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

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday agreed to hear the petition on the internal feud between <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-top-boss-and-deputy-removed-nageswar-rao-takes-interim-charge-173104">Director and special director of CBI</a> and the consequent decision of Centre to ask ex-CBI top boss Alok Verma to go on leave.&nbsp;

However, as per available information, Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana both have been asked to proceed on leave pending inquiry with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).&nbsp;

The petition was filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director, Alok Verma who moved Supreme Court against the order on him being sent on leave.&nbsp;

His plea will be heard by the Supreme Court on Friday.

Earlier on Tuesday night, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) top boss Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, the special director who is the No 2 at CBI have been asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter.&nbsp;CBI joint director Nageshwar Rao took over the charge of the investigation agency as new interim chief.
<img alt="CBI" data-align="center" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2d351c90-3d51-4ae2-975e-7d12728c8c9c" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/CBI_0.jpg" />
Nageshwar Rao, a 1986 batch Indian Police Service officer of the Orissa cadre, hails from Telangana's Warangal district.&nbsp;

“The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved that during the period of the subsistence of the aforesaid interim measure, cited in reference above, Shri M Nageshwar Rao, IPS, presently working as Joint Director, CBI shall look after duties and functions of Director CBI and shall take over the duties and functions with immediate effect,” the government notification read.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday agreed to hear the petition on the internal feud between Director and special director of CBI and the consequent decision of Centre to ask ex-CBI top boss Alok Verma to go on leave.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday agreed to hear the petition on the internal feud between Director and special director of CBI and the consequent decision of Centre to ask ex-CBI top boss Alok Verma to go on leave. However, as per available information, Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana both have been asked to proceed on leave pending inquiry with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The petition was filed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director, Alok Verma who moved Supreme Court against the order on him being sent on leave. His plea will be heard by the Supreme Court on Friday. Earlier on Tuesday night, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) top boss Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, the special director who is the No 2 at CBI have been asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter. CBI joint director Nageshwar Rao took over the charge of the investigation agency as new interim chief. Nageshwar Rao, a 1986 batch Indian Police Service officer of the Orissa cadre, hails from Telangana's Warangal district. “The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved that during the period of the subsistence of the aforesaid interim measure, cited in reference above, Shri M Nageshwar Rao, IPS, presently working as Joint Director, CBI shall look after duties and functions of Director CBI and shall take over the duties and functions with immediate effect,” the government notification read.

CBI chief Alok Verma moves Supreme Court challenging govt's leave order

The Maharashtra government Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order by which the extension of time granted to state police to conclude probe in the Koregaon Bhima violence case was set aside.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court Wednesday had quashed the lower court’s decision by which the Maharashtra Police was granted more time to conclude the investigation and file the charge sheet in the violence case in which several rights activist had been made accused.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi considered the submissions of lawyer Nishant Katneshwar, appearing for the Maharashtra government, that the appeal needed to be heard on an urgent basis.&nbsp;

The lawyer said if the high court order is not stayed then accused in the violence case would become entitled to grant of statutory bail for want of non-filing of charge sheet within the stipulated period.

The bench, which also comprises Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said the appeal of the Maharashtra government would be heard on October 26.&nbsp;

Earlier, the apex court had refused to interfere with the arrest of five rights activists by the Maharashtra Police in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and declined to appoint a SIT for a probe into their arrest.

The Maharashtra Police had arrested five activists — Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha — in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave — ‘Elgaar Parishad’ — held last year that had later triggered violence at Koregaon-Bhima village in the state.&nbsp;

The Maharashtra government Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order by which the extension of time granted to state police to conclude probe in the Koregaon Bhima violence case was set aside.

The Maharashtra government Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order by which the extension of time granted to state police to conclude probe in the Koregaon Bhima violence case was set aside. The Bombay High Court Wednesday had quashed the lower court’s decision by which the Maharashtra Police was granted more time to conclude the investigation and file the charge sheet in the violence case in which several rights activist had been made accused. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi considered the submissions of lawyer Nishant Katneshwar, appearing for the Maharashtra government, that the appeal needed to be heard on an urgent basis. The lawyer said if the high court order is not stayed then accused in the violence case would become entitled to grant of statutory bail for want of non-filing of charge sheet within the stipulated period. The bench, which also comprises Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said the appeal of the Maharashtra government would be heard on October 26. Earlier, the apex court had refused to interfere with the arrest of five rights activists by the Maharashtra Police in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and declined to appoint a SIT for a probe into their arrest. The Maharashtra Police had arrested five activists — Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha — in connection with an FIR lodged following a conclave — ‘Elgaar Parishad’ — held last year that had later triggered violence at Koregaon-Bhima village in the state.

Bhima Koregaon case: Maharashtra govt moves Supreme Court challenging Bombay HC order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock over "vanished" 31 hills in the Aravalli area of Rajasthan and asked the state government to stop illegal mining in the 115.34-hectare area there within 48 hours.

The top court said though Rajasthan was earning a royalty of around Rs 5,000 crore from mining activities in Aravalli, it cannot endanger the lives of lakhs of people in Delhi as the disappearance of hills there could be one of reasons for rise in pollution level in the National Capital Region (NCR).

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta referred to the status report filed by Rajasthan government and said it indicated that illegal mining activity was going on in 115.34 hectare area in Aravalli range in the state.

It also referred to a report of the central empowered committee (CEC) which had said that out of 128 samples taken by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), as many as 31 hills or hillocks have vanished.

"31 hills or hillocks have disappeared. If hills will disappear in the country, what will happen? Have people become 'Hanuman' that they are running away with hills?" Justice Lokur asked the counsel appearing for Rajasthan.

"15-20 per cent hills have vanished in the state of Rajasthan. This is your ground truth. Whom you want to take for a ride?" the bench asked, adding that the state has failed to protect the Aravalli range from illegal mining.

The top court said that it was compelled to pass an order to stop illegal mining activities in 115.34-hectare area there within 48 hours as it appeared that the state has taken the issue "very lightly".

It directed the chief secretary of Rajasthan to file an affidavit regarding compliance of its order within this week and posted the matter for hearing on October 29.

The bench said that it was "not at all satisfied" with the contents of status report filed by the state as it mostly deals with the "so called incompetence" of the FSI.

It said that state of Rajasthan must appreciate that FSI was a body of Government of India and it would not be proper to made "wild allegations" against them.

During the hearing, the bench asked the state's counsel as to what steps have been taken by them to stop illegal mining activity in Aravalli area.

"We have issued show cause notices and FIRs have also been registered (in cases of illegal mining)," the counsel said.

The bench then told the counsel about the importance of having hills and said, "Hills are created by the God. There must be some reason if the God has done this. They (hills) act as barriers."

"If you start removing all the hills, pollution from different parts of areas nearby NCR will come to Delhi. This could be one of the reasons that we have so much pollution in Delhi. For sake of few miners in your state, you are endangering the lives of lakhs of people in Delhi," the bench said.

When the top court was told that Rajasthan was getting a royalty of around Rs 5,000 crore from mining activities, the bench said, "You (state) want royalty. You will get it but health expenses for people of Delhi will be 10 times of your royalty".

The state's counsel told the court that all the concerned government departments in Rajasthan were "on the job" to stop illegal mining.

To this, the bench said, "What kind of job? Damage has already been done to Delhi. You have not disputed the view of CEC that 31 hills or hillocks have disappeared."

"You give this Rs 5,000 crore (royalty) for health of people of Delhi. Hospitals in Delhi are over crowded, people are dying here," the bench said.

The counsel appearing for the CEC said that court must take the drastic step of stopping mining activities in Aravalli as the state would not take any action against them.

"It is completely a hopeless cause. If the government permits illegality to go on, what can anybody do then," the bench said, adding, "it is completely beyond control".

The court said it was not clear from status report filed by the state in September this year as to whether illegal mining in 115.34 hectares have stopped.

"We are giving you 48 hours to close these mines," the bench told the state's counsel.

The court was dealing with a matter related to illegal mining activities in Aravalli range.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock over "vanished" 31 hills in the Aravalli area of Rajasthan and asked the state government to stop illegal mining in the 115.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock over "vanished" 31 hills in the Aravalli area of Rajasthan and asked the state government to stop illegal mining in the 115.34-hectare area there within 48 hours. The top court said though Rajasthan was earning a royalty of around Rs 5,000 crore from mining activities in Aravalli, it cannot endanger the lives of lakhs of people in Delhi as the disappearance of hills there could be one of reasons for rise in pollution level in the National Capital Region (NCR). A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta referred to the status report filed by Rajasthan government and said it indicated that illegal mining activity was going on in 115.34 hectare area in Aravalli range in the state. It also referred to a report of the central empowered committee (CEC) which had said that out of 128 samples taken by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), as many as 31 hills or hillocks have vanished. "31 hills or hillocks have disappeared. If hills will disappear in the country, what will happen? Have people become 'Hanuman' that they are running away with hills?" Justice Lokur asked the counsel appearing for Rajasthan. "15-20 per cent hills have vanished in the state of Rajasthan. This is your ground truth. Whom you want to take for a ride?" the bench asked, adding that the state has failed to protect the Aravalli range from illegal mining. The top court said that it was compelled to pass an order to stop illegal mining activities in 115.34-hectare area there within 48 hours as it appeared that the state has taken the issue "very lightly". It directed the chief secretary of Rajasthan to file an affidavit regarding compliance of its order within this week and posted the matter for hearing on October 29. The bench said that it was "not at all satisfied" with the contents of status report filed by the state as it mostly deals with the "so called incompetence" of the FSI. It said that state of Rajasthan must appreciate that FSI was a body of Government of India and it would not be proper to made "wild allegations" against them. During the hearing, the bench asked the state's counsel as to what steps have been taken by them to stop illegal mining activity in Aravalli area. "We have issued show cause notices and FIRs have also been registered (in cases of illegal mining)," the counsel said. The bench then told the counsel about the importance of having hills and said, "Hills are created by the God. There must be some reason if the God has done this. They (hills) act as barriers." "If you start removing all the hills, pollution from different parts of areas nearby NCR will come to Delhi. This could be one of the reasons that we have so much pollution in Delhi. For sake of few miners in your state, you are endangering the lives of lakhs of people in Delhi," the bench said. When the top court was told that Rajasthan was getting a royalty of around Rs 5,000 crore from mining activities, the bench said, "You (state) want royalty. You will get it but health expenses for people of Delhi will be 10 times of your royalty". The state's counsel told the court that all the concerned government departments in Rajasthan were "on the job" to stop illegal mining. To this, the bench said, "What kind of job? Damage has already been done to Delhi. You have not disputed the view of CEC that 31 hills or hillocks have disappeared." "You give this Rs 5,000 crore (royalty) for health of people of Delhi. Hospitals in Delhi are over crowded, people are dying here," the bench said. The counsel appearing for the CEC said that court must take the drastic step of stopping mining activities in Aravalli as the state would not take any action against them. "It is completely a hopeless cause. If the government permits illegality to go on, what can anybody do then," the bench said, adding, "it is completely beyond control". The court said it was not clear from status report filed by the state in September this year as to whether illegal mining in 115.34 hectares have stopped. "We are giving you 48 hours to close these mines," the bench told the state's counsel. The court was dealing with a matter related to illegal mining activities in Aravalli range.

31 hills vanish in Aravalli, Supreme Court expresses shock

As Hindus including myself celebrated Vijayadasami last week, protests were raging against the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple to Lord Ayyappa in Kerala following the Supreme Court verdict that ended restrictions on the entry of females between the age of 10 and 50, approximating to the span when women have menstrual periods.&nbsp;

While I struggled to make sense of the judgment and the protests, I stumbled on an insightful tweet from Cas Mudde, one of the world's finest political scientists, that said, "Main difference in freedom of religion in France and United States: In the US the main aim is to keep the state out of religion. In France, the main aim is to keep religion out of the state. Says a lot about the state's priorities..."

My view is that India is a bit like France and a bit like the US. On the one hand, we have laws against cow slaughter that essentially enforce Hindu beliefs in a multi-religious society, implying a religious intervention in state laws. On the other hand, we have had the Supreme Court verdict declaring women and men as equals in entering the Sabarimala shrine that involves a clear state intervention in matters of religion.

If secularism means the separation of religion from state, we seem to be failing on both counts. But I believe there is a case for state and religion to co-engage to the extent possible to make the country a better place. In that sense, as review petitions pile up before the Supreme Court seeking the restoration of status quo on the ban of women in the Sabarimala temple, I do not take a simplistic view that women should be banned or that they should be allowed into the Sabarimala temple. This is because every religion, be it Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or Christianity, has essentially three layers: the spiritual, the mystical and the social. It is important to understand the philosophy and principles underlying religious beliefs and not just practices, customs and rituals, for us to arrive at a truly fair middle ground where religion and state can co-exist in harmony.

Some commentators believe that "Law is above faith" but that goes against the spirit of the Constitution that is democratic in character and in which the Right to Worship and Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression are essential features. We also have now the Supreme Court recognising the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. It is possible to recognise a pilgrimage as an act of collective worship based on common beliefs that need a collective right to privacy in ordained places. A shrine need not be a public property in the sense of a municipal park or a highway to have equal rights to access. In fact, the Supreme Court's privacy ruling also notes that "personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy." A religious tradition may be included in that category.

However, it is important to examine the principles underlying belief systems. Just as the police have a right to break into a party where banned drugs may be used, the law has the right to examine privacy and worship to the extent that it sees the nature of the engagement as constitutionally legitimate.&nbsp;

This is where I believe the Supreme Court should have an amicus curiae (friend of the court) that has advisory expertise in religious philosophy so that the honourable judges are guided well on the principles underlying the Sabarimala pilgrimage. It is important here to understand the three aspects of any religious order. If the Oxford dictionary definition of religion is taken, religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" as also "a particular system of faith and worship".

Here the spirituality comes from a belief in a supreme being and some noble human values underlying it, such as brotherhood, love, devotion or kindness. That seems common to most leading religions unless we count some rare, controversial faiths.

The social aspect of religion involves material things such as ownership of property, historic practices stemming out of pragmatism and plain habits that may have their roots in ecology or lifestyles.

In between the spiritual and social aspects lie the mystical. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "having a spiritual symbolic or allegorical significance that transcends human understanding". Close to this is the esoteric, defined as "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialised knowledge or interest."

On the one hand, we can say that in old times, given the arduous trek, pilgrimages were undertaken primarily by men and hence a ban on women can be dismissed as historical and no longer relevant. Manu S Pillai likens the current standoff to the temple entry movement that led to the Maharaja of Travancore allowing Dalits into Hindu shrines in Kerala in 1936 after fierce religious arguments. But Dalit entry seems to have had more to do with an attempt to quell social unrest based on caste discrimination rather than any faith in mystical arguments.

The Supreme Court would do well now to give Hindu groups a fair hearing by invoking experts in esoteric philosophy who also carry credibility not just as scholars but also as practitioners. Modern historians only observe facts and not the underlying principles and tenets (siddhanthas). The court should use its own sense to separate the esoteric and the mystical aspects from the social and give them some space under a right to privacy and worship.

