asthana, was sent on leave on October 23 and M Nageshwar Rao, a joint director within the CBI, was given the charge as the interim CBI director. Verma has also challenged the Centre's decision in the Supreme Court.

Mallikarjun Kharge moves SC over Centre's decision to send CBI director on leave

The Delhi government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it has deregistered 40 lakh vehicles, out of a total of 1.1 crore, which include <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-pollution-hits-emergency-level-again-24027">vehicles running on petrol</a> and diesel that are over 15 years and 10 years old respectively.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-holds-breath-as-burning-farms-herald-pollution-season-172590">National Green Tribunal</a> (NGT) and the apex court had passed an order three-and-a-half years ago, directing all 15-year-old petrol vehicles and 10-year-old diesel vehicles to be barred from the city’s roads, adding that there has been no initiative from the Delhi government so far to implement the order.

The counsel appearing for the Delhi government informed the bench that in compliance with the order, as many as 40 lakh vehicles have been deregistered under the Motor Vehicle Act.

The Delhi government further said the by December 30, Radio and Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) will be installed at 13 entry points in the city in order to check entry of commercial vehicles.

The top court ordered that priority should be given to the entry points with high congestion of vehicles coming from different cities.

"You should give priority to congested entry points where entry of commercial vehicles are high because that will have a greater impact," Justice Lokur said.

Amicus Curiae advocate Aparajita, assisting the court in the air pollution matter, told the bench that there was rampant corruption at entry points of commercial vehicles and, as per a report, the number of vehicles and collection of money did not match.

With the installation of RFIDs for commercial vehicle, everything will be automated so that human interference is avoided, the lawyer added.

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) also told the court that accounts on Facebook and Twitter have been created to allow citizens to complain about pollution. It has received 18 complaints so far.

The top court asked the CPCB to publicise the social media sites and set November 26 as the date for further hearing in matters related to air pollution.

Earlier, the apex court had directed the CPCB to open social media account so that citizens can complain about pollution.

The Delhi government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it has deregistered 40 lakh vehicles, out of a total of 1.1 crore, which include vehicles running on petrol and diesel that are over 15 years and 10 years old respectively.

The Delhi government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it has deregistered 40 lakh vehicles, out of a total of 1.1 crore, which include vehicles running on petrol and diesel that are over 15 years and 10 years old respectively. A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the apex court had passed an order three-and-a-half years ago, directing all 15-year-old petrol vehicles and 10-year-old diesel vehicles to be barred from the city’s roads, adding that there has been no initiative from the Delhi government so far to implement the order. The counsel appearing for the Delhi government informed the bench that in compliance with the order, as many as 40 lakh vehicles have been deregistered under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Delhi government further said the by December 30, Radio and Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) will be installed at 13 entry points in the city in order to check entry of commercial vehicles. The top court ordered that priority should be given to the entry points with high congestion of vehicles coming from different cities. "You should give priority to congested entry points where entry of commercial vehicles are high because that will have a greater impact," Justice Lokur said. Amicus Curiae advocate Aparajita, assisting the court in the air pollution matter, told the bench that there was rampant corruption at entry points of commercial vehicles and, as per a report, the number of vehicles and collection of money did not match. With the installation of RFIDs for commercial vehicle, everything will be automated so that human interference is avoided, the lawyer added. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) also told the court that accounts on Facebook and Twitter have been created to allow citizens to complain about pollution. It has received 18 complaints so far. The top court asked the CPCB to publicise the social media sites and set November 26 as the date for further hearing in matters related to air pollution. Earlier, the apex court had directed the CPCB to open social media account so that citizens can complain about pollution.

40 lakh old vehicles de-registered in Delhi: Govt tells Supreme Court

Pakistan's Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to rule on the final appeal by a Christian woman sentenced to death by hanging over blasphemy allegations, a case that has drawn global attention and condemnation.

Asia Bibi, a mother of four, has been living on death row since 2010 when she became the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws.

She was condemned for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Islam after neighbours objected to her drinking water from their glass because she was not Muslim.

Her case has outraged Christians worldwide and been a source of division within Pakistan, where two politicians who sought to help Bibi were assassinated.

A special three-person bench headed by Pakistan's top judge, Chief Justice Saqib Nasir, is due to deliver the verdict at 9am local time (0400 GMT), according to a notice by the court.

Bibi's case is also high on the agenda of religious hardliners in Pakistan, many of whom are fiercely opposed to her release.

The ultra-Islamist Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) party, which makes punishing blasphemy its main campaign rallying cry, earlier this month warned the court against any "concession or softness" for Bibi.

"If there is any attempt to hand her over to a foreign country, there will be terrible consequences," TLP said in a statement.

In November, TLP staged a crippling blockade of the capital after small changes to a religious oath, which it claims was tantamount to blasphemy. Seven people were killed and more than 200 wounded in clashes with the police and TLP’s supporters only dispersed after striking a deal with the military.

Insulting Islam’s prophet is punishable by death under Pakistani law, and blasphemy accusations stir such emotions that they are almost impossible to defend against. Dozens have been killed following blasphemy claims, sometimes by mobs of men.

Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores. The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence.

Bibi has always denied blaspheming and her representatives have claimed she was involved in a dispute with her neighbours and that her accusers had contradicted themselves.

In February, Bibi's husband Ashiq Masih and one of her daughters met with Pope Francis shortly before Rome's ancient Colosseum was lit in red one evening in solidarity with persecuted Christians, and Bibi in particular.

Pope Francis told Bibi's daughter: "I think often of your mother and I pray for her".

At the Rome gathering, Masih said his wife was innocent of blasphemy. "This is just hate against Christians, who are considered impure," he said.

Pakistan's Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to rule on the final appeal by a Christian woman sentenced to death by hanging over blasphemy allegations, a case that has drawn global attention and condemnation.

Pakistan's Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to rule on the final appeal by a Christian woman sentenced to death by hanging over blasphemy allegations, a case that has drawn global attention and condemnation. Asia Bibi, a mother of four, has been living on death row since 2010 when she became the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws. She was condemned for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Islam after neighbours objected to her drinking water from their glass because she was not Muslim. Her case has outraged Christians worldwide and been a source of division within Pakistan, where two politicians who sought to help Bibi were assassinated. A special three-person bench headed by Pakistan's top judge, Chief Justice Saqib Nasir, is due to deliver the verdict at 9am local time (0400 GMT), according to a notice by the court. Bibi's case is also high on the agenda of religious hardliners in Pakistan, many of whom are fiercely opposed to her release. The ultra-Islamist Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) party, which makes punishing blasphemy its main campaign rallying cry, earlier this month warned the court against any "concession or softness" for Bibi. "If there is any attempt to hand her over to a foreign country, there will be terrible consequences," TLP said in a statement. In November, TLP staged a crippling blockade of the capital after small changes to a religious oath, which it claims was tantamount to blasphemy. Seven people were killed and more than 200 wounded in clashes with the police and TLP’s supporters only dispersed after striking a deal with the military. Insulting Islam’s prophet is punishable by death under Pakistani law, and blasphemy accusations stir such emotions that they are almost impossible to defend against. Dozens have been killed following blasphemy claims, sometimes by mobs of men. Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores. The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence. Bibi has always denied blaspheming and her representatives have claimed she was involved in a dispute with her neighbours and that her accusers had contradicted themselves. In February, Bibi's husband Ashiq Masih and one of her daughters met with Pope Francis shortly before Rome's ancient Colosseum was lit in red one evening in solidarity with persecuted Christians, and Bibi in particular. Pope Francis told Bibi's daughter: "I think often of your mother and I pray for her". At the Rome gathering, Masih said his wife was innocent of blasphemy. "This is just hate against Christians, who are considered impure," he said.

