The Supreme Court has allowed a couple to part ways after waiving the mandatory cooling-off period for divorce. Using its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and S K Kaul, said they were convinced that the couple has taken a “conscious decision to part as friends” and dissolved the marriage. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the Supreme Court’s power to exercise its jurisdiction and pass order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

“Both, the husband and the wife are present before us, who are well educated. We had a long interaction with them. We are convinced that they have taken a conscious decision to part as friends. Having regard to the background of the litigations between the parties, we are convinced that there is no point in requiring the parties to wait for another six months,” the court said.

The court noted that during the pendency of the transfer petition, the couple had reached an amicable settlement. The top court also considered the fact that the man has handed over a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs 12,50,000 to the woman which she has duly acknowledged. The couple got married in Delhi in 2016 and stayed together for a month. After disputes, they got separated and the man filed a divorce petition.

The woman had also filed a complaint against him at Anand in Gujarat in December 2017. She moved a transfer petition in the apex court through senior advocate Rakesh K Khanna and advocate Dushyant Parashar. The top court took note of the terms of the settlement and said the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

The Supreme Court has allowed a couple to part ways after waiving the mandatory cooling-off period for divorce. Using its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and S K Kaul, said they were convinced that the couple has taken a “conscious decision to part as friends” and dissolved the marriage.

The Supreme Court has allowed a couple to part ways after waiving the mandatory cooling-off period for divorce. Using its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and S K Kaul, said they were convinced that the couple has taken a “conscious decision to part as friends” and dissolved the marriage. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the Supreme Court’s power to exercise its jurisdiction and pass order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. “Both, the husband and the wife are present before us, who are well educated. We had a long interaction with them. We are convinced that they have taken a conscious decision to part as friends. Having regard to the background of the litigations between the parties, we are convinced that there is no point in requiring the parties to wait for another six months,” the court said. The court noted that during the pendency of the transfer petition, the couple had reached an amicable settlement. The top court also considered the fact that the man has handed over a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs 12,50,000 to the woman which she has duly acknowledged. The couple got married in Delhi in 2016 and stayed together for a month. After disputes, they got separated and the man filed a divorce petition. The woman had also filed a complaint against him at Anand in Gujarat in December 2017. She moved a transfer petition in the apex court through senior advocate Rakesh K Khanna and advocate Dushyant Parashar. The top court took note of the terms of the settlement and said the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

 SC allows couple to part ways ‘as friends’, waives 6-month cooling-off period

Prime Minister Imran Khan should be the first to pay a penalty to get his posh Bani Gala property here regularised, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saqib Nisar said on Monday.&nbsp;

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Nisar heard a case regarding encroachments in Bani Gala, a residential area located in Islamabad at the eastern bank of Rawal Lake.

The cricketer-turned-politician had sought the court's attention towards the large-scale encroachment, unchecked and unplanned construction in Bani Gala, massive denuding due to massive tree felling and pollution of the Rawal Lake due to sewage.

The apex court observed that it is the job of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led (PTI) government of Khan to regularise all properties located in the Bani Gala area, including his private residence, Dawn newspaper reported.

Recalling that it was Khan himself who had approached the apex court with an application regarding illegal constructions in Bani Gala, Chief Justice Nisar said the prime minister would have to initiate the process of regularisation of the area by paying the required fine.

"Imran Khan should submit fees towards regularisation before anyone else," directed Justice Nisar.

During the hearing, the additional attorney general presented a report prepared by the Survey of Pakistan regarding illegal constructions in Bani Gala. He informed the court that the reports prepared by the Capital Development Authority and the federal ombudsman are similar to the report of Survey of Pakistan.

The top judge wondered how encroachments could be removed in Bani Gala, saying that besides illegal constructions issues like security and pollution are also impacting the area.

He said a new government is now in power and it should look towards resolving these issues.

"Those responsible for illegal constructions need to be fined," the top judge remarked.

Turning to Prime Minister Khan's counsel Babar Awan, the chief justice asked, "You are part of the government, tell us what measures are being taken to regularise properties."

In response, Awan said, "The Cabinet is taking up this matter."

Justice Nisar then remarked, "Prime Minister Imran will also have to get his property regularised and if it is not already then he should pay a penalty and get it done."

He observed that while the constructions outside the limits of Korang riverbed could not be razed, those within its perimeters are "not acceptable in any condition".

He directed the federal government to regularise all constructions in the area, including its own.

Wrapping up the case to the extent of encroachments, the bench also ordered the government to pay its own penalties, and collect those due to be paid by citizens.

The top court ordered authorities to demolish all unauthorised constructions around Korang riverbed in the light of the report drafted by the Survey of Pakistan.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until October 12.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Imran Khan should be the first to pay a penalty to get his posh Bani Gala property here regularised, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saqib Nisar said on Monday.

Prime Minister Imran Khan should be the first to pay a penalty to get his posh Bani Gala property here regularised, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saqib Nisar said on Monday. A three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Nisar heard a case regarding encroachments in Bani Gala, a residential area located in Islamabad at the eastern bank of Rawal Lake. The cricketer-turned-politician had sought the court's attention towards the large-scale encroachment, unchecked and unplanned construction in Bani Gala, massive denuding due to massive tree felling and pollution of the Rawal Lake due to sewage. The apex court observed that it is the job of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led (PTI) government of Khan to regularise all properties located in the Bani Gala area, including his private residence, Dawn newspaper reported. Recalling that it was Khan himself who had approached the apex court with an application regarding illegal constructions in Bani Gala, Chief Justice Nisar said the prime minister would have to initiate the process of regularisation of the area by paying the required fine. "Imran Khan should submit fees towards regularisation before anyone else," directed Justice Nisar. During the hearing, the additional attorney general presented a report prepared by the Survey of Pakistan regarding illegal constructions in Bani Gala. He informed the court that the reports prepared by the Capital Development Authority and the federal ombudsman are similar to the report of Survey of Pakistan. The top judge wondered how encroachments could be removed in Bani Gala, saying that besides illegal constructions issues like security and pollution are also impacting the area. He said a new government is now in power and it should look towards resolving these issues. "Those responsible for illegal constructions need to be fined," the top judge remarked. Turning to Prime Minister Khan's counsel Babar Awan, the chief justice asked, "You are part of the government, tell us what measures are being taken to regularise properties." In response, Awan said, "The Cabinet is taking up this matter." Justice Nisar then remarked, "Prime Minister Imran will also have to get his property regularised and if it is not already then he should pay a penalty and get it done." He observed that while the constructions outside the limits of Korang riverbed could not be razed, those within its perimeters are "not acceptable in any condition". He directed the federal government to regularise all constructions in the area, including its own. Wrapping up the case to the extent of encroachments, the bench also ordered the government to pay its own penalties, and collect those due to be paid by citizens. The top court ordered authorities to demolish all unauthorised constructions around Korang riverbed in the light of the report drafted by the Survey of Pakistan. The hearing of the case was adjourned until October 12.