Lord Ayyappa is a special deity who is said to have been born as per an esoteric legend to Lord Shiva as a male and Lord Vishnu taking the temporary form of a "Mohini" (alluring woman) to charm demons (asuras) in order to defeat them. Such a legend involves a deep esoteric meaning on sexuality that can be related closely to the vow of celibacy that pilgrims to Sabarimala undertake during their pilgrimage. The common link has to be explored systematically in terms of the siddhanthas for the court to see if there is room for a private right to worship.

On the other hand, we can interpret the vow of celibacy as an aspect of self-control that men must exercise over their sexuality. The presence of women, in this case, is more to do with the defeat of the demons within the pilgrims who can be charmed or deceived by woman power. In this case, male pilgrims will be enriched by a higher degree of self-control.

Let respected Hindu philosophers become amicus curiae to the Supreme Court to help judges decide on the matter keeping equally in mind the right to private esoterica and gender equality in the public sphere.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/in-sabarimala-case-review-supreme-court-must-hear-out-hindu-scholars-2150370.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

As Hindus including myself celebrated Vijayadasami last week, protests were raging against the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple to Lord Ayyappa in Kerala following the Supreme Court verdict that ended restrictions on the entry of females between the age of 10 and 50, approximating to the span when women have menstrual periods.

As Hindus including myself celebrated Vijayadasami last week, protests were raging against the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple to Lord Ayyappa in Kerala following the Supreme Court verdict that ended restrictions on the entry of females between the age of 10 and 50, approximating to the span when women have menstrual periods. While I struggled to make sense of the judgment and the protests, I stumbled on an insightful tweet from Cas Mudde, one of the world's finest political scientists, that said, "Main difference in freedom of religion in France and United States: In the US the main aim is to keep the state out of religion. In France, the main aim is to keep religion out of the state. Says a lot about the state's priorities..." My view is that India is a bit like France and a bit like the US. On the one hand, we have laws against cow slaughter that essentially enforce Hindu beliefs in a multi-religious society, implying a religious intervention in state laws. On the other hand, we have had the Supreme Court verdict declaring women and men as equals in entering the Sabarimala shrine that involves a clear state intervention in matters of religion. If secularism means the separation of religion from state, we seem to be failing on both counts. But I believe there is a case for state and religion to co-engage to the extent possible to make the country a better place. In that sense, as review petitions pile up before the Supreme Court seeking the restoration of status quo on the ban of women in the Sabarimala temple, I do not take a simplistic view that women should be banned or that they should be allowed into the Sabarimala temple. This is because every religion, be it Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or Christianity, has essentially three layers: the spiritual, the mystical and the social. It is important to understand the philosophy and principles underlying religious beliefs and not just practices, customs and rituals, for us to arrive at a truly fair middle ground where religion and state can co-exist in harmony. Some commentators believe that "Law is above faith" but that goes against the spirit of the Constitution that is democratic in character and in which the Right to Worship and Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression are essential features. We also have now the Supreme Court recognising the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. It is possible to recognise a pilgrimage as an act of collective worship based on common beliefs that need a collective right to privacy in ordained places. A shrine need not be a public property in the sense of a municipal park or a highway to have equal rights to access. In fact, the Supreme Court's privacy ruling also notes that "personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy." A religious tradition may be included in that category. However, it is important to examine the principles underlying belief systems. Just as the police have a right to break into a party where banned drugs may be used, the law has the right to examine privacy and worship to the extent that it sees the nature of the engagement as constitutionally legitimate. This is where I believe the Supreme Court should have an amicus curiae (friend of the court) that has advisory expertise in religious philosophy so that the honourable judges are guided well on the principles underlying the Sabarimala pilgrimage. It is important here to understand the three aspects of any religious order. If the Oxford dictionary definition of religion is taken, religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" as also "a particular system of faith and worship". Here the spirituality comes from a belief in a supreme being and some noble human values underlying it, such as brotherhood, love, devotion or kindness. That seems common to most leading religions unless we count some rare, controversial faiths. The social aspect of religion involves material things such as ownership of property, historic practices stemming out of pragmatism and plain habits that may have their roots in ecology or lifestyles. In between the spiritual and social aspects lie the mystical. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "having a spiritual symbolic or allegorical significance that transcends human understanding". Close to this is the esoteric, defined as "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialised knowledge or interest." On the one hand, we can say that in old times, given the arduous trek, pilgrimages were undertaken primarily by men and hence a ban on women can be dismissed as historical and no longer relevant. Manu S Pillai likens the current standoff to the temple entry movement that led to the Maharaja of Travancore allowing Dalits into Hindu shrines in Kerala in 1936 after fierce religious arguments. But Dalit entry seems to have had more to do with an attempt to quell social unrest based on caste discrimination rather than any faith in mystical arguments. The Supreme Court would do well now to give Hindu groups a fair hearing by invoking experts in esoteric philosophy who also carry credibility not just as scholars but also as practitioners. Modern historians only observe facts and not the underlying principles and tenets (siddhanthas). The court should use its own sense to separate the esoteric and the mystical aspects from the social and give them some space under a right to privacy and worship. Lord Ayyappa is a special deity who is said to have been born as per an esoteric legend to Lord Shiva as a male and Lord Vishnu taking the temporary form of a "Mohini" (alluring woman) to charm demons (asuras) in order to defeat them. Such a legend involves a deep esoteric meaning on sexuality that can be related closely to the vow of celibacy that pilgrims to Sabarimala undertake during their pilgrimage. The common link has to be explored systematically in terms of the siddhanthas for the court to see if there is room for a private right to worship. On the other hand, we can interpret the vow of celibacy as an aspect of self-control that men must exercise over their sexuality. The presence of women, in this case, is more to do with the defeat of the demons within the pilgrims who can be charmed or deceived by woman power. In this case, male pilgrims will be enriched by a higher degree of self-control. Let respected Hindu philosophers become amicus curiae to the Supreme Court to help judges decide on the matter keeping equally in mind the right to private esoterica and gender equality in the public sphere. (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)

In Sabarimala case review, Supreme Court must hear out Hindu scholars

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will hear on November 13 the petitions seeking a review of its earlier verdict that allowed entry of women of all age groups in Sabarimala Temple.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S.K. Kaul said the court is aware of the 19 petitions submitted seeking review of the judgment and has listed the hearing for November 13.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench by a ratio of 4:1 had held that women of all age groups should be allowed entry in Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple.

The doors to Sabarimala temple closed Monday night, six days after opening for the first time since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age, but climbing the 18 "sacred steps" leading to the sanctum sanctorum proved a tall order for them.

The temple will open briefly on November 5 evening for the next day's 'Chithira Attavisesham' to celebrate the birth anniversary of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last king of Travancore.

The doors of the shrine will open on November 17 for the three-month-long Mandalam Makaravilakku celebrations when lakhs of devotees from the country and abroad visit the place every year.

If the Supreme Court does not stay or overturn its own verdict by then, enforcing its historic order may prove to be a daunting task for the Kerala government.&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will hear on November 13 the petitions seeking a review of its earlier verdict that allowed entry of women of all age groups in Sabarimala Temple.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will hear on November 13 the petitions seeking a review of its earlier verdict that allowed entry of women of all age groups in Sabarimala Temple. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S.K. Kaul said the court is aware of the 19 petitions submitted seeking review of the judgment and has listed the hearing for November 13. A five-judge constitution bench by a ratio of 4:1 had held that women of all age groups should be allowed entry in Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple. The doors to Sabarimala temple closed Monday night, six days after opening for the first time since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age, but climbing the 18 "sacred steps" leading to the sanctum sanctorum proved a tall order for them. The temple will open briefly on November 5 evening for the next day's 'Chithira Attavisesham' to celebrate the birth anniversary of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last king of Travancore. The doors of the shrine will open on November 17 for the three-month-long Mandalam Makaravilakku celebrations when lakhs of devotees from the country and abroad visit the place every year. If the Supreme Court does not stay or overturn its own verdict by then, enforcing its historic order may prove to be a daunting task for the Kerala government. (With inputs from PTI)

Sabarimala temple verdict: Supreme Court to hear review petitions on November 13

Supreme Court: No ban on sale of Firecrackers

The doors to Sabarimala temple closed Monday night, six days after opening for the first time since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age, but climbing the 18 "sacred steps" leading to the sanctum sanctorum proved a tall order for them.

Valiant attempts by around a dozen women, including activists and journalists in the 10-50 years age group to script history came to nought as frenzied devotees of Lord Ayyappa, the eternally celibate deity, heckled and hassled them and forced them to retreat.

Yet another woman in the "barred" age group made a futile attempt Monday to reach Sabarimala but was turned back by agitated protesters.

Bindu, a Dalit activist, who was proceeding to Pamba at the foothills of Sabarimala temple from where devotees undertake an arduous 5 km trek to the shrine, was given police protection at her request, officials said.

However, when the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation bus she was travelling on with police personnel was about to reach Pamba, a group of BJP workers and those opposing the entry of girls and women aged between 10 and 50 years into the temple, blocked the road and forced her to alight.

She was then escorted to safety in a police jeep, officials said.

'Melsanti' or the head priest and other priests stood on both sides of the idol of Lord Ayyappa and recited divine song "Harivarasanam" and began putting off the lamps in the sanctum sanctorum halfway down the rendition.

As the last line was sung, the doors were closed and locked, shutting out, at least for the time being, spirited women of menstruating age from offering prayers to the deity.

The iron gates to the shrine were opened on Wednesday and every day since then women of the "barred" age group made brave but futile attempts to enter the shrine. Six women were prevented from entering the temple Sunday alone.

Kerala women's rights activist Rehana Fathima and Hyderabad journalist Kavitha Jakkal, wearing helmets and khaki, and surrounded by a police contingent, could manage to go up to Valiya Nadappandhal, the queue complex located a few metres away from the holy 'pathinettam padi', the 18 sacred steps, but not beyond.

Several people, including journalists, were injured on Wednesday as police cracked down on protesters who were up in arms against Kerala's Left Front government for its decision to enforce the Supreme Court order.

Hindu fringe groups called a strike the next day and both the Congress, the main opposition party in Kerala, and the BJP, which is desperately seeking to expand its footprint in the state, lent support to the agitation.

Meanwhile, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages Sabarimala temple, is meeting on Tuesday to discuss how to make an intervention in the Supreme Court while protecting the "interest of devotees".

"The TDB has the legal responsibility to protect the interest of devotees. We also have to look at the rituals and customs of the temple. The board will make its intervention in Supreme Court without harming this," its chief A Padmakumar told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram.

He said the meeting would decide the "nature" of the report to be submitted to the apex court.

The Supreme Court Monday said it would decide tomorrow as to when the petitions seeking a review of its Sabarimala verdict will be listed for hearing. In all, 19 review petitions are pending before it for hearing.

The state's Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran welcomed the TDB's decision to approach the Supreme Court with a comprehensive report about the recent developments in Sabarimala.

"It's a good decision...The TDB's move is to bring to the notice of the Supreme Court the difficulties faced by the real devotees," Surendran said.

He conceded that the LDF government was caught between the "devil and the deep sea" while executing the apex court order.

The Congress-led UDF has decided to hold a series of foot marches, vehicle rallies and meetings across the state to explain to people its stand on the issue and "expose" the ruling CPI(M) and BJP's "hidden agenda".

The temple will open briefly on November 5 evening for the next day's 'Chithira Attavisesham' to celebrate the birth anniversary of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last king of Travancore.

The doors of the shrine will open on November 17 for the three-month-long Mandalam Makaravilakku celebrations when lakhs of devotees from the country and abroad visit the place every year.

If the Supreme Court does not stay or overturn its own verdict by then, enforcing its historic order may prove to be a daunting task for the Kerala government.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The doors to Sabarimala temple closed Monday night, six days after opening for the first time since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age, but climbing the 18 "sacred steps" leading to the sanctum sanctorum proved a tall order for them.

The doors to Sabarimala temple closed Monday night, six days after opening for the first time since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age, but climbing the 18 "sacred steps" leading to the sanctum sanctorum proved a tall order for them. Valiant attempts by around a dozen women, including activists and journalists in the 10-50 years age group to script history came to nought as frenzied devotees of Lord Ayyappa, the eternally celibate deity, heckled and hassled them and forced them to retreat. Yet another woman in the "barred" age group made a futile attempt Monday to reach Sabarimala but was turned back by agitated protesters. Bindu, a Dalit activist, who was proceeding to Pamba at the foothills of Sabarimala temple from where devotees undertake an arduous 5 km trek to the shrine, was given police protection at her request, officials said. However, when the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation bus she was travelling on with police personnel was about to reach Pamba, a group of BJP workers and those opposing the entry of girls and women aged between 10 and 50 years into the temple, blocked the road and forced her to alight. She was then escorted to safety in a police jeep, officials said. 'Melsanti' or the head priest and other priests stood on both sides of the idol of Lord Ayyappa and recited divine song "Harivarasanam" and began putting off the lamps in the sanctum sanctorum halfway down the rendition. As the last line was sung, the doors were closed and locked, shutting out, at least for the time being, spirited women of menstruating age from offering prayers to the deity. The iron gates to the shrine were opened on Wednesday and every day since then women of the "barred" age group made brave but futile attempts to enter the shrine. Six women were prevented from entering the temple Sunday alone. Kerala women's rights activist Rehana Fathima and Hyderabad journalist Kavitha Jakkal, wearing helmets and khaki, and surrounded by a police contingent, could manage to go up to Valiya Nadappandhal, the queue complex located a few metres away from the holy 'pathinettam padi', the 18 sacred steps, but not beyond. Several people, including journalists, were injured on Wednesday as police cracked down on protesters who were up in arms against Kerala's Left Front government for its decision to enforce the Supreme Court order. Hindu fringe groups called a strike the next day and both the Congress, the main opposition party in Kerala, and the BJP, which is desperately seeking to expand its footprint in the state, lent support to the agitation. Meanwhile, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages Sabarimala temple, is meeting on Tuesday to discuss how to make an intervention in the Supreme Court while protecting the "interest of devotees". "The TDB has the legal responsibility to protect the interest of devotees. We also have to look at the rituals and customs of the temple. The board will make its intervention in Supreme Court without harming this," its chief A Padmakumar told reporters in Thiruvananthapuram. He said the meeting would decide the "nature" of the report to be submitted to the apex court. The Supreme Court Monday said it would decide tomorrow as to when the petitions seeking a review of its Sabarimala verdict will be listed for hearing. In all, 19 review petitions are pending before it for hearing. The state's Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran welcomed the TDB's decision to approach the Supreme Court with a comprehensive report about the recent developments in Sabarimala. "It's a good decision...The TDB's move is to bring to the notice of the Supreme Court the difficulties faced by the real devotees," Surendran said. He conceded that the LDF government was caught between the "devil and the deep sea" while executing the apex court order. The Congress-led UDF has decided to hold a series of foot marches, vehicle rallies and meetings across the state to explain to people its stand on the issue and "expose" the ruling CPI(M) and BJP's "hidden agenda". The temple will open briefly on November 5 evening for the next day's 'Chithira Attavisesham' to celebrate the birth anniversary of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last king of Travancore. The doors of the shrine will open on November 17 for the three-month-long Mandalam Makaravilakku celebrations when lakhs of devotees from the country and abroad visit the place every year. If the Supreme Court does not stay or overturn its own verdict by then, enforcing its historic order may prove to be a daunting task for the Kerala government.