Pakistan's Supreme Court to rule on Christian woman facing death over blasphemy

If you are an optimist like I am, you would see a silver lining in the royal mess we are witnessing in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has lately been rechristened as the Central Bureau of Infighting after its No. 1 and No. 2 accused each other of irregularities and started investigating each other instead of the welter of corruption cases plaguing India.

But we ought to have known better. Ever since the Modi government came to power, fighting corruption has been its chosen plank. The problem, however, is the "Gujarat model" of picking favourite officers to fight politically promised battles is not an easy one. Simply put, we are witnessing a case of Chanakya-era style of a Hindu king using handpicked loyalists in his durbar-style governance being superimposed on a Westminster system of administration inherited from British rule under which the civil servants are largely independent.

In the Westminster system, you usually trust the bureaucracy, of which the CBI is a part, and do not violate its procedures. When officers don't play ball, you transfer them gently to nondescript departments. The civil servant is not really a servant, as we learned in the hilarious episodes of the BBC comedy, Yes, Minister. However, the Modi government has bitten off more than it can chew -- or at least wants to. Last week, former BJP minister and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leading critic now, Arun Shourie, joked that in Gujarat, civil servants were "civil...(pause)...servants".

Whether it is in surprising the country with a demonetisation of high-value currency notes or in the running of the country's premier investigation agency, the Modi government has relied on its chosen people rather than traditional processes, and has substantially bypassed the bureaucracy than enlist its help. This brings in risks of the kind the government has been facing already.

It is, of course, a huge challenge when corruption is endemic in the system and you use the bureaucracy to tackle corruption. While we may shed a tear or two for the ostensibly noble intent of the Modi government, we may add that it is not advisable to rush in where angels fear to tread. What seems to have happened in the CBI case is that the No.1, Alok Verma, felt sidelined.

Experience tells me that army officers, police officers and bureaucrats take their hierarchical prestige very seriously, and being sidelined in favour of a junior can trigger sparks of vengeance. So we can see a comic Yes, Minister episode assuming the dark colours of a Netflix-run Sacred Games with its thriller skulduggery. With very un-sacred consequences, as we witnessed last week, when the government moved like Pakistan's coup-loving army one dark night to remove the two warring super cops from office. With the matter now placed firmly under the Supreme Court's supervision, a new chapter has begun.

For too long, we have had a public discourse in which the CBI (technically under the Home Ministry) being described as a "caged parrot" on the one hand, even as it claims to be an autonomous sleuthing body. It is therefore natural that CBI director Alok Verma could take his removal to the Supreme Court and gain public sympathy and opposition support. A Catch-22 situation arises for the Modi government because if you interfere in the CBI, you are proving allegations of a caged parrot and if you don't you are seen doing nothing to fight corruption.

The Central Vigilance Commission is looking into allegations against Alok Verma. Not for nothing, the CVC is described as a postman who forwards corruption complaints. It is officially not an investigating agency and usually works with the CBI as a partner. More important, the government has to approve the CVC taking up any investigation into corruption cases. There are also questions on how senior officials could be appointed to the CBI with CVC clearance in the first place when there were allegations pending against them.

Now, consider the irony of the fact that a government accused of corruption is approving a probe into the affairs of a man who is heading the very agency that gives teeth to the largely toothless CVC!

I can almost hear you say: "Where is the Lok Pal when you need her?"&nbsp;

Though a law was passed in 2013 to set up a Lok Pal, for technical reasons the law that enables the appointment of a constitutional ombudsman to probe allegations of serious corruption has been a non-starter.&nbsp;

In the light of all this, I do believe there is a silver lining when the CBI's state of affairs lands up in the Supreme Court. There is something fundamentally wrong in the system when the CVC is toothless, the Lok Pal is absent, the CBI is a caged parrot in perception or reality and there are widespread allegations of political corruption. The highest court of the land should treat the CBI mess as an opportunity to get a clean-up done. Not just in the current standoff. It should hopefully do something in the long-term interest of fighting corruption and maladministration.

It is not yet clear if the Supreme Court will overstep its brief as far as the current case is concerned, but, given the court's far-reaching pronouncements on issues ranging from privacy to gay rights, one hopes those pleading in the larger public interest will goad it to do something more. I for one would prefer the Supreme Court to have a permanent interest in the functioning of the CBI pending the appointment of a Lok Pal. India's premier investigating agency could do with some judicial muscle. 
 
(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/this-mess-is-an-opportunity-for-supreme-court-to-give-cbi-some-muscle-2152231.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

If you are an optimist like I am, you would see a silver lining in the royal mess we are witnessing in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has lately been rechristened as the Central Bureau of Infighting after its No.