Pak SC asks PM Imran to pay fine to reguralise Bani Gala property

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018. The gush of judgements has left most people dazzled and some disgruntled. Reactions varied, from uninhibited praise to outright disapproval. Nonetheless, the apex court’s performance gave people in general an occasion to reiterate their faith in the judiciary.&nbsp;

In some instances the court demolished established traditions, in another, it overturned its earlier verdict — because those rulings had failed in the constitutional test. Seizing upon the convenience at hand, political parties have reacted differently. So have social organisations and activists of varied hues. &nbsp;

There were three verdicts last month, which were of a social-churning nature to the extent of ensuring gender justice, and they are perhaps all the more significant because they have set the tone for an India where equality and a life with dignity are not to be confined to statute books, but be seen where they are needed the most. They are important also because they have come despite stiff resistance from vested groups — social, religious and political. Some of them are already preparing to seek judicial reviews against the orders.&nbsp;

The first pathbreaking ruling to come was the court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships. The LGBT community had been for years waging a battle against the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that had turned them into criminals over their sexual orientation. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had shown the way by striking down the criminality clause, in the Naz Foundation case. 
 
The High Court had said that the Section relating to criminality violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But its efforts went in vain as the Supreme Court restored the criminal provision. Early last month, the court showed courage in overturning its own verdict on the ground that the criminalisation part of Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to live with dignity — both enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental rights. It can now be proudly said that India is no longer on the list of 70-plus nations that criminalise same-sex relationships.&nbsp; 
 
The second historic ruling of a social kind was another instance of decriminalisation: That of adultery. The apex court knocked down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that the provision had not treated men and women equally, that it was arbitrary, and that it was violative of the right to equality and the right to equal opportunity to women. One of the judges on the five-judge Bench, Justice RF Nariman, stated that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges agreed that adultery can be a civil offence, and be cited as a reason for divorce etc.&nbsp;

In the third instance of a similar kind, in the last week of September, a five-judge Bench through a majority verdict, directed that the venerated Sabarimala temple in Kerala be opened up for women of all ages. Certain provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which apply to the Sabarimala temple, banned women of menstruating age from entering the shrine, reigned supreme until now. &nbsp;

It does seem that the Supreme Court has with a messianic zeal, decided to break old, though far from rusty, shackles. These three judgements were preceded by another historic court ruling, rendering as unconstitutional the practice of instant triple divorce (by the male, of course) among Indian Muslims. One does hope that more such verdicts will follow, and contribute to the creation of as equal a society as is possible.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018.

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018. The gush of judgements has left most people dazzled and some disgruntled. Reactions varied, from uninhibited praise to outright disapproval. Nonetheless, the apex court’s performance gave people in general an occasion to reiterate their faith in the judiciary. In some instances the court demolished established traditions, in another, it overturned its earlier verdict — because those rulings had failed in the constitutional test. Seizing upon the convenience at hand, political parties have reacted differently. So have social organisations and activists of varied hues. There were three verdicts last month, which were of a social-churning nature to the extent of ensuring gender justice, and they are perhaps all the more significant because they have set the tone for an India where equality and a life with dignity are not to be confined to statute books, but be seen where they are needed the most. They are important also because they have come despite stiff resistance from vested groups — social, religious and political. Some of them are already preparing to seek judicial reviews against the orders. The first pathbreaking ruling to come was the court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships. The LGBT community had been for years waging a battle against the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that had turned them into criminals over their sexual orientation. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had shown the way by striking down the criminality clause, in the Naz Foundation case. The High Court had said that the Section relating to criminality violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But its efforts went in vain as the Supreme Court restored the criminal provision. Early last month, the court showed courage in overturning its own verdict on the ground that the criminalisation part of Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to live with dignity — both enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental rights. It can now be proudly said that India is no longer on the list of 70-plus nations that criminalise same-sex relationships. The second historic ruling of a social kind was another instance of decriminalisation: That of adultery. The apex court knocked down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that the provision had not treated men and women equally, that it was arbitrary, and that it was violative of the right to equality and the right to equal opportunity to women. One of the judges on the five-judge Bench, Justice RF Nariman, stated that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges agreed that adultery can be a civil offence, and be cited as a reason for divorce etc. In the third instance of a similar kind, in the last week of September, a five-judge Bench through a majority verdict, directed that the venerated Sabarimala temple in Kerala be opened up for women of all ages. Certain provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which apply to the Sabarimala temple, banned women of menstruating age from entering the shrine, reigned supreme until now. It does seem that the Supreme Court has with a messianic zeal, decided to break old, though far from rusty, shackles. These three judgements were preceded by another historic court ruling, rendering as unconstitutional the practice of instant triple divorce (by the male, of course) among Indian Muslims. One does hope that more such verdicts will follow, and contribute to the creation of as equal a society as is possible. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Dazzling array of Supreme Court verdicts enforces gender justice and dignity 

A poor street vendor in Pakistan came under the radar of investigation agencies after a hefty amount of Rs 2.25 billion was discovered in his bank account, according to a media report which said the deposit was linked with a multi-billion rupee money laundering scam involving former president Asif Ali Zardari.

Abdul Qadir, a resident of Orangi Town, Karachi, learned that he has Rs2.225 billion in his bank account.

He only came to know about the hefty amount when he got a letter from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), the News reported.

"My brother told me that there's a letter from the investigation agency in my name and that I have been summoned," he told the media.