Sabarimala shuts. Despite Supreme Court order, no woman is allowed to enter

The European Union's top court on Friday ordered Poland to "immediately suspend" its decision to lower the retirement age of its Supreme Court judges, which it said threatens judicial independence.

The European Commission, the bloc's executive arm, last month took Poland's rightwing government to the European Court of Justice for lowering the age at which Supreme Court judges must retire from 70 to 65.

"Poland must immediately suspend the application of the provisions of national legislation relating to the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges," the European Court of Justice said.

The Commission had asked the court in Luxembourg to take a decision as "soon as possible", warning that Warsaw was accelerating retirements.

Speaking in Brussels, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said his government had during "the last few hours received the court of justice decision".

"We will certainly respond to it," he added.

"We will see what these (EU) institutions are proposing. When we take them into consideration, several possibilities will be analysed."

The court said the order to suspend retirements "is to apply with retroactive effect" after noting that several judges had already been forced to retire.

The court, which said it would issue a final ruling at a later date, could impose fines if it finds Poland in breach of EU law.

The Commission has expressed concern the new retirement age will hasten the departure of judges appointed under previous governments, allowing the appointment of figures seen as loyal by Warsaw's current leadership.

The new retirement age requires more than a third of current Supreme Court judges to step down, including chief justice Malgorzata Gersdorf.

Calling the law a "purge", Gersdorf has refused to step down, citing a constitutional guarantee that she serve a six-year term until 2020.

The law more broadly violates Poland's obligations under the EU treaty, which it signed onto when it joined the bloc in 2004, the commission said.

The European Union's top court on Friday ordered Poland to "immediately suspend" its decision to lower the retirement age of its Supreme Court judges, which it said threatens judicial independence.

The European Union's top court on Friday ordered Poland to "immediately suspend" its decision to lower the retirement age of its Supreme Court judges, which it said threatens judicial independence. The European Commission, the bloc's executive arm, last month took Poland's rightwing government to the European Court of Justice for lowering the age at which Supreme Court judges must retire from 70 to 65. "Poland must immediately suspend the application of the provisions of national legislation relating to the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges," the European Court of Justice said. The Commission had asked the court in Luxembourg to take a decision as "soon as possible", warning that Warsaw was accelerating retirements. Speaking in Brussels, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said his government had during "the last few hours received the court of justice decision". "We will certainly respond to it," he added. "We will see what these (EU) institutions are proposing. When we take them into consideration, several possibilities will be analysed." The court said the order to suspend retirements "is to apply with retroactive effect" after noting that several judges had already been forced to retire. The court, which said it would issue a final ruling at a later date, could impose fines if it finds Poland in breach of EU law. The Commission has expressed concern the new retirement age will hasten the departure of judges appointed under previous governments, allowing the appointment of figures seen as loyal by Warsaw's current leadership. The new retirement age requires more than a third of current Supreme Court judges to step down, including chief justice Malgorzata Gersdorf. Calling the law a "purge", Gersdorf has refused to step down, citing a constitutional guarantee that she serve a six-year term until 2020. The law more broadly violates Poland's obligations under the EU treaty, which it signed onto when it joined the bloc in 2004, the commission said.

European Union top court orders Poland to suspend Supreme Court retirements

The iron gates of Sabarimala temple opened Wednesday for the first time since the Supreme Court allowed women of menstrual age to enter the shrine but by all indications none from the "banned" age group could make it to its hallowed precincts amid a welter of protests and violent clashes.

Women journalists were heckled, their vehicles smashed and young female Ayyappa devotees turned back as hordes of Hindu right activists besieged the road leading to the hill-top temple, abode to Lord Ayyappa, its eternally celibate deity, officials said. 
Chaos and mayhem ruled supreme on the road leading from Nilackal, the gateway to the shrine, to Pamba in the foothills from where the devotees start the arduous treck to Sabarimala, as activists of Hindu fringe groups fought pitched battles with police, leaving many injured and bleeding.

Incensed over Kerala's Left Front government's decision not to file a review plea against the Supreme Court's September 28 landmark order, protesters pelted police with stones and the latter hit right back with vengeance wielding batons with telling effect, leaving many fallen and writhing in pain on the road. 
Several protesters were seen being bundled into police vehicles, while siren blaring ambulances carried some to hospitals.

Simmering tension prevailing in Nilackal since morning erupted into raucous rowdyism as scores of activists of fringe groups heckled women journalists of at least four national TV channels and vandalised their vehicles.

National TV showed protesters wearing black and saffron turbans running after their cars, violently pounding and kicking the vehicles in a bid to stop them from proceeding to Pamba from Nilackal on way to Sabarimala.

At least 10 people from the media, including reporters and photojournalists, were injured and equipment of several of them damaged, senior minister E P Jayarajan said.

Denouncing the attacks on media, he said cases were being registered against the suspects under sections relating to non-bailable offences.

Unfazed by the unfolding violence, Madhavi, a gutsy woman from Andhra Pradesh in her 40s, tried to climb the Sabarimala hills to reach the Lord Ayyappa temple but was forced to return to Pamba, menaced by agitated male devotees.

Liby, a woman from Kerala's Alappuzha, also in the "banned" age group, was prevented from proceeding to Sabarimala at Pathanamthitta bus terminal. She was escorted to safety by police.

Both the Congress, the main opposition party in Kerala, and the BJP, which is desperately seeking to expand its footprint in the state, have lent support to the agitation against the Supreme Court verdict.

State Congress working president K Sudhakaran led his party workers in a protest at Nilackal to express solidarity with Ayyappa devotees.

An embattled Left Front government reacted sharply to the protests, with the state's religious trusts minister Kadakampally Surendran calling them "politically motivated". 
Surendran, who reviewed the situation and preparations for the three-month-long Mandalam-Makaravilakku-festival beginning November 17 at Sannidhanam (Sabarimala temple complex), said the government would tackle the agitation politically.

"The BJP-RSS are trying to create tension and destroy the peaceful atmosphere in Kerala for political gain. We know the agenda of the RSS and BJP very well," he said, and insisted the government did not want any confrontation with believers.

The BJP rejected the allegation, saying the government was responsible for the "collapse" of law and order.

Party leader and MP V Muraleedharan said the government should shed its stubbornness and respect the sentiments of the people of Kerala. 
Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala blamed both the ruling CPI(M) and the BJP-RSS combine for violence.

Even as streets in Nilackal and Pamba erupted in tumult, thousands of bare-chested Ayyappa devotees waited patiently in the vast concourse outside Sabarimala for its gates to open at the appointed hour--5 pm.

Carrying "Irumudikettu" (the sacred bundle containing ghee-filled coconuts they offer to the deity), they calmly walked past security personnel to take their place in the long queue where they would wait for hours on end for a glimpse of Lord Ayyappa.

Though older women and very young girls could be seen in the crowd, none of menstrual age was spotted.

"No girl or woman in the age group of 10 and 50 has so far visited Sannidhanam (the temple complex) so far," a senior official of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the body which manages the shrine, told PTI wishing not to be named.

The shrine will remain open for the 5-day monthly pooja during the Malayalam month of Thulam before being closed on October 22.

The Pathanamthitta district authority has promulgated prohibitory orders under section 144 CrPC banning assembly of four or more people in strife-torn Pamba and Nilackal following Wednesday's violence and a strike called by right wing outfits. 
'Antharashtriya Hindu Parishad' led by Pravin Togadia and the 'Sabarimala Samrakshana Samithi', an outfit of devotees, have called a 24-hour-long hartal starting midnight.

The BJP and its NDA partners have backed a 12-hour 'hartal' called by Sabarimkala Action Council to protest the police action against devotees. The Congress said it would not join the strike but hold protest demonstrations across the state on Thursday.&nbsp;

The iron gates of Sabarimala temple opened Wednesday for the first time since the Supreme Court allowed women of menstrual age to enter the shrine but by all indications none from the "banned" age group could make it to its hallowed precincts amid a welter of protests and violent clashes.

The iron gates of Sabarimala temple opened Wednesday for the first time since the Supreme Court allowed women of menstrual age to enter the shrine but by all indications none from the "banned" age group could make it to its hallowed precincts amid a welter of protests and violent clashes. Women journalists were heckled, their vehicles smashed and young female Ayyappa devotees turned back as hordes of Hindu right activists besieged the road leading to the hill-top temple, abode to Lord Ayyappa, its eternally celibate deity, officials said. Chaos and mayhem ruled supreme on the road leading from Nilackal, the gateway to the shrine, to Pamba in the foothills from where the devotees start the arduous treck to Sabarimala, as activists of Hindu fringe groups fought pitched battles with police, leaving many injured and bleeding. Incensed over Kerala's Left Front government's decision not to file a review plea against the Supreme Court's September 28 landmark order, protesters pelted police with stones and the latter hit right back with vengeance wielding batons with telling effect, leaving many fallen and writhing in pain on the road. Several protesters were seen being bundled into police vehicles, while siren blaring ambulances carried some to hospitals. Simmering tension prevailing in Nilackal since morning erupted into raucous rowdyism as scores of activists of fringe groups heckled women journalists of at least four national TV channels and vandalised their vehicles. National TV showed protesters wearing black and saffron turbans running after their cars, violently pounding and kicking the vehicles in a bid to stop them from proceeding to Pamba from Nilackal on way to Sabarimala. At least 10 people from the media, including reporters and photojournalists, were injured and equipment of several of them damaged, senior minister E P Jayarajan said. Denouncing the attacks on media, he said cases were being registered against the suspects under sections relating to non-bailable offences. Unfazed by the unfolding violence, Madhavi, a gutsy woman from Andhra Pradesh in her 40s, tried to climb the Sabarimala hills to reach the Lord Ayyappa temple but was forced to return to Pamba, menaced by agitated male devotees. Liby, a woman from Kerala's Alappuzha, also in the "banned" age group, was prevented from proceeding to Sabarimala at Pathanamthitta bus terminal. She was escorted to safety by police. Both the Congress, the main opposition party in Kerala, and the BJP, which is desperately seeking to expand its footprint in the state, have lent support to the agitation against the Supreme Court verdict. State Congress working president K Sudhakaran led his party workers in a protest at Nilackal to express solidarity with Ayyappa devotees. An embattled Left Front government reacted sharply to the protests, with the state's religious trusts minister Kadakampally Surendran calling them "politically motivated". Surendran, who reviewed the situation and preparations for the three-month-long Mandalam-Makaravilakku-festival beginning November 17 at Sannidhanam (Sabarimala temple complex), said the government would tackle the agitation politically. "The BJP-RSS are trying to create tension and destroy the peaceful atmosphere in Kerala for political gain. We know the agenda of the RSS and BJP very well," he said, and insisted the government did not want any confrontation with believers. The BJP rejected the allegation, saying the government was responsible for the "collapse" of law and order. Party leader and MP V Muraleedharan said the government should shed its stubbornness and respect the sentiments of the people of Kerala. Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala blamed both the ruling CPI(M) and the BJP-RSS combine for violence. Even as streets in Nilackal and Pamba erupted in tumult, thousands of bare-chested Ayyappa devotees waited patiently in the vast concourse outside Sabarimala for its gates to open at the appointed hour--5 pm. Carrying "Irumudikettu" (the sacred bundle containing ghee-filled coconuts they offer to the deity), they calmly walked past security personnel to take their place in the long queue where they would wait for hours on end for a glimpse of Lord Ayyappa. Though older women and very young girls could be seen in the crowd, none of menstrual age was spotted. "No girl or woman in the age group of 10 and 50 has so far visited Sannidhanam (the temple complex) so far," a senior official of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the body which manages the shrine, told PTI wishing not to be named. The shrine will remain open for the 5-day monthly pooja during the Malayalam month of Thulam before being closed on October 22. The Pathanamthitta district authority has promulgated prohibitory orders under section 144 CrPC banning assembly of four or more people in strife-torn Pamba and Nilackal following Wednesday's violence and a strike called by right wing outfits. 'Antharashtriya Hindu Parishad' led by Pravin Togadia and the 'Sabarimala Samrakshana Samithi', an outfit of devotees, have called a 24-hour-long hartal starting midnight. The BJP and its NDA partners have backed a 12-hour 'hartal' called by Sabarimkala Action Council to protest the police action against devotees. The Congress said it would not join the strike but hold protest demonstrations across the state on Thursday.

Gates of Kerala's Sabarimala open, women are not allowed to enter

WION Gravitas: Sabarimala temple gates open after Supreme Court verdict

Kerala Police on Saturday registered a case against the Malayali actor-turned BJP supporter Kollam Thulasi for his speech at a protest rally against Sabarimala verdict a day before.

Actor Kollam Thulasi&nbsp;made a controversial remark, threatening women from entering inside the Sabarimala temple.

He said, "Women coming to Sabarimala temple should be ripped into the half," adding, "one half should be sent to Delhi and the other half should be thrown towards Chief Minister's (Pinarayi Vijayan) office in Thiruvananthapuram."&nbsp;

On September 28, the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple saying that "no physiological and biological factor can be given legitimacy if it doesn't pass the test of conditionality".

The verdict has received mixed reactions from people across the nation. While many including the Kerala state government welcomed the decision, a large number of devotees have organised protests, demanding to retain the age-old tradition.

Four review petitions have been filed against the Sabarimala judgement.&nbsp;

Before the judgement, women aged 10 to 50 were not allowed to visit the temple as per 'traditions'.

(With inputs from news agencies)

Kerala Police on Saturday registered a case against the Malayali actor-turned BJP supporter Kollam Thulasi for his speech at a protest rally against Sabarimala verdict a day before.

Kerala Police on Saturday registered a case against the Malayali actor-turned BJP supporter Kollam Thulasi for his speech at a protest rally against Sabarimala verdict a day before. Actor Kollam Thulasi made a controversial remark, threatening women from entering inside the Sabarimala temple. He said, "Women coming to Sabarimala temple should be ripped into the half," adding, "one half should be sent to Delhi and the other half should be thrown towards Chief Minister's (Pinarayi Vijayan) office in Thiruvananthapuram." On September 28, the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple saying that "no physiological and biological factor can be given legitimacy if it doesn't pass the test of conditionality". The verdict has received mixed reactions from people across the nation. While many including the Kerala state government welcomed the decision, a large number of devotees have organised protests, demanding to retain the age-old tradition. Four review petitions have been filed against the Sabarimala judgement. Before the judgement, women aged 10 to 50 were not allowed to visit the temple as per 'traditions'. (With inputs from news agencies)

Police file case against Kerala actor who said women entering Sabarimala should be torn in half

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay.

The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9.

Justice NH Patil, the senior-most judge and also the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for the appointment as Chief Justice, the post which has been lying vacant since December 2017.

"It is made clear that the Collegium while making the recommendation is conscious of the fact that Justice N.H. Patil hails from Bombay High Court and is due to retire in April 2019. In this connection, the Collegium has invoked the provision of the Memorandum of Procedure which provides for elevation of a puisne Judge as Chief Justice in his own High Court if he has one year or less to retire," read the resolution.