If you are an optimist like I am, you would see a silver lining in the royal mess we are witnessing in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has lately been rechristened as the Central Bureau of Infighting after its No. 1 and No. 2 accused each other of irregularities and started investigating each other instead of the welter of corruption cases plaguing India. But we ought to have known better. Ever since the Modi government came to power, fighting corruption has been its chosen plank. The problem, however, is the "Gujarat model" of picking favourite officers to fight politically promised battles is not an easy one. Simply put, we are witnessing a case of Chanakya-era style of a Hindu king using handpicked loyalists in his durbar-style governance being superimposed on a Westminster system of administration inherited from British rule under which the civil servants are largely independent. In the Westminster system, you usually trust the bureaucracy, of which the CBI is a part, and do not violate its procedures. When officers don't play ball, you transfer them gently to nondescript departments. The civil servant is not really a servant, as we learned in the hilarious episodes of the BBC comedy, Yes, Minister. However, the Modi government has bitten off more than it can chew -- or at least wants to. Last week, former BJP minister and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leading critic now, Arun Shourie, joked that in Gujarat, civil servants were "civil...(pause)...servants". Whether it is in surprising the country with a demonetisation of high-value currency notes or in the running of the country's premier investigation agency, the Modi government has relied on its chosen people rather than traditional processes, and has substantially bypassed the bureaucracy than enlist its help. This brings in risks of the kind the government has been facing already. It is, of course, a huge challenge when corruption is endemic in the system and you use the bureaucracy to tackle corruption. While we may shed a tear or two for the ostensibly noble intent of the Modi government, we may add that it is not advisable to rush in where angels fear to tread. What seems to have happened in the CBI case is that the No.1, Alok Verma, felt sidelined. Experience tells me that army officers, police officers and bureaucrats take their hierarchical prestige very seriously, and being sidelined in favour of a junior can trigger sparks of vengeance. So we can see a comic Yes, Minister episode assuming the dark colours of a Netflix-run Sacred Games with its thriller skulduggery. With very un-sacred consequences, as we witnessed last week, when the government moved like Pakistan's coup-loving army one dark night to remove the two warring super cops from office. With the matter now placed firmly under the Supreme Court's supervision, a new chapter has begun. For too long, we have had a public discourse in which the CBI (technically under the Home Ministry) being described as a "caged parrot" on the one hand, even as it claims to be an autonomous sleuthing body. It is therefore natural that CBI director Alok Verma could take his removal to the Supreme Court and gain public sympathy and opposition support. A Catch-22 situation arises for the Modi government because if you interfere in the CBI, you are proving allegations of a caged parrot and if you don't you are seen doing nothing to fight corruption. The Central Vigilance Commission is looking into allegations against Alok Verma. Not for nothing, the CVC is described as a postman who forwards corruption complaints. It is officially not an investigating agency and usually works with the CBI as a partner. More important, the government has to approve the CVC taking up any investigation into corruption cases. There are also questions on how senior officials could be appointed to the CBI with CVC clearance in the first place when there were allegations pending against them. Now, consider the irony of the fact that a government accused of corruption is approving a probe into the affairs of a man who is heading the very agency that gives teeth to the largely toothless CVC! I can almost hear you say: "Where is the Lok Pal when you need her?" Though a law was passed in 2013 to set up a Lok Pal, for technical reasons the law that enables the appointment of a constitutional ombudsman to probe allegations of serious corruption has been a non-starter. In the light of all this, I do believe there is a silver lining when the CBI's state of affairs lands up in the Supreme Court. There is something fundamentally wrong in the system when the CVC is toothless, the Lok Pal is absent, the CBI is a caged parrot in perception or reality and there are widespread allegations of political corruption. The highest court of the land should treat the CBI mess as an opportunity to get a clean-up done. Not just in the current standoff. It should hopefully do something in the long-term interest of fighting corruption and maladministration. It is not yet clear if the Supreme Court will overstep its brief as far as the current case is concerned, but, given the court's far-reaching pronouncements on issues ranging from privacy to gay rights, one hopes those pleading in the larger public interest will goad it to do something more. I for one would prefer the Supreme Court to have a permanent interest in the functioning of the CBI pending the appointment of a Lok Pal. India's premier investigating agency could do with some judicial muscle. (This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

This mess is an opportunity for Supreme Court to give CBI some muscle

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government for pricing details of the Rafale deal. The court also asked for details of the deal's offset partner.&nbsp;

The court told the government that details of the deal that should legitimately be in the public domain should be shared with the petitioners who have filed PILs against the deal.&nbsp;

The court added that the details should be handed over in a sealed cover within the next 10 days.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court asks Centre to give details of the pricing and strategic details of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafale?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafale</a> aircraft in a sealed cover to the court, in 10 days. <a href="https://t.co/wqKbErKpbh">pic.twitter.com/wqKbErKpbh</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1057503215422504962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court asks Central government to disclose information on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafale?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafale</a> deal which can be legitimately put in public domain and information on induction of Indian offset partner be furnished to petitioners who have filed PILs <a href="https://t.co/XWMpffILGJ">https://t.co/XWMpffILGJ</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1057504656270811136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 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 court made clear Wednesday that it did not want technical details of the deal, saying that none of the PILs filed against the deal had challenged the suitability of the fighter jet.&nbsp;

The court also added that the government did not need to hand over any details that were secret, or which might affect national security.&nbsp;

Attorney General KK Venugopal however told the court that the deal's pricing details could not be shared with the court, in reply to which the court ordered the Centre to file an affidavit saying why that was so.&nbsp;

The court had earlier asked the government for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-deal-supreme-court-asks-govt-for-details-of-decision-making-process-170590">details of the deal's decision-making process</a>.&nbsp;

The opposition has accused the Narendra Modi-led government of corruption in the Rafale deal. &nbsp;

An original deal to buy 126 Rafale fighter planes from France's Dassault Aviation had been brokered by the UPA government. Then, in 2015, Modi signed a new government-to-government deal with then French president Francois Hollande to buy 36 of the planes.&nbsp;

The opposition — led by Congress president Rahul Gandhi — says the NDA government is paying three times as much as the UPA government had agreed to pay for every Rafale. The opposition has also accused the government of crony capitalism.&nbsp;

According to India's defence acquisition rules, a foreign company making a large sale to India has to funnel 30% of the money paid to it back into India. That by definition requires it to have an Indian partner or partners.&nbsp;

The original Indian partner in the Rafale deal was the public sector HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd). But HAL was turfed out of the new deal, in favour of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence which has little to no experience in the defence and aerospace industries.&nbsp;

The government had earlier said it was Dassault which chose Reliance and they had nothing to do with it but Hollande, while on a trip to India, recently said it was the Indian government which had suggested Reliance's name.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government for pricing details of the Rafale deal. The court also asked for details of the deal's offset partner.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government for pricing details of the Rafale deal. The court also asked for details of the deal's offset partner. The court told the government that details of the deal that should legitimately be in the public domain should be shared with the petitioners who have filed PILs against the deal. The court added that the details should be handed over in a sealed cover within the next 10 days. Supreme Court asks Centre to give details of the pricing and strategic details of #Rafale aircraft in a sealed cover to the court, in 10 days. pic.twitter.com/wqKbErKpbh — ANI (@ANI) October 31, 2018 × Supreme Court asks Central government to disclose information on #Rafale deal which can be legitimately put in public domain and information on induction of Indian offset partner be furnished to petitioners who have filed PILs https://t.co/XWMpffILGJ — ANI (@ANI) October 31, 2018 × The court made clear Wednesday that it did not want technical details of the deal, saying that none of the PILs filed against the deal had challenged the suitability of the fighter jet. The court also added that the government did not need to hand over any details that were secret, or which might affect national security. Attorney General KK Venugopal however told the court that the deal's pricing details could not be shared with the court, in reply to which the court ordered the Centre to file an affidavit saying why that was so. The court had earlier asked the government for details of the deal's decision-making process. The opposition has accused the Narendra Modi-led government of corruption in the Rafale deal. An original deal to buy 126 Rafale fighter planes from France's Dassault Aviation had been brokered by the UPA government. Then, in 2015, Modi signed a new government-to-government deal with then French president Francois Hollande to buy 36 of the planes. The opposition — led by Congress president Rahul Gandhi — says the NDA government is paying three times as much as the UPA government had agreed to pay for every Rafale. The opposition has also accused the government of crony capitalism. According to India's defence acquisition rules, a foreign company making a large sale to India has to funnel 30% of the money paid to it back into India. That by definition requires it to have an Indian partner or partners. The original Indian partner in the Rafale deal was the public sector HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd). But HAL was turfed out of the new deal, in favour of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence which has little to no experience in the defence and aerospace industries. The government had earlier said it was Dassault which chose Reliance and they had nothing to do with it but Hollande, while on a trip to India, recently said it was the Indian government which had suggested Reliance's name.