"I am the world's number one unlucky person. I have, as they say, billions in my account but I cannot use some of it to at least somewhat improve my state of living," said Qadir.

The sources the FIA have revealed that the hefty amount of Rs 2.25 billion discovered in Qasir's bank account was linked with multi-billion rupee money laundering scam involving PPP co-chairman Zardari and his sister Faryal Talpur, the report said.

Sources say the deposit was unearthed during investigations related to the biggest money laundering scam in Sindh's history.

There are many persons like Abdul Qadir who do not know about existence of accounts in their names with hefty amounts, the sources said,&nbsp; 
adding that the investigators have found dozens of such accounts opened in the names of people belonging to the lower strata mostly labourers.

The official claimed that there are over 500 such accounts in the country and the investigators are tracing them.

A joint investigation team, formed by the Supreme Court, has been inquiring into the money laundering of Rs 35 billion through fake bank accounts in the first week of September.&nbsp;

A poor street vendor in Pakistan came under the radar of investigation agencies after a hefty amount of Rs 2.25 billion was discovered in his bank account, according to a media report which said the deposit was linked with a multi-billion rupee money laundering scam involving former president Asif Ali Zardari.

A poor street vendor in Pakistan came under the radar of investigation agencies after a hefty amount of Rs 2.25 billion was discovered in his bank account, according to a media report which said the deposit was linked with a multi-billion rupee money laundering scam involving former president Asif Ali Zardari. Abdul Qadir, a resident of Orangi Town, Karachi, learned that he has Rs2.225 billion in his bank account. He only came to know about the hefty amount when he got a letter from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), the News reported. "My brother told me that there's a letter from the investigation agency in my name and that I have been summoned," he told the media. "I am the world's number one unlucky person. I have, as they say, billions in my account but I cannot use some of it to at least somewhat improve my state of living," said Qadir. The sources the FIA have revealed that the hefty amount of Rs 2.25 billion discovered in Qasir's bank account was linked with multi-billion rupee money laundering scam involving PPP co-chairman Zardari and his sister Faryal Talpur, the report said. Sources say the deposit was unearthed during investigations related to the biggest money laundering scam in Sindh's history. There are many persons like Abdul Qadir who do not know about existence of accounts in their names with hefty amounts, the sources said, adding that the investigators have found dozens of such accounts opened in the names of people belonging to the lower strata mostly labourers. The official claimed that there are over 500 such accounts in the country and the investigators are tracing them. A joint investigation team, formed by the Supreme Court, has been inquiring into the money laundering of Rs 35 billion through fake bank accounts in the first week of September.

Billions found in Pakistani vendor's bank account

Angry Democrats objected as the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee set a vote for later on Friday on the nomination of President Trump's US Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh after a key senator, Jeff Flake, threw his support behind the judge.

Republicans appeared to have the votes to approve Kavanaugh in the panel after Flake's announcement.&nbsp;

The committee's meeting came the morning after a jarring and emotional hearing into sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh that gripped the country and reflected the larger US political divide, with a university professor accusing the judge of sexual misconduct and the nominee angrily denying it.

The committee, with 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, set the vote for 1:30 pm (1730 GMT) over strenuous objections from Democrats, some of whom left the room in protest. "What a railroad job," Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono said.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, praised Kavanaugh as he pressed forward with the vote.

A committee vote to approve Kavanaugh which pave the way for a final debate and vote on the Senate floor in the coming days.

Democrats have urged a delay to allow for an FBI investigation, a move backed late Thursday by the American Bar Association, which had earlier endorsed his nomination.

"Why are they shutting it down? I believe it's because they are trying to hide something," Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat on the committee, told NBC's "Today" program on Friday.

Kavanaugh could be the deciding vote on several contentious cases if he is confirmed, with disputes involving abortion, immigration, gay rights, voting rights and transgender troops possibly heading to the court soon.

Confirmation of Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge, would cement conservative control of the nation's highest court.

After a procedural vote that could come over the weekend, the full 100-member Senate could take action next week.

Angry Democrats objected as the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee set a vote for later on Friday on the nomination of President Trump's US Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh after a key senator, Jeff Flake, threw his support behind the judge.

Angry Democrats objected as the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee set a vote for later on Friday on the nomination of President Trump's US Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh after a key senator, Jeff Flake, threw his support behind the judge. Republicans appeared to have the votes to approve Kavanaugh in the panel after Flake's announcement. The committee's meeting came the morning after a jarring and emotional hearing into sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh that gripped the country and reflected the larger US political divide, with a university professor accusing the judge of sexual misconduct and the nominee angrily denying it. The committee, with 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, set the vote for 1:30 pm (1730 GMT) over strenuous objections from Democrats, some of whom left the room in protest. "What a railroad job," Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono said. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, praised Kavanaugh as he pressed forward with the vote. A committee vote to approve Kavanaugh which pave the way for a final debate and vote on the Senate floor in the coming days. Democrats have urged a delay to allow for an FBI investigation, a move backed late Thursday by the American Bar Association, which had earlier endorsed his nomination. "Why are they shutting it down? I believe it's because they are trying to hide something," Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat on the committee, told NBC's "Today" program on Friday. Kavanaugh could be the deciding vote on several contentious cases if he is confirmed, with disputes involving abortion, immigration, gay rights, voting rights and transgender troops possibly heading to the court soon. Confirmation of Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge, would cement conservative control of the nation's highest court. After a procedural vote that could come over the weekend, the full 100-member Senate could take action next week.

Over Democratic objections, Senate panel sets vote on Trump's court pick Kavanaugh

As the US Senate prepares to vote on whether to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, all eyes are on three Republican senators who could make or break the nomination.

The Republican lawmakers considered potential opponents of President Donald Trump's pick for the nation's highest court are Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Republicans enjoy a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate and Kavanaugh, a staunch conservative, is unlikely to draw any support from the Democratic side of the aisle, although the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely.

A defection by just two Republicans would torpedo the hopes of Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old appeals court judge whose nomination has been clouded by allegations he committed a sexual assault decades ago while a teenager.

Flake, 55, has been a vocal critic of Trump, and Collins, 65, and Murkowski, 61, have crossed swords with the Republican president on several occasions.