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice DK Gupta as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Gupta, the senior-most judge of the High Court and present acting Chief Justice, is due to retire in December 2018.

Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, the senior-most judge of the Hyderabad High Court, has been recommended for the appointment to the post of next Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.

The post of Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court has been lying vacant since the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court this year.Justice Ranganathan will retire in January 2019.

The apex court Collegium has made the recommendation of Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, the senior-most judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the appointment of next Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court.

Recommending the name of Justice Bist for Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, the Collegium took into consideration the fact that there has been no Chief Justice from the

Uttarakhand High Court since the elevation of Justice PC Pant to the Supreme Court in 2014.

For Guwahati High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice AS Bopanna, the senior judge from the Karnataka High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay. The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay. The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9. Justice NH Patil, the senior-most judge and also the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for the appointment as Chief Justice, the post which has been lying vacant since December 2017. "It is made clear that the Collegium while making the recommendation is conscious of the fact that Justice N.H. Patil hails from Bombay High Court and is due to retire in April 2019. In this connection, the Collegium has invoked the provision of the Memorandum of Procedure which provides for elevation of a puisne Judge as Chief Justice in his own High Court if he has one year or less to retire," read the resolution. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice DK Gupta as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Gupta, the senior-most judge of the High Court and present acting Chief Justice, is due to retire in December 2018. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, the senior-most judge of the Hyderabad High Court, has been recommended for the appointment to the post of next Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The post of Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court has been lying vacant since the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court this year.Justice Ranganathan will retire in January 2019. The apex court Collegium has made the recommendation of Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, the senior-most judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the appointment of next Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court. Recommending the name of Justice Bist for Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, the Collegium took into consideration the fact that there has been no Chief Justice from the Uttarakhand High Court since the elevation of Justice PC Pant to the Supreme Court in 2014. For Guwahati High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice AS Bopanna, the senior judge from the Karnataka High Court.

Supreme Court Collegium recommends chief justices to 5 high courts

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday rapped the accountability court for its delay to complete the trial of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family in corruption cases and gave a final extension to it to conclude the hearings by November 17.

Three cases were launched against the Sharif family in September 2017 following his disqualification on July 28 the same year.

The Supreme Court had initially given a six-month deadline to the accountability court in Islamabad to wrap up the cases but subsequently extended the period on the demand of the trial court.

So far only one case was decided on July 6, whereas the trial in two cases are still on.&nbsp;

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar on Friday heard the extension plea of the accountability court judge, Justice Muhammad Arshad Malik.

The apex court accepted the plea and directed that the trial should be completed by November 17.

Remarking that the accountability court judge will be questioned if the trial is not wrapped up during the given time, the apex court said it will not any grant further extension to conclude the trial if the cases are not concluded by the new deadline.&nbsp;

The trial in Al Azizia and Flagship corruption cases are on, while the Avenfield case was already decided.

Sharif, his daughter Maryam and son-in-law Muhammad Safdar were convicted and sentenced to prison for ten years, seven years and one year respectively in the Avenfield verdict.

However, the convictions were suspended by the Islamabad High Court and they were released from Adiala jail last month.&nbsp;

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday rapped the accountability court for its delay to complete the trial of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family in corruption cases and gave a final extension to it to conclude the hearings by November 17.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday rapped the accountability court for its delay to complete the trial of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family in corruption cases and gave a final extension to it to conclude the hearings by November 17. Three cases were launched against the Sharif family in September 2017 following his disqualification on July 28 the same year. The Supreme Court had initially given a six-month deadline to the accountability court in Islamabad to wrap up the cases but subsequently extended the period on the demand of the trial court. So far only one case was decided on July 6, whereas the trial in two cases are still on. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar on Friday heard the extension plea of the accountability court judge, Justice Muhammad Arshad Malik. The apex court accepted the plea and directed that the trial should be completed by November 17. Remarking that the accountability court judge will be questioned if the trial is not wrapped up during the given time, the apex court said it will not any grant further extension to conclude the trial if the cases are not concluded by the new deadline. The trial in Al Azizia and Flagship corruption cases are on, while the Avenfield case was already decided. Sharif, his daughter Maryam and son-in-law Muhammad Safdar were convicted and sentenced to prison for ten years, seven years and one year respectively in the Avenfield verdict. However, the convictions were suspended by the Islamabad High Court and they were released from Adiala jail last month.

Pak Supreme Court unhappy with accountability court's delay in concluding graft cases against Sharif family

Watch: WION Your Story, 12th October, 2018

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed two separate petitions of senior Congress leaders Kamal Nath and Sachin Pilot seeking directions to the Election Commission to provide the draft voters' list in poll-bound Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in text format, news agency PTI reported.

"We have dismissed these petitions," said a bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. &nbsp;

The apex court had reserved its verdict on October 8 on the plea of leaders alleging duplication of voters in the list and sought a proper redressal of grievances to ensure free and fair elections.

Polls in Madhya Pradesh will be held on November 28 and in Rajasthan on December 7.

The plea filed by Nath said directions should be issued to publish the voters' lists in a "text format as per rules", instead of the PDF format, and expeditious decisions are taken on all complaints before their final publication, the report added.

The senior Congress leader has also said a direction should be issued to the poll panel to randomly verify the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with votes cast on electronic voting machines (EVMs) at 10 per cent randomly-selected polling stations in every constituency.

On September 18, the poll panel had, in its affidavit, justified providing the draft electoral roll in PDF format in Madhya Pradesh without the pictures of the voters and said it was done to prevent manipulation of electors' data. 
The pleas of leaders further alleged that according to a survey, there were over 60 lakh fake voters in Madhya Pradesh and similarly, in Rajasthan, there were over 41 lakh duplicate voters.

In Rajasthan, the poll panel had added 71 lakh new voters, the plea said, demanding that directions be given to remove inconsistencies and conduct free and fair elections.&nbsp;

(With PTI inputs)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed two separate petitions of senior Congress leaders Kamal Nath and Sachin Pilot seeking directions to the Election Commission to provide the draft voters' list in poll-bound Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in text format, news agency PTI reported.

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed two separate petitions of senior Congress leaders Kamal Nath and Sachin Pilot seeking directions to the Election Commission to provide the draft voters' list in poll-bound Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in text format, news agency PTI reported. "We have dismissed these petitions," said a bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. The apex court had reserved its verdict on October 8 on the plea of leaders alleging duplication of voters in the list and sought a proper redressal of grievances to ensure free and fair elections. Polls in Madhya Pradesh will be held on November 28 and in Rajasthan on December 7. The plea filed by Nath said directions should be issued to publish the voters' lists in a "text format as per rules", instead of the PDF format, and expeditious decisions are taken on all complaints before their final publication, the report added. The senior Congress leader has also said a direction should be issued to the poll panel to randomly verify the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with votes cast on electronic voting machines (EVMs) at 10 per cent randomly-selected polling stations in every constituency. On September 18, the poll panel had, in its affidavit, justified providing the draft electoral roll in PDF format in Madhya Pradesh without the pictures of the voters and said it was done to prevent manipulation of electors' data. The pleas of leaders further alleged that according to a survey, there were over 60 lakh fake voters in Madhya Pradesh and similarly, in Rajasthan, there were over 41 lakh duplicate voters. In Rajasthan, the poll panel had added 71 lakh new voters, the plea said, demanding that directions be given to remove inconsistencies and conduct free and fair elections. (With PTI inputs)

Supreme Court dismisses Congress leaders' plea on voters' list of MP, Rajasthan 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the sealing of nine properties of embattled real estate company Amrapali after its three directors, who are in police custody, said that the documents related to the group's 46 firms were stored there.

The three directors moved an application before a bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud stating that they were willing to hand over all the documents but the police were unaware about which one needed to be seized.

The court's order came a day after three directors of the group -- Anil Kumar Sharma, Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar -- were ordered to be taken into police custody and the firm was castigated for playing "hide and seek" with the court by not complying with its orders to hand over all the documents to the forensic auditors.

These directors told the bench that documents related to Amrapali's 46 group companies were kept in seven locations at Noida and Greater Noida and two premises -- Rajgir and Buxar districts in Bihar.

"We direct the concerned police, Superintendent of Police of Noida and Greater Noida to seal all the seven premises in the presence of these directors," the bench said.

"We direct the Superintendent of Police of Rajgir and Buxar to immediately go to these (two) places and seal it," the bench said.

It further directed that after the sealing of these nine premises, the keys be handed over to the registrar of the apex court.

The bench also made it clear that only the court-appointed forensic auditors -- Ravi Bhatia and Pawan Kumar Aggarwal -- and persons authorised by them would enter these premises after they were sealed.

The court also asked the three directors to furnish an undertaking before it by tomorrow stating that all the documents were available at these nine premises only and not a single document was lying at any other place.

The three directors also told the bench that they be kept at police station and not in the lock up during this period.

"If the entire exercise of sealing of these seven premises at Noida and Greater Noida will be completed today, the presence of these three applicants will not be insisted upon by the police," the bench said.

"If the exercise will not be completed, the present status will continue," the bench said and asked the Delhi Police to keep these three directors at the police station but not in the lockup.

The bench said that compliance report of its order be placed before the court and directed that the three directors would also remain present before it tomorrow.

The bench noted the submissions of the counsel appearing for the three directors that the group has received e-mail from the forensic auditors indicating the documents required by them.

The directors also told the court that company wise list of all bank accounts were available till 2015 and after that, raw data was available with them and they would hand over all the documents in entirety.

The bench directed that its order be telephonically communicated to the Superintendent of Police of Rajgir and Buxar so that they could take appropriate steps.

The court is seized of a batch of petitions filed by home buyers who are seeking possession of around 42,000 flats booked in projects of the Amrapali group.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the sealing of nine properties of embattled real estate company Amrapali after its three directors, who are in police custody, said that the documents related to the group's 46 firms were stored there.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the sealing of nine properties of embattled real estate company Amrapali after its three directors, who are in police custody, said that the documents related to the group's 46 firms were stored there. The three directors moved an application before a bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud stating that they were willing to hand over all the documents but the police were unaware about which one needed to be seized. The court's order came a day after three directors of the group -- Anil Kumar Sharma, Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar -- were ordered to be taken into police custody and the firm was castigated for playing "hide and seek" with the court by not complying with its orders to hand over all the documents to the forensic auditors. These directors told the bench that documents related to Amrapali's 46 group companies were kept in seven locations at Noida and Greater Noida and two premises -- Rajgir and Buxar districts in Bihar. "We direct the concerned police, Superintendent of Police of Noida and Greater Noida to seal all the seven premises in the presence of these directors," the bench said. "We direct the Superintendent of Police of Rajgir and Buxar to immediately go to these (two) places and seal it," the bench said. It further directed that after the sealing of these nine premises, the keys be handed over to the registrar of the apex court. The bench also made it clear that only the court-appointed forensic auditors -- Ravi Bhatia and Pawan Kumar Aggarwal -- and persons authorised by them would enter these premises after they were sealed. The court also asked the three directors to furnish an undertaking before it by tomorrow stating that all the documents were available at these nine premises only and not a single document was lying at any other place. The three directors also told the bench that they be kept at police station and not in the lock up during this period. "If the entire exercise of sealing of these seven premises at Noida and Greater Noida will be completed today, the presence of these three applicants will not be insisted upon by the police," the bench said. "If the exercise will not be completed, the present status will continue," the bench said and asked the Delhi Police to keep these three directors at the police station but not in the lockup. The bench said that compliance report of its order be placed before the court and directed that the three directors would also remain present before it tomorrow. The bench noted the submissions of the counsel appearing for the three directors that the group has received e-mail from the forensic auditors indicating the documents required by them. The directors also told the court that company wise list of all bank accounts were available till 2015 and after that, raw data was available with them and they would hand over all the documents in entirety. The bench directed that its order be telephonically communicated to the Superintendent of Police of Rajgir and Buxar so that they could take appropriate steps. The court is seized of a batch of petitions filed by home buyers who are seeking possession of around 42,000 flats booked in projects of the Amrapali group.

SC orders sealing of 9 properties of Amrapali Group

The Supreme Court bench, headed by newly-appointed CJI Ranjan Gogoi, on Tuesday, refused urgent hearing on a review petition challenging the top court's verdict on the Sabarimala temple issue, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

According to reports, the apex court noted, "review petitions to come up for hearing in due course."

National Ayyappa Devotee association on Monday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-verdict-national-ayyappa-devotee-association-challenges-scs-order-files-review-petition-170172">filed a review petition in the Supreme Court</a> challenging its verdict to allow entry of women into the Ayyappa temple in Kerala, news agency ANI reported.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing on a review petition filed against the verdict allowing entry of women of all ages in Kerala's Sabarimala temple. Supreme Court says, 'review petitions to come up for hearing in due course.' <a href="https://t.co/PuHTc2abkh">pic.twitter.com/PuHTc2abkh</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1049531972480114688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 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 plea, filed by Shylaja Vijayan, president of National Ayyappa Devotees Association, said the September 28 judgment which had allowed entry of women of all ages in the hill-top shrine is "absolutely untenable and irrational, if not perverse".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court verdict over women's entry in Kerala's <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SabarimalaTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SabarimalaTemple</a>: National Ayyappa Devotee association files a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the earlier verdict of the Court.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1049170626546556928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 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>

Women of menstruating age, ageing 10 and 50, were barred from entering the Sabarimala Temple by its officials, who argued that the temple deity, Lord Ayyappa, had taken a vow of celibacy.

On September 28, a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ruled that banning women's entry into the temple is gender discrimination and violates the rights of Hindu women.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
RSS is trying to create a law and order situation in the state taking advantage of this verdict. Government is bound to implement the Supreme Court verdict: Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan on Sabarimala Temple verdict <a href="https://t.co/XCGvvj1szX">pic.twitter.com/XCGvvj1szX</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1049200041452290050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 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>

Meanwhile, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday stated that "the RSS is trying to create a law and order situation in the state taking advantage of this verdict. Government is bound to implement the Supreme Court verdict: Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan on Sabarimala Temple verdict."

The Supreme Court bench, headed by newly-appointed CJI Ranjan Gogoi, on Tuesday, refused urgent hearing on a review petition challenging the top court's verdict on the Sabarimala temple issue, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court bench, headed by newly-appointed CJI Ranjan Gogoi, on Tuesday, refused urgent hearing on a review petition challenging the top court's verdict on the Sabarimala temple issue, news agency ANI reported. According to reports, the apex court noted, "review petitions to come up for hearing in due course." National Ayyappa Devotee association on Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging its verdict to allow entry of women into the Ayyappa temple in Kerala, news agency ANI reported. Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing on a review petition filed against the verdict allowing entry of women of all ages in Kerala's Sabarimala temple. Supreme Court says, 'review petitions to come up for hearing in due course.' pic.twitter.com/PuHTc2abkh — ANI (@ANI) October 9, 2018 × The plea, filed by Shylaja Vijayan, president of National Ayyappa Devotees Association, said the September 28 judgment which had allowed entry of women of all ages in the hill-top shrine is "absolutely untenable and irrational, if not perverse". Supreme Court verdict over women's entry in Kerala's #SabarimalaTemple: National Ayyappa Devotee association files a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the earlier verdict of the Court. — ANI (@ANI) October 8, 2018 × Women of menstruating age, ageing 10 and 50, were barred from entering the Sabarimala Temple by its officials, who argued that the temple deity, Lord Ayyappa, had taken a vow of celibacy. On September 28, a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ruled that banning women's entry into the temple is gender discrimination and violates the rights of Hindu women. RSS is trying to create a law and order situation in the state taking advantage of this verdict. Government is bound to implement the Supreme Court verdict: Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan on Sabarimala Temple verdict pic.twitter.com/XCGvvj1szX — ANI (@ANI) October 8, 2018 × Meanwhile, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday stated that "the RSS is trying to create a law and order situation in the state taking advantage of this verdict. Government is bound to implement the Supreme Court verdict: Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan on Sabarimala Temple verdict."