Rafale deal: SC asks Centre for pricing details, govt says cannot share

US President Donald Trump has interviewed an Indian-American <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/womens-groups-aim-to-use-kavanaugh-rage-to-boost-voter-turnout-169950">woman</a> to replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the powerful federal appeals court in Washington, DC, according to a report.

Neomi Jehangir Rao, 45, who is currently administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, was recommended for the judgeship on the DC circuit court by former White House counsel Don McGahn, news website Axios reported Sunday.

Citing sources, the website said Trump was interested in Rao so that he could appoint a minority woman to Kavanaugh's old job.&nbsp;

Rao, a former clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was confirmed by the Senate with a 54-41 vote in July 2017 to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The agency reviews executive branch regulations, a task the DC circuit often addresses.

Rao in this capacity is called the regulatory czar of the Trump administration.

Before being sworn in as the US Supreme Court Judge, Kavanaugh, whose confirmation process was marred by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kavanaugh-sex-assault-allegations-totally-political-donald-trump-167467">sexual misconduct allegations</a>, was a judge at the United States circuit court of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The position has now fallen vacant and Trump is reported to be interviewing several individuals for this position.&nbsp;

Sree Srinivasan is another Indian-American on this prestigious US federal court.

While one source told the website that Rao did not leave Trump with a good first impression, another said the president had not ruled her out of contention.

"Immediately after Trump met with Rao, two sources briefed on their encounter say they got the strong impression that the president was not impressed by her,&nbsp;the news portal said.

"Yes, but: A third source, who is close to Trump, told me late this week that it seemed like he was reconsidering his initial judgement of Rao and may still pick her,&nbsp;Axios said.

Rao has previously served in all three branches of the federal government.&nbsp;

She served as Associate Counsel to President George W Bush; counsel for nominations and constitutional law to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary; and law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of US Supreme Court.

She practiced public international law and arbitration at Clifford Chance LLP in London. Rao received her JD with high honours from the University of Chicago and her BA from Yale University.

Last December, Trump had praised Rao's contribution in cutting down regulations.&nbsp;

Rao was born to mother Zerin Rao and father Jehangir Narioshang Rao, both Parsi physicians from India. She grew up in Michigan and did her schooling from Detroit High School.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump has interviewed an Indian-American woman to replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the powerful federal appeals court in Washington, DC, according to a report.

US President Donald Trump has interviewed an Indian-American woman to replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the powerful federal appeals court in Washington, DC, according to a report. Neomi Jehangir Rao, 45, who is currently administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, was recommended for the judgeship on the DC circuit court by former White House counsel Don McGahn, news website Axios reported Sunday. Citing sources, the website said Trump was interested in Rao so that he could appoint a minority woman to Kavanaugh's old job. Rao, a former clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was confirmed by the Senate with a 54-41 vote in July 2017 to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The agency reviews executive branch regulations, a task the DC circuit often addresses. Rao in this capacity is called the regulatory czar of the Trump administration. Before being sworn in as the US Supreme Court Judge, Kavanaugh, whose confirmation process was marred by sexual misconduct allegations, was a judge at the United States circuit court of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The position has now fallen vacant and Trump is reported to be interviewing several individuals for this position. Sree Srinivasan is another Indian-American on this prestigious US federal court. While one source told the website that Rao did not leave Trump with a good first impression, another said the president had not ruled her out of contention. "Immediately after Trump met with Rao, two sources briefed on their encounter say they got the strong impression that the president was not impressed by her, the news portal said. "Yes, but: A third source, who is close to Trump, told me late this week that it seemed like he was reconsidering his initial judgement of Rao and may still pick her, Axios said. Rao has previously served in all three branches of the federal government. She served as Associate Counsel to President George W Bush; counsel for nominations and constitutional law to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary; and law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of US Supreme Court. She practiced public international law and arbitration at Clifford Chance LLP in London. Rao received her JD with high honours from the University of Chicago and her BA from Yale University. Last December, Trump had praised Rao's contribution in cutting down regulations. Rao was born to mother Zerin Rao and father Jehangir Narioshang Rao, both Parsi physicians from India. She grew up in Michigan and did her schooling from Detroit High School.

Trump interviews Indian-American woman to replace Kavanaugh in DC circuit court

A lawyer, who was the first to drag the NDA government to the Supreme Court over Rafale aircraft deal, filed an interim plea seeking his PIL be heard after Assembly polls in five states which are scheduled in November, in order to counter an allegation that his was a politically-motivated petition.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is likely to hear the two PILs on Wednesday, filed by lawyers Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda, on India’s deal with France to buy the fighter jets. The lawyer mentioned Tuesday the plea before the bench, which asked him to provide its copy on Wednesday.

On October 10, the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, had directed the Centre to provide in a sealed cover the “details of the steps” taken in the decision making process, sans pricing and technical information, which led to the deal.

Sharma, who filed an interim plea in his pending PIL, has referred to certain media reports to allege that the French Dassault company “accepted to work with Reliance as an ‘imperative and obligatory’ condition for securing the fighter contract”.

Besides seeking nod to initiate the detailed arguments, the lawyer has also sought a direction to Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited and its head to file “all relevant documents of the Rafale deal belonging to them”.

The lawyer, in his PIL, has sought to quash the inter-government agreement between India and France on account of the violation of “defence procurement procedure” and subsequent registration of an FIR in the case.

The apex court had earlier termed the averments made in the two PILs as “grossly inadequate” and had made it clear that it was not issuing notice on them, but had wanted to satisfy itself about the legitimacy of the decision-making process.

The poll panel recently announced the dates for assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Mizoram and Telangana which would conclude by November end.

A lawyer, who was the first to drag the NDA government to the Supreme Court over Rafale aircraft deal, filed an interim plea seeking his PIL be heard after Assembly polls in five states which are scheduled in November, in order to counter an allegation that his was a politically-motivated petition.

A lawyer, who was the first to drag the NDA government to the Supreme Court over Rafale aircraft deal, filed an interim plea seeking his PIL be heard after Assembly polls in five states which are scheduled in November, in order to counter an allegation that his was a politically-motivated petition. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is likely to hear the two PILs on Wednesday, filed by lawyers Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda, on India’s deal with France to buy the fighter jets. The lawyer mentioned Tuesday the plea before the bench, which asked him to provide its copy on Wednesday. On October 10, the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, had directed the Centre to provide in a sealed cover the “details of the steps” taken in the decision making process, sans pricing and technical information, which led to the deal. Sharma, who filed an interim plea in his pending PIL, has referred to certain media reports to allege that the French Dassault company “accepted to work with Reliance as an ‘imperative and obligatory’ condition for securing the fighter contract”. Besides seeking nod to initiate the detailed arguments, the lawyer has also sought a direction to Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited and its head to file “all relevant documents of the Rafale deal belonging to them”. The lawyer, in his PIL, has sought to quash the inter-government agreement between India and France on account of the violation of “defence procurement procedure” and subsequent registration of an FIR in the case. The apex court had earlier termed the averments made in the two PILs as “grossly inadequate” and had made it clear that it was not issuing notice on them, but had wanted to satisfy itself about the legitimacy of the decision-making process. The poll panel recently announced the dates for assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Mizoram and Telangana which would conclude by November end.