In July of last year, Collins and Murkowski earned Trump's ire when they voted against his attempt to repeal former President Barack Obama's health care legislation.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday," Trump tweeted. "Too bad!"

Unlike most other Republicans, Collins and Murkowski back a women's right to an abortion and concerns have been raised that Kavanaugh could support attempts to overturn the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

All three senators have been bombarded with questions from reporters and constituents all week about how they plan to vote and the pressure clearly caught up to Flake on Friday.

'Don't look away from me!'&nbsp;

Just minutes after issuing a statement saying he would vote "yes" on Kavanaugh, Flake was confronted in a Senate elevator by several irate women who said they were victims of sexual assault.

"Don't look away from me! Look at me and tell me that it doesn't matter what happened to me, that you'll let people like that go to the highest court on the land," one weeping woman told a visibly uncomfortable Flake.

After extricating himself, the Arizona senator sprang the 11th-hour surprise as the Senate Judiciary Committee was preparing to vote on Kavanaugh's nomination.

Amid confusion in the hearing room, Flake called for the full Senate vote to be delayed for up to a week to allow the FBI to investigate the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh.

Flake joined the 10 other Republicans on the panel in sending Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor but he said later the results of the FBI probe could lead him to change his mind.

Murkowski and Collins both welcomed the delay and the FBI probe into the allegations by university professor Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982.

"It was a good step today," Murkowski said.

Flake is retiring from the Senate but Collins, who will be up for re-election in 2020, is under pressure in her home state of Maine.

Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in Maine by 48 per cent to 45 per cent in the 2016 presidential election and the northeast state has been leaning increasingly Democratic.

Hundreds of women showed up on Friday outside Collins' office in Portland, Maine, to voice their opposition to Kavanaugh's nomination.

"A Sexual Predator Does Not Belong on the Supreme Court," read a sign carried by one of the protestors.

Murkowski is on safer ground in Alaska.

She comes from a storied Alaska political family -- her father was governor and a senator before her -- and she doesn't face the voters again until 2022.

Asked Friday if he has a message for Murkowski and Collins, Trump said he did not have one.

"They have to do what they think is right," the president said. "They have to be comfortable with themselves."

As the US Senate prepares to vote on whether to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, all eyes are on three Republican senators who could make or break the nomination.

As the US Senate prepares to vote on whether to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, all eyes are on three Republican senators who could make or break the nomination. The Republican lawmakers considered potential opponents of President Donald Trump's pick for the nation's highest court are Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Republicans enjoy a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate and Kavanaugh, a staunch conservative, is unlikely to draw any support from the Democratic side of the aisle, although the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. A defection by just two Republicans would torpedo the hopes of Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old appeals court judge whose nomination has been clouded by allegations he committed a sexual assault decades ago while a teenager. Flake, 55, has been a vocal critic of Trump, and Collins, 65, and Murkowski, 61, have crossed swords with the Republican president on several occasions. In July of last year, Collins and Murkowski earned Trump's ire when they voted against his attempt to repeal former President Barack Obama's health care legislation. "Senator Lisa Murkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday," Trump tweeted. "Too bad!" Unlike most other Republicans, Collins and Murkowski back a women's right to an abortion and concerns have been raised that Kavanaugh could support attempts to overturn the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on the subject. All three senators have been bombarded with questions from reporters and constituents all week about how they plan to vote and the pressure clearly caught up to Flake on Friday. 'Don't look away from me!' Just minutes after issuing a statement saying he would vote "yes" on Kavanaugh, Flake was confronted in a Senate elevator by several irate women who said they were victims of sexual assault. "Don't look away from me! Look at me and tell me that it doesn't matter what happened to me, that you'll let people like that go to the highest court on the land," one weeping woman told a visibly uncomfortable Flake. After extricating himself, the Arizona senator sprang the 11th-hour surprise as the Senate Judiciary Committee was preparing to vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. Amid confusion in the hearing room, Flake called for the full Senate vote to be delayed for up to a week to allow the FBI to investigate the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. Flake joined the 10 other Republicans on the panel in sending Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor but he said later the results of the FBI probe could lead him to change his mind. Murkowski and Collins both welcomed the delay and the FBI probe into the allegations by university professor Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982. "It was a good step today," Murkowski said. Flake is retiring from the Senate but Collins, who will be up for re-election in 2020, is under pressure in her home state of Maine. Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in Maine by 48 per cent to 45 per cent in the 2016 presidential election and the northeast state has been leaning increasingly Democratic. Hundreds of women showed up on Friday outside Collins' office in Portland, Maine, to voice their opposition to Kavanaugh's nomination. "A Sexual Predator Does Not Belong on the Supreme Court," read a sign carried by one of the protestors. Murkowski is on safer ground in Alaska. She comes from a storied Alaska political family -- her father was governor and a senator before her -- and she doesn't face the voters again until 2022. Asked Friday if he has a message for Murkowski and Collins, Trump said he did not have one. "They have to do what they think is right," the president said. "They have to be comfortable with themselves."

Spotlight on three US senators as Supreme Court vote looms

India's Supreme Court today <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-head-priest-disappointed-after-supreme-court-allows-entry-women-168114">allowed entry of women of all</a> ages into the&nbsp;Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entry-women-sabarimala-temple-indu-malhotra-lone-dissenter-supreme-court-bench-168118">Also Read:&nbsp; Justice Indu Malhotra lone dissenter in Supreme Court bench</a>

Women cannot be treated as weaker or lesser, Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra said while delivering the verdict on the entry of women at the Sabarimala temple.

A five-judge Supreme Court bench delivered its verdict on the entry of women aged between&nbsp;10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The Supreme Court said the rule is against the article 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. "Constitutional morality is supreme,"&nbsp;the CJI said while reading out the verdict.

The bench comprises of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

"Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion," CJI Misra said. Sabarimala Temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women, Misra added.

The temple's authorities, however, said they will appeal to the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling ahead of its next period of opening of the temple, beginning October 16th.

"Banning entry of women to shrine is gender discrimination," the CJI asserted. Religion is a way of life basically to link life with divinity, he said.

CJI Dipak Misra read out the first of four set of verdicts in the Sabarimala shrine case. Justice Indu Malhotra has written separate dissenting verdict, the CJI said.