Supreme Court refuses to hear plea challenging Sabarimala verdict

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre and others on a plea seeking an Assam-style NRC in Tripura.&nbsp;

Assam released the second and final draft of its NRC on July 30. The Supreme Court-mandated National Register of Citizens, which aims to decide who is a citizen of Assam, and therefore of India, has left 40 lakh people off its roles.&nbsp;

It is unclear what will finally happen to these 40 lakh people. Commentators have said they might end up like the Rohingya — a stateless people.&nbsp;

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh had said on July 30 that none of the 40 lakh people are going to be deported. He added that they would also have full recourse to the law. That is, the 40 lakh people are going to be allowed to appeal their exclusion from the NRC.&nbsp;

BJP president Amit Shah however has on more than once occassion said all Bangladeshi "infiltrators" will be tracked down and deported. He has also compared Bangladesh immigrants in India to "termites" saying they are a drain on the state's resources.&nbsp;

Bangladesh has said the comments were "unwanted".&nbsp;

On Sunday, news reports quoted Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Deb as saying the state would go in for an NRC-like exercise if it turned out to be successful in Assam.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre and others on a plea seeking an Assam-style NRC in Tripura. Assam released the second and final draft of its NRC on July 30.

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre and others on a plea seeking an Assam-style NRC in Tripura. Assam released the second and final draft of its NRC on July 30. The Supreme Court-mandated National Register of Citizens, which aims to decide who is a citizen of Assam, and therefore of India, has left 40 lakh people off its roles. It is unclear what will finally happen to these 40 lakh people. Commentators have said they might end up like the Rohingya — a stateless people. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh had said on July 30 that none of the 40 lakh people are going to be deported. He added that they would also have full recourse to the law. That is, the 40 lakh people are going to be allowed to appeal their exclusion from the NRC. BJP president Amit Shah however has on more than once occassion said all Bangladeshi "infiltrators" will be tracked down and deported. He has also compared Bangladesh immigrants in India to "termites" saying they are a drain on the state's resources. Bangladesh has said the comments were "unwanted". On Sunday, news reports quoted Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Deb as saying the state would go in for an NRC-like exercise if it turned out to be successful in Assam.

Plea for NRC in Tripura: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, others

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date.

A welcome step by the new CJI

This is an excellent and welcome step. We should appreciate that. I always hold this view that biggest injustice is being perpetuated through this mentioning system, by virtue of which while about 50000 cases pending in the apex court gets adding on with long waiting periods and ever exploding dockets in the Court. Senior lawyers are able to muscle their cases to get priority hearing. More so in the recent past, if the trend is any indicator, the case of Urban Naxals getting relief within a day had set the cat amongst the pigeons.&nbsp;

Imposition of fees and charges

Indeed, in case this mentioning system is to be sustained it should be on more objective criteria. Since the time of the Supreme Court is a critical resource in the justice delivery system, I would suggest imposing exemplary fees/charges to be paid by the litigant to be allowed into the mentioning list itself.

Why not keep the fees at Rs 10,000, to begin with? This will enable some check on the tendency of lawyers and litigants to get priority hearing of their respective cases over the pending ones, and hence perpetuating the injustice to the waiting litigants as well as mitigating the docket explosion. Further, the likes of the Yakub Memon case, which gets mentioned in the middle of the night, the fees could be much higher. Similarly, the system could also prescribe a fee of high value for cases to be brought before the vacation judge.

Also in the other courts 
 
Having said that, this vice of mentioning and priority hearings is not limited to the apex court alone. Hence, any such imposition of the fees should be perpetuated to the judiciary below the Supreme Court, like the High Courts and the lower judiciary also. By this, we can certainly address the issue of pendency in court cases.&nbsp;

User charges 
 
In this context, it is a matter of record that the government is mulling over the imposition of user charges for services, which were generally deemed as gratis services. This has already been put in place in the health sector in some form. In the education sector, the private institutions have already taken over. In other infrastructure, like roads, we have toll charges. Water, Electricity and piped gas are billed as per the consumption level. It is therefore important that we introduce a kind of fees or user charges for getting priority hearings.

Fees/fines and charges in courts 
 
At the same time, it is not the mentioning alone which is the malaise contributing to the pendency of cases and docket explosion. There are many other factors. Take for example adjournments. Many times, adjournments are sought and granted because one of the leading lawyers is not prepared. I do not discourage this. But his non-preparation adds up to the pendency and pressure on the courts. An adjournment charge should be imposed on such cases so that this trend is discouraged overwhelmingly. In addition, the other party should be compensated with appropriate costs. This is in the discretion of the presiding judges, who are reluctant to invoke their discretion. These costs should be brought in the relevant court rules.

Similarly, is the trend of pass overs. At times, on the pretext that the leading advocate is engaged in some other court, there is a tendency of deputing a junior lawyer to seek pass over. A modest fee of maybe Rs 500 should be imposed. An enabling provision should be made in the relevant Court Rules.

Mediation and other alternative methods 
 
It is further a fact that most cases are resolvable through dialogue between the parties. An enabling provision empowering the courts to refer the parties, with their respective consents, is available in the Civil Procedure Code. Many Honourable Judges also are in favour. But at times the litigants do not cooperate.

In this context, in one of my interaction with a former Chief Justice of India, during an informal meeting, I threw open this. At that time he was the incumbent Chief Justice of India. He immediately responded that he would welcome that. But in India most people litigate for their (in chaste Tamil, he said meesai) moustaches, meaning self-respect or esteem.

In case a lawyer, when approached, finding no merit in the case tenders honest advice, he will have to wind up his practice. So, the common recourse lawyers take is advising the litigant that the case incontestable. These are words of wisdom from a very excellent, erudite Chief Justice of India.

Hence, there should be a fee imposed on litigants for refusing any of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism references by the courts, using their powers as well as a failure of the parties to reach any settlement in mediation, as my good learned friend and excellent mediator at the Delhi Mediation Centre repeatedly have to record.

Explosion to grow

We have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Already the dockets are exploding. We have an elaborate procedure of recruitment of judges with a lead time of one year. Further, the resources in terms of other infrastructure cannot be provisioned with the speed even if we get the judges.

Hence, supply management of resources is constrained. At the same time, with growing education, the tendency for an assertion of rights whether real or illusory is expected to increase with its attendant aggregation to the problem of docket explosion. The Honourable Chief Justice has shown the path. Others have to follow it. One way is to control the demands on these resources. Let's begin.

State funds or Court replenishment Fund

All such fees collected should be accrued in the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective states, as the case may be. Or, it can be collected in an escrow account for re-investment into the judicial system of the country, calling it a cess instead of user charges, fine or fees.&nbsp;

It is possible that if these suggestions are factored into the relevant rules of the Court will go a long way in mitigating the endless wait for justice by litigants as well as resolving the issue of docket explosion in the courts in this country. 
 
(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/to-reduce-pending-cases-in-courts-fines-and-fees-are-a-good-way-to-go-2146799.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date.

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date. A welcome step by the new CJI This is an excellent and welcome step. We should appreciate that. I always hold this view that biggest injustice is being perpetuated through this mentioning system, by virtue of which while about 50000 cases pending in the apex court gets adding on with long waiting periods and ever exploding dockets in the Court. Senior lawyers are able to muscle their cases to get priority hearing. More so in the recent past, if the trend is any indicator, the case of Urban Naxals getting relief within a day had set the cat amongst the pigeons. Imposition of fees and charges Indeed, in case this mentioning system is to be sustained it should be on more objective criteria. Since the time of the Supreme Court is a critical resource in the justice delivery system, I would suggest imposing exemplary fees/charges to be paid by the litigant to be allowed into the mentioning list itself. Why not keep the fees at Rs 10,000, to begin with? This will enable some check on the tendency of lawyers and litigants to get priority hearing of their respective cases over the pending ones, and hence perpetuating the injustice to the waiting litigants as well as mitigating the docket explosion. Further, the likes of the Yakub Memon case, which gets mentioned in the middle of the night, the fees could be much higher. Similarly, the system could also prescribe a fee of high value for cases to be brought before the vacation judge. Also in the other courts Having said that, this vice of mentioning and priority hearings is not limited to the apex court alone. Hence, any such imposition of the fees should be perpetuated to the judiciary below the Supreme Court, like the High Courts and the lower judiciary also. By this, we can certainly address the issue of pendency in court cases. User charges In this context, it is a matter of record that the government is mulling over the imposition of user charges for services, which were generally deemed as gratis services. This has already been put in place in the health sector in some form. In the education sector, the private institutions have already taken over. In other infrastructure, like roads, we have toll charges. Water, Electricity and piped gas are billed as per the consumption level. It is therefore important that we introduce a kind of fees or user charges for getting priority hearings. Fees/fines and charges in courts At the same time, it is not the mentioning alone which is the malaise contributing to the pendency of cases and docket explosion. There are many other factors. Take for example adjournments. Many times, adjournments are sought and granted because one of the leading lawyers is not prepared. I do not discourage this. But his non-preparation adds up to the pendency and pressure on the courts. An adjournment charge should be imposed on such cases so that this trend is discouraged overwhelmingly. In addition, the other party should be compensated with appropriate costs. This is in the discretion of the presiding judges, who are reluctant to invoke their discretion. These costs should be brought in the relevant court rules. Similarly, is the trend of pass overs. At times, on the pretext that the leading advocate is engaged in some other court, there is a tendency of deputing a junior lawyer to seek pass over. A modest fee of maybe Rs 500 should be imposed. An enabling provision should be made in the relevant Court Rules. Mediation and other alternative methods It is further a fact that most cases are resolvable through dialogue between the parties. An enabling provision empowering the courts to refer the parties, with their respective consents, is available in the Civil Procedure Code. Many Honourable Judges also are in favour. But at times the litigants do not cooperate. In this context, in one of my interaction with a former Chief Justice of India, during an informal meeting, I threw open this. At that time he was the incumbent Chief Justice of India. He immediately responded that he would welcome that. But in India most people litigate for their (in chaste Tamil, he said meesai) moustaches, meaning self-respect or esteem. In case a lawyer, when approached, finding no merit in the case tenders honest advice, he will have to wind up his practice. So, the common recourse lawyers take is advising the litigant that the case incontestable. These are words of wisdom from a very excellent, erudite Chief Justice of India. Hence, there should be a fee imposed on litigants for refusing any of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism references by the courts, using their powers as well as a failure of the parties to reach any settlement in mediation, as my good learned friend and excellent mediator at the Delhi Mediation Centre repeatedly have to record. Explosion to grow We have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Already the dockets are exploding. We have an elaborate procedure of recruitment of judges with a lead time of one year. Further, the resources in terms of other infrastructure cannot be provisioned with the speed even if we get the judges. Hence, supply management of resources is constrained. At the same time, with growing education, the tendency for an assertion of rights whether real or illusory is expected to increase with its attendant aggregation to the problem of docket explosion. The Honourable Chief Justice has shown the path. Others have to follow it. One way is to control the demands on these resources. Let's begin. State funds or Court replenishment Fund All such fees collected should be accrued in the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective states, as the case may be. Or, it can be collected in an escrow account for re-investment into the judicial system of the country, calling it a cess instead of user charges, fine or fees. It is possible that if these suggestions are factored into the relevant rules of the Court will go a long way in mitigating the endless wait for justice by litigants as well as resolving the issue of docket explosion in the courts in this country. (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)

To reduce pending cases in courts, fines and fees are a good way to go

The Supreme Court will hear a fresh PIL against the Rafale deal between India and France on Wednesday.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph Monday said it will hear the PIL filed by lawyer Vineet Dhanda, who is seeking a direction to the Centre to reveal details of the deal and the comparative prices during the UPA and NDA rule in a sealed cover to the apex court.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

The petition also sought information about the contract given to Reliance by Dassault. 
Advocate M L Sharma's plea, filed earlier, alleging discrepancies in the fighter jet deal with France and seeking a stay on it will also come up for hearing on October 10.&nbsp;

Sharma claimed in his plea that the inter-government agreement to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets must be quashed as it was an "outcome of corruption" and not ratified by Parliament under Article 253 (Parliament has power to make any law for implementing any inter-government agreement) of the Constitution.

A similar plea was filed in the apex court in March this year seeking an independent probe into the Rafale deal and disclosure of the cost involved in the deal before Parliament.

The plea, filed by Congress leader Tehseen S Poonawalla, had sought a direction against the Centre on why the Union Cabinet's approval was not sought as part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) before signing the procurement deal with France on September 23, 2016.

Rafale deal is a defence agreement signed between the governments of India and France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts in a fly-away condition as a part of the upgrading process of Indian Air Force equipment.

The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.

Indian Air Force had advanced a proposal to buy 126 fighter aircraft in August 2007 and floated a tender. Following this, an invitation was sent to various aviation companies to participate in the bidding process.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear a fresh PIL against the Rafale deal between India and France on Wednesday. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph Monday said it will hear the PIL filed by lawyer Vineet Dhanda, who is seeking a direction to the Centre to reveal details of the deal and the comparative prices during the UPA and NDA rule in a sealed cover to the apex court.

The Supreme Court will hear a fresh PIL against the Rafale deal between India and France on Wednesday. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph Monday said it will hear the PIL filed by lawyer Vineet Dhanda, who is seeking a direction to the Centre to reveal details of the deal and the comparative prices during the UPA and NDA rule in a sealed cover to the apex court. The petition also sought information about the contract given to Reliance by Dassault. Advocate M L Sharma's plea, filed earlier, alleging discrepancies in the fighter jet deal with France and seeking a stay on it will also come up for hearing on October 10. Sharma claimed in his plea that the inter-government agreement to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets must be quashed as it was an "outcome of corruption" and not ratified by Parliament under Article 253 (Parliament has power to make any law for implementing any inter-government agreement) of the Constitution. A similar plea was filed in the apex court in March this year seeking an independent probe into the Rafale deal and disclosure of the cost involved in the deal before Parliament. The plea, filed by Congress leader Tehseen S Poonawalla, had sought a direction against the Centre on why the Union Cabinet's approval was not sought as part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) before signing the procurement deal with France on September 23, 2016. Rafale deal is a defence agreement signed between the governments of India and France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts in a fly-away condition as a part of the upgrading process of Indian Air Force equipment. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. Indian Air Force had advanced a proposal to buy 126 fighter aircraft in August 2007 and floated a tender. Following this, an invitation was sent to various aviation companies to participate in the bidding process.