Rafale case: Lawyer seeks hearing on PIL in Supreme Court after assembly polls in five states

The Committee of Administrators (COA) wants the BCCI to appoint an ombudsman and an Ethics Officer at the earliest to deal with any disputes leading up to its much-awaited Annual General Meeting and elections.

In its 10th status report to the Supreme Court, the COA explained why the two appointments need to be made before fresh elections are held.

"The newly registered constitution of BCCI requires the appointment of an Ombudsman at the Annual General Meeting for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism...," the COA report stated.&nbsp;

The COA said the Ombudsman must be a retired judge or chief justice of a High Court and must be given a one-year tenure, subject to a maximum of three terms.

It is not yet known when the BCCI AGM will take place where the Board will also hold elections.

The AGM will be conducted as per the new constitution approved by the Supreme Court in its August 9 order, which gave state associations 30 days to comply but some state associations are continuing to oppose some of the reforms, including the age and tenure cap for office-bearers.&nbsp;

"...It is necessary that the first Ombudsman be appointed at the earliest so that the provisions relating to independent dispute resolution mechanism under the newly registered constitution can be implemented immediately."

Once appointed, Ombudsman will deal with grievances raised by members of BCCI and the IPL teams besides addressing acts of "indiscipline, misconduct, breach, etc".

On the need for an Ethics Officer, the COA said: "It is necessary that the first Ethics Officer of BCCI be appointed at the earliest so that the complaints related to Conflict of

Interest can be considered and addressed by a duly qualified person."

The COA, comprising former CAG Vinod Rai and former women's team captain Diana Edulji, also called for a forensic audit of state associations to deal with the misuse of funds.&nbsp;

The COA has also informed the Supreme Court that seven state associations have failed to submit the compliance report of the apex court order of August 9 and have not amended their constitution.

The associations which have not submitted the compliance certificate to the COA are Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal.

The state bodies which have partially complied are Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Goa, Maharashtra, Bihar, Bengal, Chattisgarh, Manipur and Vidarbha.

The list of substantially compliant associations comprise Mizoram, Puducherry, Delhi, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Mumbai, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Saurashtra, Sikkim, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.

The Committee of Administrators (COA) wants the BCCI to appoint an ombudsman and an Ethics Officer at the earliest to deal with any disputes leading up to its much-awaited Annual General Meeting and elections.

The Committee of Administrators (COA) wants the BCCI to appoint an ombudsman and an Ethics Officer at the earliest to deal with any disputes leading up to its much-awaited Annual General Meeting and elections. In its 10th status report to the Supreme Court, the COA explained why the two appointments need to be made before fresh elections are held. "The newly registered constitution of BCCI requires the appointment of an Ombudsman at the Annual General Meeting for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution mechanism...," the COA report stated. The COA said the Ombudsman must be a retired judge or chief justice of a High Court and must be given a one-year tenure, subject to a maximum of three terms. It is not yet known when the BCCI AGM will take place where the Board will also hold elections. The AGM will be conducted as per the new constitution approved by the Supreme Court in its August 9 order, which gave state associations 30 days to comply but some state associations are continuing to oppose some of the reforms, including the age and tenure cap for office-bearers. "...It is necessary that the first Ombudsman be appointed at the earliest so that the provisions relating to independent dispute resolution mechanism under the newly registered constitution can be implemented immediately." Once appointed, Ombudsman will deal with grievances raised by members of BCCI and the IPL teams besides addressing acts of "indiscipline, misconduct, breach, etc". On the need for an Ethics Officer, the COA said: "It is necessary that the first Ethics Officer of BCCI be appointed at the earliest so that the complaints related to Conflict of Interest can be considered and addressed by a duly qualified person." The COA, comprising former CAG Vinod Rai and former women's team captain Diana Edulji, also called for a forensic audit of state associations to deal with the misuse of funds. The COA has also informed the Supreme Court that seven state associations have failed to submit the compliance report of the apex court order of August 9 and have not amended their constitution. The associations which have not submitted the compliance certificate to the COA are Haryana, Himachal, Gujarat, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal. The state bodies which have partially complied are Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Goa, Maharashtra, Bihar, Bengal, Chattisgarh, Manipur and Vidarbha. The list of substantially compliant associations comprise Mizoram, Puducherry, Delhi, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Mumbai, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Saurashtra, Sikkim, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.

BCCI needs ombudsman, ethics officer at earliest: CoA to Supreme Court

CBI officer AK Bassi, who had been investigating Special Director Rakesh Asthana, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer.&nbsp;

Bassi was transferred to Port Blair in the Andamans after the government sent <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-vs-cbi-alok-verma-did-not-back-up-allegations-against-rakesh-asthana-says-goverment-173201">CBI Director Alok Verma</a> and Special Director Rakesh Asthana (the agency's second in command) on leave.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
AK Bassi says he has incriminating evidence against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RakeshAsthana?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RakeshAsthana</a> in bribery case and asks Supreme Court to call for evidence of technical surveillance. Bassi also seeks setting up a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate charges against Asthana. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CBI?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CBI</a> <a href="https://t.co/M1glPWvhE4">https://t.co/M1glPWvhE4</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1057141776488775680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 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>

Verma and Asthana had been feuding with both accusing the other of corruption.&nbsp;

Verma had written to the CVC in 2017 before Asthana joined the agency saying he was being investigated, by the CBI, on corruption charges. And that he should therefore not be inducted into the CBI.&nbsp;

After Asthana was inducted into the CBI, he wrote to the CVC and the Cabinet Secretary saying Verma was guilty of corruption. Asthana is seen as being close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah.&nbsp;

Asthana was the police officer who probed the Godhra train-burning case, which led to the Gujarat riots of 2002. He had also probed the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case in which Amit Shah was an accused. The BJP president was later dismissed from the case.&nbsp;

Two weeks ago, the CBI filed an FIR against Asthana. In the FIR, Asthana was accused of asking for a bribe to let the businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case.&nbsp;

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to give Bassi an urgent hearing.&nbsp;

Bassi said he had incriminating evidence against Asthana. Bassi also aksed for the setting up of a Special Investigation Team to probe the bribery charge against Asthana.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

CBI officer AK Bassi, who had been investigating Special Director Rakesh Asthana, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer. Bassi was transferred to Port Blair in the Andamans after the government sent CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana (the agency's second in command) on leave.