Justice R F Nariman, D Y Chandrachud concurred with the CJI.

Law and society are tasked&nbsp;to act as levellers,&nbsp;CJI said, adding,"devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination." Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute separate denomination, the CJI said.

The practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice, the CJI said while delivering the verdict.

Kerala law denies rights to women on the ground of physiological reasons, the CJI added.

The ban was challenged by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, among the petitioners who had filed the case in 2006 but it was taken up for hearing in January 2016.

The Kerala government had said earlier that it was not opposed to the "prayers of the petitioner". Kerala state minister K Surendran had said all women, irrespective of their age should be allowed to offer prayers at the Sabarimala Temple.

Last year, in October the Supreme Court bench had asked whether the traditional ban amounts to discrimination against women and violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution.&nbsp;

"Every woman is also the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or worship," Justice DY Chandrachud, who is part of the five-judge constitutional bench had said.

India's Supreme Court today allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Also Read: Justice Indu Malhotra lone dissenter in Supreme Court bench Women cannot be treated as weaker or lesser, Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra said while delivering the verdict on the entry of women at the Sabarimala temple.

India's Supreme Court today allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Also Read: Justice Indu Malhotra lone dissenter in Supreme Court bench Women cannot be treated as weaker or lesser, Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra said while delivering the verdict on the entry of women at the Sabarimala temple. A five-judge Supreme Court bench delivered its verdict on the entry of women aged between 10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Supreme Court said the rule is against the article 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. "Constitutional morality is supreme," the CJI said while reading out the verdict. The bench comprises of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. "Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion," CJI Misra said. Sabarimala Temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women, Misra added. The temple's authorities, however, said they will appeal to the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling ahead of its next period of opening of the temple, beginning October 16th. "Banning entry of women to shrine is gender discrimination," the CJI asserted. Religion is a way of life basically to link life with divinity, he said. CJI Dipak Misra read out the first of four set of verdicts in the Sabarimala shrine case. Justice Indu Malhotra has written separate dissenting verdict, the CJI said. Justice R F Nariman, D Y Chandrachud concurred with the CJI. Law and society are tasked to act as levellers, CJI said, adding,"devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination." Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute separate denomination, the CJI said. The practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice, the CJI said while delivering the verdict. Kerala law denies rights to women on the ground of physiological reasons, the CJI added. The ban was challenged by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, among the petitioners who had filed the case in 2006 but it was taken up for hearing in January 2016. The Kerala government had said earlier that it was not opposed to the "prayers of the petitioner". Kerala state minister K Surendran had said all women, irrespective of their age should be allowed to offer prayers at the Sabarimala Temple. Last year, in October the Supreme Court bench had asked whether the traditional ban amounts to discrimination against women and violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution. "Every woman is also the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or worship," Justice DY Chandrachud, who is part of the five-judge constitutional bench had said.

Supreme Court lifts ban on women's entry to Sabarimala temple in Kerala

The Supreme Court's verdict allowing entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple was "disappointing", but the shrine board will accept it, Sabarimala head priest Kandararu Rajeevarau said.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict, said banning entry of women to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entry-women-sabarimala-temple-indu-malhotra-lone-dissenter-supreme-court-bench-168118">Kerala's Sabarimala temple</a> is gender discrimination and the practice violates rights of Hindu women.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-lifts-ban-womens-entry-sabarimala-temple-kerala-168108">Also read: Supreme Court lifts </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-lifts-ban-womens-entry-sabarimala-temple-kerala-168108">ban</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-lifts-ban-womens-entry-sabarimala-temple-kerala-168108"> on women's entry to Sabarimala temple in Kerala</a>

Travancore Devaswom Board President A Padmakumar told PTI that the Supreme Court's verdict will be studied in detail and further course of action will be decided after that.

Padmakumar said the board had informed the court that they wanted to continue with the existing ritual practices, but now they have no other option but to implement the verdict.

The board, he said, will take steps to execute the apex court directive. 
It will study the judgement seriously, he said. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

Rahul Easwar, President of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said they were going for a review petition.

Easwar is the grandson of late Sabarimala priest Kandararu Maheswararu, who died in May this year.

The court pronounced its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging the ban on entry of women of menstrual age in Kerala's Sabarimala temple and said law and society are tasked with the task to act as levellers.

The Supreme Court's verdict allowing entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple was "disappointing", but the shrine board will accept it, Sabarimala head priest Kandararu Rajeevarau said.

The Supreme Court's verdict allowing entry of women of all ages into the Ayyappa temple was "disappointing", but the shrine board will accept it, Sabarimala head priest Kandararu Rajeevarau said. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict, said banning entry of women to Kerala's Sabarimala temple is gender discrimination and the practice violates rights of Hindu women. Also read: Supreme Court lifts ban on women's entry to Sabarimala temple in Kerala Travancore Devaswom Board President A Padmakumar told PTI that the Supreme Court's verdict will be studied in detail and further course of action will be decided after that. Padmakumar said the board had informed the court that they wanted to continue with the existing ritual practices, but now they have no other option but to implement the verdict. The board, he said, will take steps to execute the apex court directive. It will study the judgement seriously, he said. Rahul Easwar, President of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said they were going for a review petition. Easwar is the grandson of late Sabarimala priest Kandararu Maheswararu, who died in May this year. The court pronounced its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging the ban on entry of women of menstrual age in Kerala's Sabarimala temple and said law and society are tasked with the task to act as levellers.