Supreme Court to hear new PIL challenging Rafale deal on Wednesday

After the Indian government <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-intervene-deportation-7-rohingya-refugees-myanmar-169333">deported seven of them to Myanmar this week</a>, Rohingya refugees in India say they do not wish to return "until peace is restored in their homeland".&nbsp;

And they added that the seven Rohingya refugees who have been deported will very soon be killed.&nbsp;

"I have been living here since 2012. I only request the government to let us live here. We have faced a lot of hardships in our country. We did not leave our country out of greed, no one really wants to leave their own nation," Mohammad Farooq told ANI.&nbsp;

"Our records are there with the authorities and the UN. Police brought us a form to fill but it was in Burmese language and we refused to fill it. The seven people who have been deported won`t be alive for long. They will be killed," Mohammad added.&nbsp;

Mohammad currently lives in Delhi's Kalindi Kunj.&nbsp;

Haroon said the same thing to ANI.&nbsp;

"We are living here since 2005. The government has provided us with no help apart from long-term visa. The government has stopped renewing it since 2017. It was previously renewed five times. We want to request the government that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-rohingya-refugees-struggle-with-hatred-fear-as-first-group-is-expelled-169923">there is still no peace in our country</a>. Houses are still being burnt there. No matter how long we live here, we will not get a citizenship until the government makes such provision," Haroon said. &nbsp;

"Some people have filled a form that has come from Burma embassy. Whatever Indian government`s order comes we follow but we did not fill that form because it was all in the Burmese language. Filling it would mean that we are going to Burma with our free will. We do not want to go to Myanmar as of now," he added.&nbsp;

The seven Rohingya refugees deported to Myanmar had been in custody in Assam since 2012. They were bussed to the Moreh border post in Myanmar and handed over to Myanmarese authorities on Thursday after the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the deportation.&nbsp;

The court said it did not wish to interfere in the Central government's decision.&nbsp;

The special rapporteur on racism at the India office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees however had said the move might amount to refoulment — or the deliberate return of refugees to a place where they face persecution and the threat of violence.&nbsp;

Refoulment falls foul of international law.&nbsp;

The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees had added that the seven Rohingya should be allowed to make an "informed decision" about whether they wish to return, or claim asylum in India.&nbsp;

Some 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar since August 2017 after a military campaign against them. The military campaign — which the UN has called ethnic cleansing — followed an attack on police and army posts by the militant Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army group.&nbsp;

About 40,000 Rohingya currently live in India.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

After the Indian government deported seven of them to Myanmar this week, Rohingya refugees in India say they do not wish to return "until peace is restored in their homeland".

After the Indian government deported seven of them to Myanmar this week, Rohingya refugees in India say they do not wish to return "until peace is restored in their homeland". And they added that the seven Rohingya refugees who have been deported will very soon be killed. "I have been living here since 2012. I only request the government to let us live here. We have faced a lot of hardships in our country. We did not leave our country out of greed, no one really wants to leave their own nation," Mohammad Farooq told ANI. "Our records are there with the authorities and the UN. Police brought us a form to fill but it was in Burmese language and we refused to fill it. The seven people who have been deported won`t be alive for long. They will be killed," Mohammad added. Mohammad currently lives in Delhi's Kalindi Kunj. Haroon said the same thing to ANI. "We are living here since 2005. The government has provided us with no help apart from long-term visa. The government has stopped renewing it since 2017. It was previously renewed five times. We want to request the government that there is still no peace in our country. Houses are still being burnt there. No matter how long we live here, we will not get a citizenship until the government makes such provision," Haroon said. "Some people have filled a form that has come from Burma embassy. Whatever Indian government`s order comes we follow but we did not fill that form because it was all in the Burmese language. Filling it would mean that we are going to Burma with our free will. We do not want to go to Myanmar as of now," he added. The seven Rohingya refugees deported to Myanmar had been in custody in Assam since 2012. They were bussed to the Moreh border post in Myanmar and handed over to Myanmarese authorities on Thursday after the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the deportation. The court said it did not wish to interfere in the Central government's decision. The special rapporteur on racism at the India office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees however had said the move might amount to refoulment — or the deliberate return of refugees to a place where they face persecution and the threat of violence. Refoulment falls foul of international law. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees had added that the seven Rohingya should be allowed to make an "informed decision" about whether they wish to return, or claim asylum in India. Some 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar since August 2017 after a military campaign against them. The military campaign — which the UN has called ethnic cleansing — followed an attack on police and army posts by the militant Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army group. About 40,000 Rohingya currently live in India. (With inputs from ANI)

7 Rohingya deported to Myanmar will be killed very soon: Rohingya refugees in Delhi

Both the ruling CPI(M) and opposition Congress Saturday wanted a dialogue with the people concerned before implementing the Supreme Court verdict on entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa Temple.

The parties' stand comes in the backdrop of mounting protest by devotees of Lord Ayyappa across the state.

Hundreds of devotees, mostly women, took part in the 'namajapa' (chanting the name of Lord Ayyappa marches in Kottayam and Malappuram districts against the LDF government's decision to implement the top court verdict without going for a review.

In a related development, minor violence marred the protest march taken out by activists of Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of BJP, to the house of

Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) president A Padmakumar at Aranumla in Pathanamthitta district, where police chased them away.

According to Yuva Morcha, about 10 people, including its state president Prakash Babu, were injured in the melee.

Addressing devotees who gathered at Changanassery in Kottayam braving heavy rains, Sabarimala tantri (head priest), Kandararu Rajeevaru said everyone should stand together to preserve the traditions, rituals and faith of the Lord Ayyappa shrine.

A section of Ayyappa devotees staged a dharna Saturday in front of the TDB headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram, which manages the hill shrine.

Meanwhile, Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran said here that the government was ready to hold discussions with anybody on the matter.

Attacking the BJP and the Congress-led UDF over the issue, he said the opposition parties were trying to create "misunderstanding" among the faithful and "fishing in troubled waters".

He also said that the government's stand was to move ahead with mutual cooperation.

The ruling CPI(M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan told reporters in New Delhi that the apex court verdict should be implemented after discussions with everyone concerned.

"The consultation is for implementing the verdict. The government is seeking the support of persons concerned to implement it, but not by force," Balakrishnan said.

The Left party has no confusion over the issue, he said, adding that the move by 'vested interests' to turn the faithful against the government would be checked with the help of the believers themselves.

The CPI(M) Secretariat had Friday asked the government to hold discussions with those concerned on the matter.

Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president Mullappally Ramachandran urged the Left government to convene an all-party meet to discuss the present development over the top court verdict.

He said his party would support the government if it files a review petition against the verdict, which lifted the restrictions imposed on the entry of women belonging to the age group of 10-50 in the hill shrine as part of its centuries-old tradition.

Ramachandran also said that the Congress is with the believers.

Protests over the entry of women in Sabarimala has gained momentum after the LDF government made it clear that it would not go in for a review of the Supreme Court verdict.

The opposition Congress and BJP had come out against the government stand and alleged that the Left government was trying to implement the court order in haste without taking into consideration the sentiments of the believers.

The Congress also alleged the BJP-RSS combine had adopted double standards on the issue and said if it was sincere in protecting the interests of believers, the NDA government at the Centre should come out with a legislation to overcome the verdict.

CMO sources here said members of the Pandalam royal family, the erstwhile rulers associated with the Sabarimala temple,have sought permission to meet Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who is now in New Delhi, Monday to discuss the issue.

On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, lifted the ban on the entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine.

Both the ruling CPI(M) and opposition Congress Saturday wanted a dialogue with the people concerned before implementing the Supreme Court verdict on entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa Temple.

Both the ruling CPI(M) and opposition Congress Saturday wanted a dialogue with the people concerned before implementing the Supreme Court verdict on entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa Temple. The parties' stand comes in the backdrop of mounting protest by devotees of Lord Ayyappa across the state. Hundreds of devotees, mostly women, took part in the 'namajapa' (chanting the name of Lord Ayyappa marches in Kottayam and Malappuram districts against the LDF government's decision to implement the top court verdict without going for a review. In a related development, minor violence marred the protest march taken out by activists of Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of BJP, to the house of Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) president A Padmakumar at Aranumla in Pathanamthitta district, where police chased them away. According to Yuva Morcha, about 10 people, including its state president Prakash Babu, were injured in the melee. Addressing devotees who gathered at Changanassery in Kottayam braving heavy rains, Sabarimala tantri (head priest), Kandararu Rajeevaru said everyone should stand together to preserve the traditions, rituals and faith of the Lord Ayyappa shrine. A section of Ayyappa devotees staged a dharna Saturday in front of the TDB headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram, which manages the hill shrine. Meanwhile, Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran said here that the government was ready to hold discussions with anybody on the matter. Attacking the BJP and the Congress-led UDF over the issue, he said the opposition parties were trying to create "misunderstanding" among the faithful and "fishing in troubled waters". He also said that the government's stand was to move ahead with mutual cooperation. The ruling CPI(M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan told reporters in New Delhi that the apex court verdict should be implemented after discussions with everyone concerned. "The consultation is for implementing the verdict. The government is seeking the support of persons concerned to implement it, but not by force," Balakrishnan said. The Left party has no confusion over the issue, he said, adding that the move by 'vested interests' to turn the faithful against the government would be checked with the help of the believers themselves. The CPI(M) Secretariat had Friday asked the government to hold discussions with those concerned on the matter. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president Mullappally Ramachandran urged the Left government to convene an all-party meet to discuss the present development over the top court verdict. He said his party would support the government if it files a review petition against the verdict, which lifted the restrictions imposed on the entry of women belonging to the age group of 10-50 in the hill shrine as part of its centuries-old tradition. Ramachandran also said that the Congress is with the believers. Protests over the entry of women in Sabarimala has gained momentum after the LDF government made it clear that it would not go in for a review of the Supreme Court verdict. The opposition Congress and BJP had come out against the government stand and alleged that the Left government was trying to implement the court order in haste without taking into consideration the sentiments of the believers. The Congress also alleged the BJP-RSS combine had adopted double standards on the issue and said if it was sincere in protecting the interests of believers, the NDA government at the Centre should come out with a legislation to overcome the verdict. CMO sources here said members of the Pandalam royal family, the erstwhile rulers associated with the Sabarimala temple,have sought permission to meet Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who is now in New Delhi, Monday to discuss the issue. On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, lifted the ban on the entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine.

Sabarimala row: Protests mount; CPI(M), Congress want dialogue before implementing SC verdict

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier.

He also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system.

On the Supreme Court allowing women's entry into the Sabarimala shrine, he said such a ruling cannot happen on select practices as it may have many social consequences.

Speaking at the HT Leadership Summit, Jaitley said the judgment decriminalising gay sex was fine but "the problem comes when writing these historical judgements, you get carried away and want to be part of history and therefore you go a step further".

He said he fairly agreed with the reasoning given by the court in the judgement that sexual activity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right of life and that no discrimination on the basis of sex should be there, but added that he completely disagrees with the reasoning that sexual activity is part of free speech.

"Because I think that's little excessive and consequences of that may not be on decriminalisation. Free speech is entirely a different gambit, it can be restrained on the reasons of sovereignty, security, public order and so on and mind you there is tendency of creating new fundamental rights everyday.

"So when you convert this into a fundamental right and say its free speech then how do you restrain any form of sexual activity, homosexual or bisexual in a school hostel, prison, army frontier," he said.

Stating that this requires further debate, he said this reasoning was not necessary for deciding the case of Section 377 which decriminalised gay sex. 
On the Supreme Court ruling on adultery, he said some of the judges said these are matrimonial offences and personal wrongs and not public wrongs.

"So therefore it is outside the purview of criminal law. Would that cover bigamy or polygamy also which are personal wrong? Would that cover cruelty? Would that cover dowry offences? Now this logic covering them, then it would be a wholly anti-women judgement," he said.

He said he was not in dispute that the "very badly worded section" on adultery needed to be quashed but "the later view may find a reference in some western journals very favourably but it may end up converting Indian family system into Western family system where the fragility of marriage as an institution itself will increase.

"Therefore you probably require to debate the second part of the observation which again was not necessary for deciding this case."

On the Sabarimala ruling, Jaitley said if you want to take a progressive step, then Articles 14 and 21 will apply against all religions.

"It can't happen that you select a practice and apply it because that will have many many social consequences in pluralist society like India. If you start stepping into the religious practices and customs and say (Article) 14 must be tested on... Personal law and (Article) 14 must be tested in Article 21, then will it apply to polygamy? Will it apply to oral divorces? Will it apply to other religions where ladies are not allowed to enter religious places?

"If you have a selective practice and then you use an argument to say well we will decide this issue in some other case every time it arises. If you are being progressive and bold then it must be uniformly so and that does not seem to be happening....If you are willing to proclaim you must be willing to strike," he said.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier. He also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system. On the Supreme Court allowing women's entry into the Sabarimala shrine, he said such a ruling cannot happen on select practices as it may have many social consequences. Speaking at the HT Leadership Summit, Jaitley said the judgment decriminalising gay sex was fine but "the problem comes when writing these historical judgements, you get carried away and want to be part of history and therefore you go a step further". He said he fairly agreed with the reasoning given by the court in the judgement that sexual activity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right of life and that no discrimination on the basis of sex should be there, but added that he completely disagrees with the reasoning that sexual activity is part of free speech. "Because I think that's little excessive and consequences of that may not be on decriminalisation. Free speech is entirely a different gambit, it can be restrained on the reasons of sovereignty, security, public order and so on and mind you there is tendency of creating new fundamental rights everyday. "So when you convert this into a fundamental right and say its free speech then how do you restrain any form of sexual activity, homosexual or bisexual in a school hostel, prison, army frontier," he said. Stating that this requires further debate, he said this reasoning was not necessary for deciding the case of Section 377 which decriminalised gay sex. On the Supreme Court ruling on adultery, he said some of the judges said these are matrimonial offences and personal wrongs and not public wrongs. "So therefore it is outside the purview of criminal law. Would that cover bigamy or polygamy also which are personal wrong? Would that cover cruelty? Would that cover dowry offences? Now this logic covering them, then it would be a wholly anti-women judgement," he said. He said he was not in dispute that the "very badly worded section" on adultery needed to be quashed but "the later view may find a reference in some western journals very favourably but it may end up converting Indian family system into Western family system where the fragility of marriage as an institution itself will increase. "Therefore you probably require to debate the second part of the observation which again was not necessary for deciding this case." On the Sabarimala ruling, Jaitley said if you want to take a progressive step, then Articles 14 and 21 will apply against all religions. "It can't happen that you select a practice and apply it because that will have many many social consequences in pluralist society like India. If you start stepping into the religious practices and customs and say (Article) 14 must be tested on... Personal law and (Article) 14 must be tested in Article 21, then will it apply to polygamy? Will it apply to oral divorces? Will it apply to other religions where ladies are not allowed to enter religious places? "If you have a selective practice and then you use an argument to say well we will decide this issue in some other case every time it arises. If you are being progressive and bold then it must be uniformly so and that does not seem to be happening....If you are willing to proclaim you must be willing to strike," he said.