CBI officer AK Bassi, who had been investigating Special Director Rakesh Asthana, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer. Bassi was transferred to Port Blair in the Andamans after the government sent CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana (the agency's second in command) on leave. AK Bassi says he has incriminating evidence against #RakeshAsthana in bribery case and asks Supreme Court to call for evidence of technical surveillance. Bassi also seeks setting up a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate charges against Asthana. #CBI https://t.co/M1glPWvhE4 — ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2018 × Verma and Asthana had been feuding with both accusing the other of corruption. Verma had written to the CVC in 2017 before Asthana joined the agency saying he was being investigated, by the CBI, on corruption charges. And that he should therefore not be inducted into the CBI. After Asthana was inducted into the CBI, he wrote to the CVC and the Cabinet Secretary saying Verma was guilty of corruption. Asthana is seen as being close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah. Asthana was the police officer who probed the Godhra train-burning case, which led to the Gujarat riots of 2002. He had also probed the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case in which Amit Shah was an accused. The BJP president was later dismissed from the case. Two weeks ago, the CBI filed an FIR against Asthana. In the FIR, Asthana was accused of asking for a bribe to let the businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case. On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to give Bassi an urgent hearing. Bassi said he had incriminating evidence against Asthana. Bassi also aksed for the setting up of a Special Investigation Team to probe the bribery charge against Asthana.

CBI vs CBI: Officer investigating Asthana moves SC, says he has evidence of bribery

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-is-ayodhya-case-related-to-2019-elections-pm-modi-asks-kapil-sibal-26043?amp">Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute</a> case till January 2019.

The decision on a daily basis in the case will be taken in January, the apex court's hearing said.&nbsp;

The court has however not given any final date for the hearing or the bench.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court adjourns the matter till January 2019 to fix the date of hearing in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> title suit <a href="https://t.co/wZxixh9RVz">https://t.co/wZxixh9RVz</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1056794584045572096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court's decision pertains to a&nbsp;batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The issue of whether a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/mosque-can-be-built-at-distance-from-disputed-babri-masjid-site-shia-waqf-board-to-top-court-18715?amp">mosque is integral to Islam</a> had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict.

On September 27, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute case till January 2019. The decision on a daily basis in the case will be taken in January, the apex court's hearing said.

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute case till January 2019. The decision on a daily basis in the case will be taken in January, the apex court's hearing said. The court has however not given any final date for the hearing or the bench. Supreme Court adjourns the matter till January 2019 to fix the date of hearing in #Ayodhya title suit https://t.co/wZxixh9RVz — ANI (@ANI) October 29, 2018 × The Supreme Court's decision pertains to a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts. The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict. On September 27, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam. In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue. (With inputs from agencies)

Babri Masjid dispute: Supreme court adjourns hearing till January

The din over the pre-Diwali implosion within the CBI refuses to die down as the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Vigilance Commissioner to complete the probe against CBI chief Alok Verma within two weeks. Verma, along with his deputy, special director Rakesh Asthana, was forced to go on leave by the Modi government in a midnight order last week. Verma had knocked on the doors of the apex court challenging the government order.

A former SC judge shall oversee the CVC enquiry against Verma. The court also reined in interim director Nageswara Rao asking him to refrain from taking policy decisions till pending enquiry.

The drama over the feud between CBI’s two top bosses spilled over in the courtroom on Friday when the SC refused to hear Asthana’s petition on the ground that his petition was not listed. The Centre pleaded the CVC inquiry should also include enquiry against Asthana but the Court dismissed it saying it was only concerned with Verma’s case.

Challenging the government order, Verma cites the SC-mandated order that protects the two-year tenure of the CBI director. Also, that the concurrence of the committee responsible for the selection of the CBI director has to be taken to transfer the CBI director, which, in his case, has been bypassed by the Centre. But Verma’s petition does not stop at just that.

In his petition Verma builds his case to suggest how political influence is being brought to bear upon the investigating agency, which is not always explicit or in writing. “More often than not, it is tacit, and requires considerable courage to withstand it.”

While Verma’s plea is confined to restoring his authority and position for the rest of his term, his petition does touch upon the grey areas within which the CBI has to mostly operate. By raking up the issue of political influence, Verma is not stating anything new but only confirming the fears that the CBI, after all, ends up as handmaid of the powers-that-be.

The CBI was set up in 1963 with the exclusive motive of investigating complicated cases of crimes such as murder and kidnapping. It soon established its reputation as India’s foremost investigating agency, gradually taking up cases of terrorism also. But the criminal-politician nexus grew and matters reached a head in the Eighties.

The judiciary’s pro-active interference led to many high-profile cases landing up at the CBI’s doorstep. As the economy opened up, it also flung its doors wider for financial corruption of humongous magnitude.

No wonder, in 1987, the CBI was divided into several divisions, the prominent being the anti-corruption wing, the economic offences section, and the special crimes division.

As the country entered the coalition era in the Nineties, political parties dropped all pretences of safeguarding CBI’s integrity. The CBI was used not merely as a stick to beat one’s political rival with but also to keep the coalition together and the government afloat.

So despite the CBI investigating cases of Taj corridor or disproportionate assets, regional satraps like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, for instance, were being courted and browbeaten as the popularity of the ruling party waxed and waned.

Majority governments used ‘tacit influence’– the kind Verma talks about in his petition – rather ingeniously. Therefore, the CBI looked the other way when Jagdish Tytler was discharged from the lower courts in cases of anti-Sikh riots of 1984.

It wasn’t much different for other celebrated cases like the Bofors, involving mega bribes and Quattrocchi. The allegations of political interference have only amplified with the passing years.

By 2012, the new CBI director Ranjit Sinha under UPA-2 took it to a different level, trying desperately to be more loyal than the king. It was reported that the accused in 2G and coal scam cases had access to Sinha’s official residence.

Meat exporter Moin Qureshi, linked to the current CBI crisis, involved in several cases of corruption and money laundering, reportedly visited the official residence of CBI director Ranjit Kumar 70 times during 2013-14.

The current crisis of credibility in the CBI has all the shades of yesterday once more. Only that this time the CBI is at war with itself. Verma has accused Asthana of “creating hurdles” in decisions crucial to the progress of investigation of certain sensitive cases and has “concocted evidence” to malign his reputation.

The big question is why do governments need a pliant man in CBI; what does it say about the integrity of the agency? How can we ensure a climate of fair and impartial investigation? Will the current crisis serve as a wake-up call for decision makers to consider granting more autonomy to the CBI that minimises incidence of conflict of interest or, better still, insulates it from any “outside influence”?

The CBI implosion comes at a time when political parties are girding their loins for yet another battle for Lok Sabha. Opposition parties gave a political twist to the CBI feud linking it to Rafale fighter scam. They claimed Verma was forced to exit because he had stumbled upon complaints that linked Modi government to the Rafale scam.

All eyes shall be on the Supreme Court on November 12 when it takes stock of the CVC report. The apex court’s decision shall not only have a bearing on the fate of CBI but shall also influence the course of politics which is being increasingly determined by the narrative of political corruption.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-more-than-just-a-turf-war-2680022">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The din over the pre-Diwali implosion within the CBI refuses to die down as the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Vigilance Commissioner to complete the probe against CBI chief Alok Verma within two weeks.