Sabarimala head priest disappointed after Supreme Court allows entry of women

The court bore allegiance to its transformative vision in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, when it struck down the anachronistic adultery law. The law was not only governed by paternalistic beliefs, but it also totally disregarded the concept of autonomy of an individual.&nbsp;

While striking down the provision, CJI Dipak Misra placed reliance upon the privacy judgement where the court had acknowledged the autonomy of an individual and opined that the element of consent or connivance of the husband as prescribed in the section, subverted the position of women and were in violation of Article 21.&nbsp;

The section, as it existed, did not punish the act of adultery per se, rather it protected the propriety right of the husband over his wife. The wife was regarded as the property of the husband and in that regard, he was licenced to use her as a chattel or as a licensor of that chattel he could allow her to be used. The wife was not vested with any agency under the law and it was for the same reason that the third-party was regarded as the seducer and she was always the victim of the crime.&nbsp;

Most often, it is argued that adultery is the reason for the failure of a marriage, however, it is to be understood that if the individuals in a wedlock have lost the moral commitment then any punishment which is inflicted upon a third-party is unlikely to change that situation.&nbsp;

While striking down the law, Justice Chandrachud extensively discussed about the 'sexual autonomy' and 'sexual agency' of a woman and how this section had commemorated the gender stereotype that only men possess 'sexual agency' as they are the seducers of the crime, and women, on the contrary, are devoid of any such 'sexual agency' and thus, they can only be seduced. Justice Indu Malhotra has relied upon the principles of criminal law to substantiate her stance and opined that the adultery law had no rationale when tested against the basic principles of criminalisation.&nbsp;

It is to be noted that, not all immoral acts are penalised, but it does not follow that those acts are considered righteous by the legislature. The state cannot intervene between the private matters of individuals and criminal sanctions cannot be imposed upon every act, and therefore, it was essential to declare such an antediluvian law, as 'unconstitutional'.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The court bore allegiance to its transformative vision in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, when it struck down the anachronistic adultery law. The law was not only governed by paternalistic beliefs, but it also totally disregarded the concept of autonomy of an individual.

The court bore allegiance to its transformative vision in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India, when it struck down the anachronistic adultery law. The law was not only governed by paternalistic beliefs, but it also totally disregarded the concept of autonomy of an individual. While striking down the provision, CJI Dipak Misra placed reliance upon the privacy judgement where the court had acknowledged the autonomy of an individual and opined that the element of consent or connivance of the husband as prescribed in the section, subverted the position of women and were in violation of Article 21. The section, as it existed, did not punish the act of adultery per se, rather it protected the propriety right of the husband over his wife. The wife was regarded as the property of the husband and in that regard, he was licenced to use her as a chattel or as a licensor of that chattel he could allow her to be used. The wife was not vested with any agency under the law and it was for the same reason that the third-party was regarded as the seducer and she was always the victim of the crime. Most often, it is argued that adultery is the reason for the failure of a marriage, however, it is to be understood that if the individuals in a wedlock have lost the moral commitment then any punishment which is inflicted upon a third-party is unlikely to change that situation. While striking down the law, Justice Chandrachud extensively discussed about the 'sexual autonomy' and 'sexual agency' of a woman and how this section had commemorated the gender stereotype that only men possess 'sexual agency' as they are the seducers of the crime, and women, on the contrary, are devoid of any such 'sexual agency' and thus, they can only be seduced. Justice Indu Malhotra has relied upon the principles of criminal law to substantiate her stance and opined that the adultery law had no rationale when tested against the basic principles of criminalisation. It is to be noted that, not all immoral acts are penalised, but it does not follow that those acts are considered righteous by the legislature. The state cannot intervene between the private matters of individuals and criminal sanctions cannot be imposed upon every act, and therefore, it was essential to declare such an antediluvian law, as 'unconstitutional'. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 SC should be hailed for decriminalising colonial-era Adultery law

Recently the Supreme Court struck down a part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as being “manifestly arbitrary”. Whether the State can be restrained by such principles of “manifest arbitrariness” and “disproportionality” in cases of economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as far as attachment of property is concerned, more so when such acts reveal noble objectives? The issue facing us, right from the time of the dismissal of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala, are the allegations that all kinds of powers — constitutional, economic, investigative etc. — are abused.

The scourge of drugs and crime directed attention towards money laundering. The United Nations Convention against Corruption adopted in October 2013 mandates “strengthening international cooperation in preventing and combating the transfer of funds of illicit origin, derived from acts of corruption, including the laundering of funds, and in returning such funds”. The stress, quite evidently, was on getting back economic gains of crime to the “common good” of the society. There existed a global consensus to go after “proceeds of crime”. The PMLA seeks to mitigate such anxieties of the community.

Acting under PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has of late knocked on the doors of the rich and mighty, including politicians, business houses, regional leaders and bookies. But what bothers businesses is the ED’s competence to inflict on citizens a reverse burden of proof, especially in case of pre-trial attachment of property and funds just on basis of reasons to believe of the investigative authority and not concrete facts. So even without an investigation being completed, you can be charged and your property can be attached just because a complaint/investigation exists against you. The germane question is to what extent the burden of proof is placed on an individual and businesses. What happens to rule of being “presumed innocent till proven guilty”? How would it affect prosecution in money laundering and economic offences?

PMLA provides for attachment of property involved in money laundering even before the stage of trial itself, which effectively means that though a citizen is presumed not guilty, he is deprived of control over his property, when the prosecution believes that it comes from tainted money, effectively destroying lives, families, reputations and businesses, just on the basis of investigators’ reason to believe and not on evidence. The rights of the citizen without even a charge being framed ought to be protected. At this stage, what would be cardinal is to protect businesses and reputations. In Babu versus State of Kerala, the Supreme Court articulated that it is true that certain statutes “provide for a presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. However, such a presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. There may be difficulty in proving a negative fact”.

The same rule would also apply to attachment proceedings if not through criminal jurisprudence, assuming that attachment proceedings are civil proceedings, then through articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which introduce the doctrines of proportionality and reasonableness. Thus implying that even where the presumption of tainted activity is provided for in law, all State action has to be based on reasonable ground and no disproportionate action is permissible.

Similar provisions exist in NDPS ACT for offences only under NDPS Act and not for any general or regular crimes outside the ambit of NDPS. PMLA allows invoking the scheduled offences clause under PMLA, wherein a citizen’s property can be confiscated for crimes like murder which are not driven by “commercial gains”. Here the economic effect can even be as low as Rs 500.