SC ruling on 377: Disagree with reasoning that sexuality is part of free speech, says Arun Jaitley

Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha has tendered his resignation citing personal reasons.

He has asked the government to relieve him of his responsibilities from December 15 when the Supreme Court goes for a winter break.

Narasimha had recently lost his father and he often goes to Hyderabad to tend to his ailing mother. Sources close to him said he decided to quit as the government's work in the top court should not suffer.

They said it is now up to the government to decide on the resignation.

Recently, Sandeep Sethi had stepped down as additional solicitor general. From 11 additional solicitors general during the UPA-II rule, the strength of the law officers has&nbsp;dipped to six.

Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha has tendered his resignation citing personal reasons. He has asked the government to relieve him of his responsibilities from December 15 when the Supreme Court goes for a winter break.

Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha has tendered his resignation citing personal reasons. He has asked the government to relieve him of his responsibilities from December 15 when the Supreme Court goes for a winter break. Narasimha had recently lost his father and he often goes to Hyderabad to tend to his ailing mother. Sources close to him said he decided to quit as the government's work in the top court should not suffer. They said it is now up to the government to decide on the resignation. Recently, Sandeep Sethi had stepped down as additional solicitor general. From 11 additional solicitors general during the UPA-II rule, the strength of the law officers has dipped to six.

Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha resigns

Women police personnel will be posted at Sabarimala this month to facilitate pilgrimage of women devotees in view of the Supreme Court order permitting women of all age groups to enter the Lord Ayyappa shrine, Kerala police chief Loknath Behera said Friday.

The DGP said everyone in the force should have to perform their duties irrespective of their religion and politics.

"They (women) will be posted there (at Sabarimala). We are a law enforcement agency. No gender, no religion. .. Nothing. All will have to perform their duties," Behera told reporters here.

His statement comes against the backdrop of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's recent statement that the government would implement the verdict in the coming pilgrimage season itself.

A high-level meeting of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the shrine, has also decided to make necessary arrangements for women pilgrims visiting the temple when it opens for the annual pilgrimage season on October 16.

The Nair Service Society (NSS), Pandalam Royal family and family of the temple's chief priest have said they would file revision petitions in the apex court against its order.

The Sabarimala temple had restricted the entry of women belonging to the age group of 10-50 as part of its age-old tradition.

On October 28, a five-judge constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, lifted the ban on entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine.&nbsp;

Women police personnel will be posted at Sabarimala this month to facilitate pilgrimage of women devotees in view of the Supreme Court order permitting women of all age groups to enter the Lord Ayyappa shrine, Kerala police chief Loknath Behera said Friday.

Women police personnel will be posted at Sabarimala this month to facilitate pilgrimage of women devotees in view of the Supreme Court order permitting women of all age groups to enter the Lord Ayyappa shrine, Kerala police chief Loknath Behera said Friday. The DGP said everyone in the force should have to perform their duties irrespective of their religion and politics. "They (women) will be posted there (at Sabarimala). We are a law enforcement agency. No gender, no religion. .. Nothing. All will have to perform their duties," Behera told reporters here. His statement comes against the backdrop of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's recent statement that the government would implement the verdict in the coming pilgrimage season itself. A high-level meeting of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the shrine, has also decided to make necessary arrangements for women pilgrims visiting the temple when it opens for the annual pilgrimage season on October 16. The Nair Service Society (NSS), Pandalam Royal family and family of the temple's chief priest have said they would file revision petitions in the apex court against its order. The Sabarimala temple had restricted the entry of women belonging to the age group of 10-50 as part of its age-old tradition. On October 28, a five-judge constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, lifted the ban on entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine.

Women cops to be posted at Sabarimala: DGP

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere in the Centre's decision to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-files-an-affidavit-says-rohingya-refugees-are-a-threat-to-national-security-20224">deport 7 Rohingya refugees</a> to Myanmar.&nbsp;

The refugees, who have been in detention in Assam's Silchar since July 29, 2012,&nbsp;are to be handed over to the Myanmarese authorities today at the Moreh border post in Manipur.&nbsp;

The plea that the Supreme Court intervene in the deportation had been filed by the lawyer Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

News reports Thursday quoted Bhushan as telling the court that it was the state's responsibility to look after stateless citizens, which he said the Rohingya are.&nbsp;

The court — the plea&nbsp;was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph — reportedly shot back that it was well aware of its duties.

The Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that Myanmar had accepted the seven Rohingya refugees as citizens of that country and had agreed to take them back.&nbsp;

“We don’t want to interfere with the Centre’s decision,” CJI Gogoi said on Thursday.

The special rapporteur on racism at the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees however has said the move might amount to refoulment — or the deliberate return of refugees to a place where they face persecution and the threat of violence. Refoulment is contrary to international law.&nbsp;

The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has added that the seven Rohingya should be allowed to make an "informed decision" about whether they wish to return, or claim asylum in India.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on India to pressure Myanmar into creating an environment conducive for the return of Rohingya refugees. He added that he had never seen a humanitarian crisis as grave as that of the Rohingya.&nbsp;

The seven Rohingya refugees were identified in news reports as Md Jamal, Mohbul Khan, Jamal Hussain, Md Yonus, Sabir Ahmed, Rahim Uddin, and Md Salam. Authorities said they are in the age bracket of 26 to 32 years.&nbsp;

The seven of them were bussed to Moreh on Wednesday. The handover was expected to take place on Thursday.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere in the Centre's decision to deport 7 Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. The refugees, who have been in detention in Assam's Silchar since July 29, 2012, are to be handed over to the Myanmarese authorities today at the Moreh border post in Manipur.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere in the Centre's decision to deport 7 Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. The refugees, who have been in detention in Assam's Silchar since July 29, 2012, are to be handed over to the Myanmarese authorities today at the Moreh border post in Manipur. The plea that the Supreme Court intervene in the deportation had been filed by the lawyer Prashant Bhushan. News reports Thursday quoted Bhushan as telling the court that it was the state's responsibility to look after stateless citizens, which he said the Rohingya are. The court — the plea was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph — reportedly shot back that it was well aware of its duties. The Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that Myanmar had accepted the seven Rohingya refugees as citizens of that country and had agreed to take them back. “We don’t want to interfere with the Centre’s decision,” CJI Gogoi said on Thursday. The special rapporteur on racism at the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees however has said the move might amount to refoulment — or the deliberate return of refugees to a place where they face persecution and the threat of violence. Refoulment is contrary to international law. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has added that the seven Rohingya should be allowed to make an "informed decision" about whether they wish to return, or claim asylum in India. On Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on India to pressure Myanmar into creating an environment conducive for the return of Rohingya refugees. He added that he had never seen a humanitarian crisis as grave as that of the Rohingya. The seven Rohingya refugees were identified in news reports as Md Jamal, Mohbul Khan, Jamal Hussain, Md Yonus, Sabir Ahmed, Rahim Uddin, and Md Salam. Authorities said they are in the age bracket of 26 to 32 years. The seven of them were bussed to Moreh on Wednesday. The handover was expected to take place on Thursday.

Supreme Court refuses to interfere in deportation of 7 Rohingya refugees

The CBI has told the Supreme Court that the skeleton they found in Muzaffarpur's Sikandarpur area is of a 15-year-old girl.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case: CBI tells Supreme Court that a skeleton of a 15-year-old girl was unearthed at a cremation ground while conducting the investigation.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1047755198041604097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 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 CBI had begun digging on Wednesday afternoon. The skeleton was found at a cremation ground.&nbsp;

The Muzaffarpur shelter home case was uncovered earlier this year by the Mumbai-based Tata Institute of Social Sciences.&nbsp;

The girls in the government-funded shelter home had allegedly they had been sexually abused. Medical tests had confirmed the abuse.&nbsp;

The girls had also alleged that an inmate had been killed and her body buried on the compound.&nbsp;

The authorities had dug up the compound at the time but no body was found.&nbsp;

As many as 11 employees of the home and the man who ran the home, Brajesh Thakur, have been arrested. The CBI is investigating the case.&nbsp;

The CBI has told the Supreme Court that the skeleton they found in Muzaffarpur's Sikandarpur area is of a 15-year-old girl. Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case: CBI tells Supreme Court that a skeleton of a 15-year-old girl was unearthed at a cremation ground while conducting the investigation.

The CBI has told the Supreme Court that the skeleton they found in Muzaffarpur's Sikandarpur area is of a 15-year-old girl. Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case: CBI tells Supreme Court that a skeleton of a 15-year-old girl was unearthed at a cremation ground while conducting the investigation. — ANI (@ANI) October 4, 2018 × The CBI had begun digging on Wednesday afternoon. The skeleton was found at a cremation ground. The Muzaffarpur shelter home case was uncovered earlier this year by the Mumbai-based Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The girls in the government-funded shelter home had allegedly they had been sexually abused. Medical tests had confirmed the abuse. The girls had also alleged that an inmate had been killed and her body buried on the compound. The authorities had dug up the compound at the time but no body was found. As many as 11 employees of the home and the man who ran the home, Brajesh Thakur, have been arrested. The CBI is investigating the case.

Muzaffarpur shelter home case: CBI tells SC skeleton found is of 15-yr-old girl

There is something in the way Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud delivered his rulings last month that reminded me of Virender Sehwag. Now, it might be strange to compare a sitting Supreme Court judge with a hard-hitting batsman, but there was something in the manner the judge delivered his quotable verdicts that reminded one of the crackling shots on a cricket ground. 
 
From Aadhar to adultery, from human rights to the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, there was plenty of stroke play in the mighty pen of the judge.

That reminded me of another public figure, the former Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan, who often reminded me of Rahul Dravid. Both Chandrachud and Rajan are now darlings of middle-class liberals. However, apart from their smart looks and learned ways, there is plenty that distinguishes them, and the best way is to draw a parallel with Sehwag and Dravid, two admired cricketers with vastly varying styles. 
 
Rajan, like 'The Wall' that he is, has been a man of few words, much dignity, soft-spoken precision and strong character. You have to watch him closely to admire him. Chandrachud, on the other hand, was flamboyant in his glory, and if you don't mind, some of his strokes are way too risky -- even if they hit the ball out of the park. Much like those of Sehwag. Dissenting notes are to court verdicts what a lofted shot is in a cricket match: delight to watch but precarious all the same.

By placing personal liberty above the government's powers to curb fundamental rights in the Aadhaar and Bhima-Koregaon violence case, Chandrachud has been way ahead of his times. He quoted Canadian poet-singer Leonard Cohen to uphold the right to gay sex. His verdict on adultery extensively quotes feminist scholars.

In that sense, he reminded me of his father, Justice YV Chandrachud, who delivered a controversial verdict on maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano, in 1985. Not only did the elder Chandrachud uphold payment of maintenance for Shah Bano and overruled the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, he also spoke of the need for a Uniform Civil Code, which is listed among directive principles of the Indian Constitution but not an obligatory law. The then Rajiv Gandhi government, which had a brute majority in parliament, simply overturned the judgment by changing the divorce law for Muslim women. I wonder if that was a case of judicial overreach that resulted in a legislative backlash.

The younger Chandrachud is being cited for how he overturned his own father's ruling regarding the decriminalisation of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The son also overturned his father's verdict of privacy not being a fundamental right. However, like his father in the Shah Bano case, he seems to think well ahead of his times. My fear is that like in the Shah Bano case, an overzealous judge may unleash a backlash. Just as a good batsman should look at the field placings before playing a shot, a judge is perhaps wiser choosing his words carefully because the hard fact is that social and political realities have to be borne in mind to avoid the kind of backlash the Shah Bano verdict resulted in. It is true that we have come a long way since then to have an Ordinance passed to strike down the "triple talaq" divorce among Muslims. But then, the society seems ready for it now.

Are we ready for a similar show on adultery? Now, there are two parts to the verdict on the issue. One rightly dismantles the patriarchal provision under which the husband is made the authority to seek punishment or not if the wife has sexual relations outside of marriage. But the nuance here is that it may be treading on the sensitive ground when it concerns the sacred idea of fidelity in marriage in popular conversations. There have been enough WhatsApp jokes to suggest that the decriminalisation of adultery is being casually understood as a permission for infidelity. No sir, the verdict says adultery is not a crime. It does not say it is not an offence.

"It is commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer and not the woman," the elder Chandrachud had said in upholding the now discarded adultery law.&nbsp;

In contrast, Junior Chandrachud said: "It is common to find instances of working women, who take care of the home, get beaten up by their husbands, who don't earn. She wants a divorce. But the matter remains pending in court for years. If she looks for love, affection and solace in another man, can she be deprived of it?"

Now, there is nothing in the recent verdict's text that to me seems unfair, but we have had the chairperson of the Delhi Commission of Women, Swati Maliwal, saying the verdict had "given licence to married couples for adulterous relationships. What is the sanctity of marriage then?"

In the Sabarimala temple verdict that upheld the entry of women, DY Chandrachud said: "Merely because a deity has been granted limited rights as juristic persons under the statutory law does not mean that the deity necessarily has constitutional rights."&nbsp;

I am just wondering what that implies in a future hearing on the Ram temple in Ayodhya, which has thus far been seen as a property dispute in strictly judicial terms.

Overall, I do find Justice DY Chandrachud strong in his language of path-breaking justice, but unlike, say, Raghuram Rajan on bad loans and demonetisation, he errs on the side of stroke play rather than a soft expression of hard views. In the current political atmosphere of the country in which dissent passes for anti-national conduct and conservatism passes for culture, I sometimes feel a need for a Dravid-like understated precision over Sehwag-like shots. 
 
Not because Chandrachud is wrong but because in a complex socio-political environment, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. Is there a right-wing way parliament can overturn the thoughts of Chandrachud Junior the way it reversed his father's ruling?

But then, Sehwag has had a great career, and there are fanboys and fangirls waiting for Justice Chandrachud to ascend the Chief Justice's chair. We have had a rock star RBI governor. Why not one at the Supreme Court as well?

(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/justice-dy-chandrachud-is-sehwag-of-supreme-court-but-does-he-need-to-be-dravid-instead-2145718.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

There is something in the way Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud delivered his rulings last month that reminded me of Virender Sehwag. Now, it might be strange to compare a sitting Supreme Court judge with a hard-hitting batsman, but there was something in the manner the judge delivered his quotable verdicts that reminded one of the crackling shots on a cricket ground.