The din over the pre-Diwali implosion within the CBI refuses to die down as the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Vigilance Commissioner to complete the probe against CBI chief Alok Verma within two weeks. Verma, along with his deputy, special director Rakesh Asthana, was forced to go on leave by the Modi government in a midnight order last week. Verma had knocked on the doors of the apex court challenging the government order. A former SC judge shall oversee the CVC enquiry against Verma. The court also reined in interim director Nageswara Rao asking him to refrain from taking policy decisions till pending enquiry. The drama over the feud between CBI’s two top bosses spilled over in the courtroom on Friday when the SC refused to hear Asthana’s petition on the ground that his petition was not listed. The Centre pleaded the CVC inquiry should also include enquiry against Asthana but the Court dismissed it saying it was only concerned with Verma’s case. Challenging the government order, Verma cites the SC-mandated order that protects the two-year tenure of the CBI director. Also, that the concurrence of the committee responsible for the selection of the CBI director has to be taken to transfer the CBI director, which, in his case, has been bypassed by the Centre. But Verma’s petition does not stop at just that. In his petition Verma builds his case to suggest how political influence is being brought to bear upon the investigating agency, which is not always explicit or in writing. “More often than not, it is tacit, and requires considerable courage to withstand it.” While Verma’s plea is confined to restoring his authority and position for the rest of his term, his petition does touch upon the grey areas within which the CBI has to mostly operate. By raking up the issue of political influence, Verma is not stating anything new but only confirming the fears that the CBI, after all, ends up as handmaid of the powers-that-be. The CBI was set up in 1963 with the exclusive motive of investigating complicated cases of crimes such as murder and kidnapping. It soon established its reputation as India’s foremost investigating agency, gradually taking up cases of terrorism also. But the criminal-politician nexus grew and matters reached a head in the Eighties. The judiciary’s pro-active interference led to many high-profile cases landing up at the CBI’s doorstep. As the economy opened up, it also flung its doors wider for financial corruption of humongous magnitude. No wonder, in 1987, the CBI was divided into several divisions, the prominent being the anti-corruption wing, the economic offences section, and the special crimes division. As the country entered the coalition era in the Nineties, political parties dropped all pretences of safeguarding CBI’s integrity. The CBI was used not merely as a stick to beat one’s political rival with but also to keep the coalition together and the government afloat. So despite the CBI investigating cases of Taj corridor or disproportionate assets, regional satraps like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, for instance, were being courted and browbeaten as the popularity of the ruling party waxed and waned. Majority governments used ‘tacit influence’– the kind Verma talks about in his petition – rather ingeniously. Therefore, the CBI looked the other way when Jagdish Tytler was discharged from the lower courts in cases of anti-Sikh riots of 1984. It wasn’t much different for other celebrated cases like the Bofors, involving mega bribes and Quattrocchi. The allegations of political interference have only amplified with the passing years. By 2012, the new CBI director Ranjit Sinha under UPA-2 took it to a different level, trying desperately to be more loyal than the king. It was reported that the accused in 2G and coal scam cases had access to Sinha’s official residence. Meat exporter Moin Qureshi, linked to the current CBI crisis, involved in several cases of corruption and money laundering, reportedly visited the official residence of CBI director Ranjit Kumar 70 times during 2013-14. The current crisis of credibility in the CBI has all the shades of yesterday once more. Only that this time the CBI is at war with itself. Verma has accused Asthana of “creating hurdles” in decisions crucial to the progress of investigation of certain sensitive cases and has “concocted evidence” to malign his reputation. The big question is why do governments need a pliant man in CBI; what does it say about the integrity of the agency? How can we ensure a climate of fair and impartial investigation? Will the current crisis serve as a wake-up call for decision makers to consider granting more autonomy to the CBI that minimises incidence of conflict of interest or, better still, insulates it from any “outside influence”? The CBI implosion comes at a time when political parties are girding their loins for yet another battle for Lok Sabha. Opposition parties gave a political twist to the CBI feud linking it to Rafale fighter scam. They claimed Verma was forced to exit because he had stumbled upon complaints that linked Modi government to the Rafale scam. All eyes shall be on the Supreme Court on November 12 when it takes stock of the CVC report. The apex court’s decision shall not only have a bearing on the fate of CBI but shall also influence the course of politics which is being increasingly determined by the narrative of political corruption. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

More than just a turf war

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter.

On 27 September, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict.

However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration.

The court had on 27 September said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on 29 October.

The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict.

The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter. On 27 September, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue. Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict. However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration. The court had on 27 September said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on 29 October. The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict. The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute: SC to hear pleas challenging HC verdict today

The Centre has justified before the Supreme Court the amendments brought in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to overcome the controversial apex court’s order diluting the provision of arrest under the law.

The government also said Parliament has the power to bring such amendment.

Parliament had on August 9 passed the bill to overturn the apex court’s March 20 order concerning safeguards against arrest under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court had passed a slew of directions and said a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act only after prior approval by the competent authority.

The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any court order.

In its affidavit filed in the top court, the Centre said it would be “incorrect” to assume that high acquittal rates in cases under the act were due to false cases and there was misuse of the law.

The government referred to statistics and said there was no decrease in the atrocities committed on the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities.

The affidavit was filed in pursuance to the court’s direction asking the Centre to respond on a batch of petitions challenging the new amendments in the SC/ST Act.

“It is incorrect to assume that high rate of acquittal under the SC/ST Act is largely on account of false cases and misuse of provisions of the act,” the government said in its affidavit.

Giving the number of cases lodged under the act, the Centre said in 2014, 47,124 cases were registered under the SC/ST Act followed by 44,839 and 47,338 cases in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

It said the rate of conviction was 28.8 per cent in the year 2014, 25.8 per cent in 2015 and 24.9 per cent in 2016.

Referring to the factors which led to acquittal in cases registered under the act, the government said delay in lodging of the FIRs, lack of corroborative evidence and witnesses turning hostile were some of the reasons behind it.

“Therefore, it is misconceived and misleading to suggest that acquittals singularly take place owing to either false cases or that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are being misused,” the affidavit said.

It said amendments to the act were made following the apex court order diluting the provision of arrest and it was based on “well reasoned objective” to strengthen the statutory framework to give protection to the members of SC and ST communities.

The amendments provide that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval.

The apex court is seized of a batch of pleas which has alleged the two Houses of Parliament had “arbitrarily” decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail.

The court is scheduled to hear the matter next month.

The Centre has justified before the Supreme Court the amendments brought in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to overcome the controversial apex court’s order diluting the provision of arrest under the law.