Prosecution giving effect to attachments without itself first substantiating foundational facts can fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution, as nothing could be more excessive and disproportionate than depriving a person of his reputation and property without establishing, in fact, the presence of the “proceeds of crime” and establishing prima facie “money laundering”. Justice Nariman writing for the majority in Shayara Bano versus Union of India held “Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary…”

An illustration of this would be ED attaching properties worth Rs 200 crore when it can establish foundational fact for only 100 crore. The moment foundational fact jurisprudence comes in, mere reasons to believe would not mean mere suspicion but at least a grave suspicion and reasonably speaking, some more facts than mere grave suspicion. Economic transaction in the modern world is dependent on factors like Registration Act even if money is shifted through hawala, banking transactions and other checks and control. Again, attachment or confiscation without proving foundational fact would also go contrary to the right to reputation which forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy’s case opined in the following terms: “...We have already held that reputation is an inextricable aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State in order to sustain and protect the said reputation of an individual has kept the provision under Section 499 IPC alive as a part of the law.”

Hence any attachment under PMLA without conforming to the principle of foundational facts would be susceptible to constitutional challenge as destroying reputations and lives and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality would act as a fetter on state action.

(The authors are advocates in the Supreme Court.)

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-no-place-for-arbitrary-acts-2668751">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Recently the Supreme Court struck down a part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as being “manifestly arbitrary”. Whether the State can be restrained by such principles of “manifest arbitrariness” and “disproportionality” in cases of economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as far as attachment of property is concerned, more so when such acts reveal noble objectives?

Recently the Supreme Court struck down a part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as being “manifestly arbitrary”. Whether the State can be restrained by such principles of “manifest arbitrariness” and “disproportionality” in cases of economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as far as attachment of property is concerned, more so when such acts reveal noble objectives? The issue facing us, right from the time of the dismissal of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala, are the allegations that all kinds of powers — constitutional, economic, investigative etc. — are abused. The scourge of drugs and crime directed attention towards money laundering. The United Nations Convention against Corruption adopted in October 2013 mandates “strengthening international cooperation in preventing and combating the transfer of funds of illicit origin, derived from acts of corruption, including the laundering of funds, and in returning such funds”. The stress, quite evidently, was on getting back economic gains of crime to the “common good” of the society. There existed a global consensus to go after “proceeds of crime”. The PMLA seeks to mitigate such anxieties of the community. Acting under PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has of late knocked on the doors of the rich and mighty, including politicians, business houses, regional leaders and bookies. But what bothers businesses is the ED’s competence to inflict on citizens a reverse burden of proof, especially in case of pre-trial attachment of property and funds just on basis of reasons to believe of the investigative authority and not concrete facts. So even without an investigation being completed, you can be charged and your property can be attached just because a complaint/investigation exists against you. The germane question is to what extent the burden of proof is placed on an individual and businesses. What happens to rule of being “presumed innocent till proven guilty”? How would it affect prosecution in money laundering and economic offences? PMLA provides for attachment of property involved in money laundering even before the stage of trial itself, which effectively means that though a citizen is presumed not guilty, he is deprived of control over his property, when the prosecution believes that it comes from tainted money, effectively destroying lives, families, reputations and businesses, just on the basis of investigators’ reason to believe and not on evidence. The rights of the citizen without even a charge being framed ought to be protected. At this stage, what would be cardinal is to protect businesses and reputations. In Babu versus State of Kerala, the Supreme Court articulated that it is true that certain statutes “provide for a presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. However, such a presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. There may be difficulty in proving a negative fact”. The same rule would also apply to attachment proceedings if not through criminal jurisprudence, assuming that attachment proceedings are civil proceedings, then through articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which introduce the doctrines of proportionality and reasonableness. Thus implying that even where the presumption of tainted activity is provided for in law, all State action has to be based on reasonable ground and no disproportionate action is permissible. Similar provisions exist in NDPS ACT for offences only under NDPS Act and not for any general or regular crimes outside the ambit of NDPS. PMLA allows invoking the scheduled offences clause under PMLA, wherein a citizen’s property can be confiscated for crimes like murder which are not driven by “commercial gains”. Here the economic effect can even be as low as Rs 500. Prosecution giving effect to attachments without itself first substantiating foundational facts can fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution, as nothing could be more excessive and disproportionate than depriving a person of his reputation and property without establishing, in fact, the presence of the “proceeds of crime” and establishing prima facie “money laundering”. Justice Nariman writing for the majority in Shayara Bano versus Union of India held “Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary…” An illustration of this would be ED attaching properties worth Rs 200 crore when it can establish foundational fact for only 100 crore. The moment foundational fact jurisprudence comes in, mere reasons to believe would not mean mere suspicion but at least a grave suspicion and reasonably speaking, some more facts than mere grave suspicion. Economic transaction in the modern world is dependent on factors like Registration Act even if money is shifted through hawala, banking transactions and other checks and control. Again, attachment or confiscation without proving foundational fact would also go contrary to the right to reputation which forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy’s case opined in the following terms: “...We have already held that reputation is an inextricable aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State in order to sustain and protect the said reputation of an individual has kept the provision under Section 499 IPC alive as a part of the law.” Hence any attachment under PMLA without conforming to the principle of foundational facts would be susceptible to constitutional challenge as destroying reputations and lives and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality would act as a fetter on state action. (The authors are advocates in the Supreme Court.) (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)

There is no place for arbitrary acts

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it saw "some positive movement" in the Ayodhya land case after the Supreme Court verdict Thursday in a related matter.

It said the verdict indicated that the hearing in the case will not be done on the basis of faith.

Yesterday, the top court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam.

Senior AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani said, "We honour the court order and see some positive movement regarding the Ayodhya case."

Another AIMPLB member Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said, "We respect the court verdict."

Mr Mahali said the AIMPLB had wanted the Supreme Court's 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam be put before a constitution bench "so that the matter is resolved permanently."

"Two positive things have come from this verdict," he added. "First, the Ayodhya matter will not be heard on the basis of faith and will be heard as a title suit," he told PTI.

Second, he said, the 1994 observation by court "will not make an impact" on the case.

"We hope that the final hearing of Ayodhya will be completed soon. The Ayodhya hearing should not be linked with the elections," he said, referring to next year's Lok Sabha polls.

The issue whether the mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict.