There is something in the way Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud delivered his rulings last month that reminded me of Virender Sehwag. Now, it might be strange to compare a sitting Supreme Court judge with a hard-hitting batsman, but there was something in the manner the judge delivered his quotable verdicts that reminded one of the crackling shots on a cricket ground. From Aadhar to adultery, from human rights to the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, there was plenty of stroke play in the mighty pen of the judge. That reminded me of another public figure, the former Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan, who often reminded me of Rahul Dravid. Both Chandrachud and Rajan are now darlings of middle-class liberals. However, apart from their smart looks and learned ways, there is plenty that distinguishes them, and the best way is to draw a parallel with Sehwag and Dravid, two admired cricketers with vastly varying styles. Rajan, like 'The Wall' that he is, has been a man of few words, much dignity, soft-spoken precision and strong character. You have to watch him closely to admire him. Chandrachud, on the other hand, was flamboyant in his glory, and if you don't mind, some of his strokes are way too risky -- even if they hit the ball out of the park. Much like those of Sehwag. Dissenting notes are to court verdicts what a lofted shot is in a cricket match: delight to watch but precarious all the same. By placing personal liberty above the government's powers to curb fundamental rights in the Aadhaar and Bhima-Koregaon violence case, Chandrachud has been way ahead of his times. He quoted Canadian poet-singer Leonard Cohen to uphold the right to gay sex. His verdict on adultery extensively quotes feminist scholars. In that sense, he reminded me of his father, Justice YV Chandrachud, who delivered a controversial verdict on maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano, in 1985. Not only did the elder Chandrachud uphold payment of maintenance for Shah Bano and overruled the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, he also spoke of the need for a Uniform Civil Code, which is listed among directive principles of the Indian Constitution but not an obligatory law. The then Rajiv Gandhi government, which had a brute majority in parliament, simply overturned the judgment by changing the divorce law for Muslim women. I wonder if that was a case of judicial overreach that resulted in a legislative backlash. The younger Chandrachud is being cited for how he overturned his own father's ruling regarding the decriminalisation of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The son also overturned his father's verdict of privacy not being a fundamental right. However, like his father in the Shah Bano case, he seems to think well ahead of his times. My fear is that like in the Shah Bano case, an overzealous judge may unleash a backlash. Just as a good batsman should look at the field placings before playing a shot, a judge is perhaps wiser choosing his words carefully because the hard fact is that social and political realities have to be borne in mind to avoid the kind of backlash the Shah Bano verdict resulted in. It is true that we have come a long way since then to have an Ordinance passed to strike down the "triple talaq" divorce among Muslims. But then, the society seems ready for it now. Are we ready for a similar show on adultery? Now, there are two parts to the verdict on the issue. One rightly dismantles the patriarchal provision under which the husband is made the authority to seek punishment or not if the wife has sexual relations outside of marriage. But the nuance here is that it may be treading on the sensitive ground when it concerns the sacred idea of fidelity in marriage in popular conversations. There have been enough WhatsApp jokes to suggest that the decriminalisation of adultery is being casually understood as a permission for infidelity. No sir, the verdict says adultery is not a crime. It does not say it is not an offence. "It is commonly accepted that it is the man who is the seducer and not the woman," the elder Chandrachud had said in upholding the now discarded adultery law. In contrast, Junior Chandrachud said: "It is common to find instances of working women, who take care of the home, get beaten up by their husbands, who don't earn. She wants a divorce. But the matter remains pending in court for years. If she looks for love, affection and solace in another man, can she be deprived of it?" Now, there is nothing in the recent verdict's text that to me seems unfair, but we have had the chairperson of the Delhi Commission of Women, Swati Maliwal, saying the verdict had "given licence to married couples for adulterous relationships. What is the sanctity of marriage then?" In the Sabarimala temple verdict that upheld the entry of women, DY Chandrachud said: "Merely because a deity has been granted limited rights as juristic persons under the statutory law does not mean that the deity necessarily has constitutional rights." I am just wondering what that implies in a future hearing on the Ram temple in Ayodhya, which has thus far been seen as a property dispute in strictly judicial terms. Overall, I do find Justice DY Chandrachud strong in his language of path-breaking justice, but unlike, say, Raghuram Rajan on bad loans and demonetisation, he errs on the side of stroke play rather than a soft expression of hard views. In the current political atmosphere of the country in which dissent passes for anti-national conduct and conservatism passes for culture, I sometimes feel a need for a Dravid-like understated precision over Sehwag-like shots. Not because Chandrachud is wrong but because in a complex socio-political environment, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. Is there a right-wing way parliament can overturn the thoughts of Chandrachud Junior the way it reversed his father's ruling? But then, Sehwag has had a great career, and there are fanboys and fangirls waiting for Justice Chandrachud to ascend the Chief Justice's chair. We have had a rock star RBI governor. Why not one at the Supreme Court as well? (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)

Justice Chandrachud is Sehwag of Supreme Court, but does he need to be Dravid instead?

Rejecting the Opposition demand to file a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order, allowing women of all age groups into Sabarimala, the Kerala government Wednesday said it would implement the verdict in the coming pilgrim season itself.

A high-level meeting here of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the Lord Ayyappa temple, also decided to make necessary arrangements for women pilgrims visiting the hill shrine when it opens for the annual pilgrimage season on October 16.

Opposition Congress termed the CPI(M)-led LDF government's decision as 'unilateral' and said it was against the interest of a majority of Ayyappa devotees in and outside the state.

It alleged that TDB President A Padmakumar, who earlier pitched for filing the review, had backtracked from his stand after Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan 'chided' him.

The party also decided to convene a meeting of former presidents and board members of the TDB Thursday to decide the future course of action on the matter.

The Sabarimala Temple had restricted the entry of women belonging to the age group between 10-50 as part of its age-old tradition.

On October 28, a five-judge constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, lifted the ban on entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine.

Vijayan said that as a government, it has to abide by the directives of the top court and make necessary arrangements for women devotees visiting the shrine.

"It is the responsibility of the government to implement the court order without any compromise. We will ensure that necessary arrangements are provided for women devotees in the coming season itself," he told reporters here.

He also took exception to the TDB president's recent remark that they were not expecting a large number of women devotees at the shrine in the wake of the apex court order.

On the protest launched by various outfits against implementing the court verdict, the Chief Minister said no one has the right to prevent women devotees if they want to offer worship at the shrine.

"When the Supreme Court has taken a stand after considering all aspects of the matter, people have to accept the law of the land. The government is for implementing it," he added.

After the TDB meeting, Padmakumar said the Board discussed the Supreme Court order in detail and decided not to file the review petition.

"We view the apex court verdict with utmost seriousness. After discussing all the aspects, the meeting decided not to file the review petition in the present context," he said.

Detailing the preparations for the coming pilgrimage season, he said special facilities would be provided to the devotees at Pamba and Nilackal, the base camps.

Temporary dormitories, women-friendly toilets and more drinking water facilities would be arranged, he said, adding that all existing arrangements would be made better useful for women devotees.

"The Board expects 40 per cent more devotees at the shrine this season in the wake of the SC verdict," Padmakumar said, adding there was no room for any concern on the Sabarimala pilgrimage.

Meanwhile, Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala flayed the government and the TDB for its decision to implement the verdict in haste.

The TDB had "failed" in its duty to safeguard the interests of Ayyappa devotees, he alleged.

He demanded that the state or the central government come out with an ordinance "to overcome the Supreme Court verdict" and protect the interests of devotees of Lord Ayyappa.

Chennithala also said the district Congress committee in Pathanamthitta would stage a fast Friday to protest the stand taken by the state government on the Sabarimala issue.

Activists of Yuva Morcha, the BJP's youth wing, took out rallies in all panchayats across the state Wednesday, urging the government to protect the centuries-old rituals and tradition of the hill shrine.

They also burnt an effigy of Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran at various places.

Hundreds of Ayyappa devotees, including women, Tuesday had blocked state and national highways in various parts of Kerala protesting the Supreme Court verdict.&nbsp;

Rejecting the Opposition demand to file a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order, allowing women of all age groups into Sabarimala, the Kerala government Wednesday said it would implement the verdict in the coming pilgrim season itself.

Rejecting the Opposition demand to file a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order, allowing women of all age groups into Sabarimala, the Kerala government Wednesday said it would implement the verdict in the coming pilgrim season itself. A high-level meeting here of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the Lord Ayyappa temple, also decided to make necessary arrangements for women pilgrims visiting the hill shrine when it opens for the annual pilgrimage season on October 16. Opposition Congress termed the CPI(M)-led LDF government's decision as 'unilateral' and said it was against the interest of a majority of Ayyappa devotees in and outside the state. It alleged that TDB President A Padmakumar, who earlier pitched for filing the review, had backtracked from his stand after Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan 'chided' him. The party also decided to convene a meeting of former presidents and board members of the TDB Thursday to decide the future course of action on the matter. The Sabarimala Temple had restricted the entry of women belonging to the age group between 10-50 as part of its age-old tradition. On October 28, a five-judge constitution bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, lifted the ban on entry of women of menstrual age into the shrine. Vijayan said that as a government, it has to abide by the directives of the top court and make necessary arrangements for women devotees visiting the shrine. "It is the responsibility of the government to implement the court order without any compromise. We will ensure that necessary arrangements are provided for women devotees in the coming season itself," he told reporters here. He also took exception to the TDB president's recent remark that they were not expecting a large number of women devotees at the shrine in the wake of the apex court order. On the protest launched by various outfits against implementing the court verdict, the Chief Minister said no one has the right to prevent women devotees if they want to offer worship at the shrine. "When the Supreme Court has taken a stand after considering all aspects of the matter, people have to accept the law of the land. The government is for implementing it," he added. After the TDB meeting, Padmakumar said the Board discussed the Supreme Court order in detail and decided not to file the review petition. "We view the apex court verdict with utmost seriousness. After discussing all the aspects, the meeting decided not to file the review petition in the present context," he said. Detailing the preparations for the coming pilgrimage season, he said special facilities would be provided to the devotees at Pamba and Nilackal, the base camps. Temporary dormitories, women-friendly toilets and more drinking water facilities would be arranged, he said, adding that all existing arrangements would be made better useful for women devotees. "The Board expects 40 per cent more devotees at the shrine this season in the wake of the SC verdict," Padmakumar said, adding there was no room for any concern on the Sabarimala pilgrimage. Meanwhile, Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala flayed the government and the TDB for its decision to implement the verdict in haste. The TDB had "failed" in its duty to safeguard the interests of Ayyappa devotees, he alleged. He demanded that the state or the central government come out with an ordinance "to overcome the Supreme Court verdict" and protect the interests of devotees of Lord Ayyappa. Chennithala also said the district Congress committee in Pathanamthitta would stage a fast Friday to protest the stand taken by the state government on the Sabarimala issue. Activists of Yuva Morcha, the BJP's youth wing, took out rallies in all panchayats across the state Wednesday, urging the government to protect the centuries-old rituals and tradition of the hill shrine. They also burnt an effigy of Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran at various places. Hundreds of Ayyappa devotees, including women, Tuesday had blocked state and national highways in various parts of Kerala protesting the Supreme Court verdict.

Sabarimala verdict: Kerala government, TDB not to challenge Supreme Court's order

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it was an "unfortunate situation" that Delhi Police was not taking action against those who have tampered with seals put on the premises having illegal constructions and observed that people were taking law in their hands due to this.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said this after the court was informed by engineers of municipal corporations in Delhi that police has not taken action in some cases where seal put on the buildings were removed by private persons.

"This is a rather unfortunate situation where the police did not take action due to which some persons take the law into their hands," said the bench, which also comprised Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta.

The counsel appearing for engineers of the civic bodies told the bench that there were cases where they seal some building but the private persons de-seal it.

When he said that they have lodged complaints with the police in this regard, the bench asked, "Why the police have not taken any action?".

The lawyer said that in some cases, police has taken action while in some other matters, no action has been taken.

The bench asked the counsel to give a list of cases within a week where police have not taken any action despite complaints being lodged in the matter.

During the hearing, the bench also dealt with the matter related to contempt notice issued to Delhi BJP chief and Member of Parliament Manoj Tiwari for allegedly breaking the seal of premises in Gokalpuri area here which was being run in violation of the Delhi Master Plan.

The bench told senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the MP, that Tiwari has filed his reply to the contempt notice but its copy has not been given to the amicus curiae who is assisting the court in the Delhi sealing matter.

The court asked Tiwari, who was present in the court, to supply the copy of his reply to the amicus and posted the matter for hearing after 10 days.

It directed Tiwari to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing.

In his reply, Tiwari has said that he had broken the seal of a premise here as a "symbolic protest" against the illegal activities of officials of the East Delhi Municipal

Corporation (EDMC) and was willing to accept the role of 'sealing officer' as suggested by the apex court.

During the hearing, the bench also dealt with the issue relating to the encroachment of forest land and water bodies here which was raised by the court-appointed monitoring committee in its report.

The counsel appearing for Delhi government said that they would file an affidavit within two weeks in this regard.

The lawyer said that water bodies in Delhi have to be retained and encroachment on forest land would be cleared.

The Ministry of Water Resources also filed an affidavit in the apex court in the issue of depletion of ground water in Delhi.

The court said these issues would be taken up for consideration after two weeks.

On September 25, Tiwari had appeared before the court in pursuance to the contempt notice issued to him for allegedly breaking the seal of premises.

The court had directed him to file an affidavit within a week explaining why contempt proceedings not be initiated against him.

An FIR was lodged against him by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation for allegedly breaking the seal of the premises.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it was an "unfortunate situation" that Delhi Police was not taking action against those who have tampered with seals put on the premises having illegal constructions and observed that people were taking law in their hands due to this.

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it was an "unfortunate situation" that Delhi Police was not taking action against those who have tampered with seals put on the premises having illegal constructions and observed that people were taking law in their hands due to this. A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said this after the court was informed by engineers of municipal corporations in Delhi that police has not taken action in some cases where seal put on the buildings were removed by private persons. "This is a rather unfortunate situation where the police did not take action due to which some persons take the law into their hands," said the bench, which also comprised Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta. The counsel appearing for engineers of the civic bodies told the bench that there were cases where they seal some building but the private persons de-seal it. When he said that they have lodged complaints with the police in this regard, the bench asked, "Why the police have not taken any action?". The lawyer said that in some cases, police has taken action while in some other matters, no action has been taken. The bench asked the counsel to give a list of cases within a week where police have not taken any action despite complaints being lodged in the matter. During the hearing, the bench also dealt with the matter related to contempt notice issued to Delhi BJP chief and Member of Parliament Manoj Tiwari for allegedly breaking the seal of premises in Gokalpuri area here which was being run in violation of the Delhi Master Plan. The bench told senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the MP, that Tiwari has filed his reply to the contempt notice but its copy has not been given to the amicus curiae who is assisting the court in the Delhi sealing matter. The court asked Tiwari, who was present in the court, to supply the copy of his reply to the amicus and posted the matter for hearing after 10 days. It directed Tiwari to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing. In his reply, Tiwari has said that he had broken the seal of a premise here as a "symbolic protest" against the illegal activities of officials of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) and was willing to accept the role of 'sealing officer' as suggested by the apex court. During the hearing, the bench also dealt with the issue relating to the encroachment of forest land and water bodies here which was raised by the court-appointed monitoring committee in its report. The counsel appearing for Delhi government said that they would file an affidavit within two weeks in this regard. The lawyer said that water bodies in Delhi have to be retained and encroachment on forest land would be cleared. The Ministry of Water Resources also filed an affidavit in the apex court in the issue of depletion of ground water in Delhi. The court said these issues would be taken up for consideration after two weeks. On September 25, Tiwari had appeared before the court in pursuance to the contempt notice issued to him for allegedly breaking the seal of premises. The court had directed him to file an affidavit within a week explaining why contempt proceedings not be initiated against him. An FIR was lodged against him by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation for allegedly breaking the seal of the premises.

Unfortunate that police not taking action despite complaints: SC on Delhi sealing

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

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