The Centre has justified before the Supreme Court the amendments brought in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to overcome the controversial apex court’s order diluting the provision of arrest under the law. The government also said Parliament has the power to bring such amendment. Parliament had on August 9 passed the bill to overturn the apex court’s March 20 order concerning safeguards against arrest under the SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court had passed a slew of directions and said a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act only after prior approval by the competent authority. The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any court order. In its affidavit filed in the top court, the Centre said it would be “incorrect” to assume that high acquittal rates in cases under the act were due to false cases and there was misuse of the law. The government referred to statistics and said there was no decrease in the atrocities committed on the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities. The affidavit was filed in pursuance to the court’s direction asking the Centre to respond on a batch of petitions challenging the new amendments in the SC/ST Act. “It is incorrect to assume that high rate of acquittal under the SC/ST Act is largely on account of false cases and misuse of provisions of the act,” the government said in its affidavit. Giving the number of cases lodged under the act, the Centre said in 2014, 47,124 cases were registered under the SC/ST Act followed by 44,839 and 47,338 cases in 2015 and 2016 respectively. It said the rate of conviction was 28.8 per cent in the year 2014, 25.8 per cent in 2015 and 24.9 per cent in 2016. Referring to the factors which led to acquittal in cases registered under the act, the government said delay in lodging of the FIRs, lack of corroborative evidence and witnesses turning hostile were some of the reasons behind it. “Therefore, it is misconceived and misleading to suggest that acquittals singularly take place owing to either false cases or that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are being misused,” the affidavit said. It said amendments to the act were made following the apex court order diluting the provision of arrest and it was based on “well reasoned objective” to strengthen the statutory framework to give protection to the members of SC and ST communities. The amendments provide that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval. The apex court is seized of a batch of pleas which has alleged the two Houses of Parliament had “arbitrarily” decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail. The court is scheduled to hear the matter next month.

Centre justifies in Supreme Court amendments made in SC/ST Act

Days after coming out in support of the Supreme Court verdict on the entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala temple, Swami Sandeepananda Giri's Salagramam ashram at nearby Kundamonkadavu was attacked early Saturday, police said.

The attack took place at around 2 am and two cars and a scooter were burnt, they said, adding the attackers also left a wreath at the ashram.

Swami Sandeepananda Giri had welcomed the apex court order permitting women in the 10-50 age group to offer prayers at the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala.

Meanwhile, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who visited the ashram, told reporters that stringent action would be taken against the accused, whoever they may be.

Their aim was not to destroy the ashram, but Swamiji, he said.

Reacting to the attack, Sandeepananda Giri alleged that the entire responsibility for the incident was on BJP state president P S Sreedharan Pillai, Thazhamon Madom, the family of traditional head priests of Sabarimala temple and Pandalam Royal family, also associated with the shrine.

DGP Loknath Behara said strong action would be taken to bring the accused to book. "We will not tolerate such incidents in the state," he said.

However, BJP district leadership has denied any role in the attack and demanded an "unbiased" probe into the incident.

The state had witnessed massive protests from devotees at various places, including Sabarimala, Nilakkal and Pamba, against permitting women of all ages to enter the shrine, where the deity is 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (perennial celibate), when the temple was opened for monthly poojas from October 17-22.

At least 12 women in the 'barred' age group (10-50) had tried to trek the hills to offer prayers but had to retreat following widespread protests.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Days after coming out in support of the Supreme Court verdict on the entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala temple, Swami Sandeepananda Giri's Salagramam ashram at nearby Kundamonkadavu was attacked early Saturday, police said.

Days after coming out in support of the Supreme Court verdict on the entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala temple, Swami Sandeepananda Giri's Salagramam ashram at nearby Kundamonkadavu was attacked early Saturday, police said. The attack took place at around 2 am and two cars and a scooter were burnt, they said, adding the attackers also left a wreath at the ashram. Swami Sandeepananda Giri had welcomed the apex court order permitting women in the 10-50 age group to offer prayers at the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala. Meanwhile, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who visited the ashram, told reporters that stringent action would be taken against the accused, whoever they may be. Their aim was not to destroy the ashram, but Swamiji, he said. Reacting to the attack, Sandeepananda Giri alleged that the entire responsibility for the incident was on BJP state president P S Sreedharan Pillai, Thazhamon Madom, the family of traditional head priests of Sabarimala temple and Pandalam Royal family, also associated with the shrine. DGP Loknath Behara said strong action would be taken to bring the accused to book. "We will not tolerate such incidents in the state," he said. However, BJP district leadership has denied any role in the attack and demanded an "unbiased" probe into the incident. The state had witnessed massive protests from devotees at various places, including Sabarimala, Nilakkal and Pamba, against permitting women of all ages to enter the shrine, where the deity is 'Naishtika Brahmachari' (perennial celibate), when the temple was opened for monthly poojas from October 17-22. At least 12 women in the 'barred' age group (10-50) had tried to trek the hills to offer prayers but had to retreat following widespread protests.

Sabarimala row: Ashram of Sandeepananda Giri, who supported Supreme Court verdict, attacked

The government on Saturday submitted the details regarding the decision-making process in the controversial <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/anil-ambanis-reliance-defence-tells-congress-to-behave-responsibly-while-talking-about-rafale-deal-160846">Rafale deal</a> to the Supreme Court.

The submission of the details of the deal with France to the apex court has come in the wake of severe attacks by the opposition on the Rafale deal.

Gandhi and his Congress party have been attacking the government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the Rafale deal, alleging corruption and favouritism.&nbsp;

The Congress has been claiming that the Modi government has renegotiated the contract to benefit crony capitalists and reduced India's prestige globally.

He had said earlier that the UPA government had agreed to buy 126 Rafales at around Rs 526 crore a piece. "But after becoming prime minister, Narendra Modi ji goes to France along with Anil Ambani and purchased each Rafale jets at Rs 1,600 crore per piece".

He also attacked the government claiming that the prime minister had snatched the contract away from the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and gave it to the Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Defence.

The government, on the&nbsp;other hand, said that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-defence-minister-hits-out-at-opposition-on-rafale-deal-173408">BJP-led NDA government has brought greater transparency</a> in defence deals.&nbsp;Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman also claims that the government had no role in Dassault choosing the offset partner.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Central government has submitted before Supreme Court the details of decision making process in the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafale?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafale</a> deal with France with Court Secretary General, in sealed cover. <a href="https://t.co/XxkUYbO7Em">pic.twitter.com/XxkUYbO7Em</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1056078554604154880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 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>

(With inputs from agencies)

The government on Saturday submitted the details regarding the decision-making process in the controversial Rafale deal to the Supreme Court. The submission of the details of the deal with France to the apex court has come in the wake of severe attacks by the opposition on the Rafale deal.

The government on Saturday submitted the details regarding the decision-making process in the controversial Rafale deal to the Supreme Court. The submission of the details of the deal with France to the apex court has come in the wake of severe attacks by the opposition on the Rafale deal. Gandhi and his Congress party have been attacking the government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the Rafale deal, alleging corruption and favouritism. The Congress has been claiming that the Modi government has renegotiated the contract to benefit crony capitalists and reduced India's prestige globally. He had said earlier that the UPA government had agreed to buy 126 Rafales at around Rs 526 crore a piece. "But after becoming prime minister, Narendra Modi ji goes to France along with Anil Ambani and purchased each Rafale jets at Rs 1,600 crore per piece". He also attacked the government claiming that the prime minister had snatched the contract away from the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and gave it to the Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Defence. The government, on the other hand, said that the BJP-led NDA government has brought greater transparency in defence deals. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman also claims that the government had no role in Dassault choosing the offset partner. Central government has submitted before Supreme Court the details of decision making process in the #Rafale deal with France with Court Secretary General, in sealed cover. pic.twitter.com/XxkUYbO7Em — ANI (@ANI) October 27, 2018 × (With inputs from agencies)

Government submits details of decision making in Rafale deal to Supreme Court

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