In that judgment, the high court had ordered that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area should be divided among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it saw "some positive movement" in the Ayodhya land case after the Supreme Court verdict Thursday in a related matter.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said it saw "some positive movement" in the Ayodhya land case after the Supreme Court verdict Thursday in a related matter. It said the verdict indicated that the hearing in the case will not be done on the basis of faith. Yesterday, the top court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam. Senior AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani said, "We honour the court order and see some positive movement regarding the Ayodhya case." Another AIMPLB member Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said, "We respect the court verdict." Mr Mahali said the AIMPLB had wanted the Supreme Court's 1994 observation that the mosque is not integral to Islam be put before a constitution bench "so that the matter is resolved permanently." "Two positive things have come from this verdict," he added. "First, the Ayodhya matter will not be heard on the basis of faith and will be heard as a title suit," he told PTI. Second, he said, the 1994 observation by court "will not make an impact" on the case. "We hope that the final hearing of Ayodhya will be completed soon. The Ayodhya hearing should not be linked with the elections," he said, referring to next year's Lok Sabha polls. The issue whether the mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict. In that judgment, the high court had ordered that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area should be divided among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

In Ayodhya case, Muslim Board says it sees 'some positive movement'

The Centre Friday questioned the Supreme Court for its reported remark terming as "murderers" some Manipur Police personnel, chargesheeted in alleged fake encounter cases, saying it has "completely shaken" the morale of armed forces and securitymen operating in insurgency-hit areas.

The government told a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta that they supported the applications filed by some Manipur Police personnel seeking recusal of the bench from hearing the Manipur fake encounters cases in which the CBI's special investigation team (SIT) is carrying out a probe.

The petitioners, however, challenged the government's contention, saying this was an attempt to "overawe" the court, which should not recuse from hearing the matter. 
The court, which is hearing a PIL seeking a probe into as many as 1,528 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur, had on July 14 last year constituted an SIT of the CBI and ordered lodging of FIRs and investigating them.

Besides the policemen, over 300 army personnel have also approached the top court challenging registration of FIRs against them for operations in Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) is in force.&nbsp;

"I have instructions from the Union of India that we are supporting these petitions (seeking recusal of bench). So far as armed forces in Manipur are concerned, they are having difficult time fighting insurgency," Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told the bench.

The AG also questioned the prosecution of personnel from the armed forces and the police for conducting operations in the areas where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is in force, saying "they cannot understand why they are asked to face the prosecution".

He said the reported remarks by the bench that "murderers" were walking freely has "shaken" the morale of armed forces and police personnel as they were sacrificing their lives but facing the prospect of being awarded death penalty for the alleged offence of murder.

The bench, however, said the oral remarks by the bench during the hearing on July 30 was not "designed or directed" against any individual as it happened during the discussion in the court with the CBI Director.

Justice Lalit said that on July 30, they were asking the CBI Director, who was then present in the court, about the status of the case. The court was informed that till then, 14 persons were chargesheeted for the alleged offences of murder, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence by the SIT.

"We will make it clear and we will pass an order today that whatever had happened was in the course of discussion (with the CBI Director). It was not intended against any individual," the bench said.

Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for petitioners, told the court that persons who were chargesheeted had a "genuine apprehension" that they would not get a fair trial and impartial justice due to the remarks by the bench.

"This affects morale of Army and police personnel," he said, adding "this is our submission that this bench should not hear this case".

Rohatgi, while making it clear that nobody was saying that court was "biased", said these persons, having been chargesheeted for the offence of murder, were facing the charge of life or death.

The bench after hearing the submissions reserved its order on the application seeking its recusal from hearing the matter.

During the arguments, Venugopal said personnel from armed forces and police were "sacrificing their lives" in the insurgency hit areas and after the reported remarks by the bench, "they do not know what will happen to them".

He said after this remark by the highest court of the land, it would be very difficult for the trial judge to go against the observations of the apex court.

"Even if you clarify this, will they ever be able to get rid of this thought from their mind. They are not saying that this matter should not be heard. But some other bench should hear this," Venugopal said.

To this, the bench observed, "The CBI is investigating. No court is going to interfere with the investigation. We are just monitoring it. Is it your submission that some other bench should monitor the investigation?"&nbsp;

The bench also said it has not been stated that the CBI was not investigating these cases properly.

"Morale of entire armed forces in insurgency hit area under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is shaken," the Attorney General said, adding that even before the trial in the alleged encounter cases have started, the police personnel were termed as "murderers".

"It is justified that you leave it to other bench to monitor this. Life of people is involved," he said.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is representing the petitioners in the main case related to alleged fake encounters in Manipur by Army, Assam Rifles and state police, said the bench should not recuse from hearing the matter as it had not said that these accused were murderers.

"It (seeking recusal) is an attempt to overawe the court," he said, adding that these applications should be dismissed with cost.

An advocate, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the main matter, also opposed the plea seeking recusal of the bench.

Rohatgi, however, said, "Anybody can make a mistake. The court can also make a mistake. In section 377 (apex court's verdict on gay sex) and adultery case, the mistakes made earlier by this court has been corrected by this court".&nbsp;

The Centre Friday questioned the Supreme Court for its reported remark terming as "murderers" some Manipur Police personnel, chargesheeted in alleged fake encounter cases, saying it has "completely shaken" the morale of armed forces and securitymen operating in insurgency-hit areas.

The Centre Friday questioned the Supreme Court for its reported remark terming as "murderers" some Manipur Police personnel, chargesheeted in alleged fake encounter cases, saying it has "completely shaken" the morale of armed forces and securitymen operating in insurgency-hit areas. The government told a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta that they supported the applications filed by some Manipur Police personnel seeking recusal of the bench from hearing the Manipur fake encounters cases in which the CBI's special investigation team (SIT) is carrying out a probe. The petitioners, however, challenged the government's contention, saying this was an attempt to "overawe" the court, which should not recuse from hearing the matter. The court, which is hearing a PIL seeking a probe into as many as 1,528 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur, had on July 14 last year constituted an SIT of the CBI and ordered lodging of FIRs and investigating them. Besides the policemen, over 300 army personnel have also approached the top court challenging registration of FIRs against them for operations in Manipur and Jammu and Kashmir where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) is in force. "I have instructions from the Union of India that we are supporting these petitions (seeking recusal of bench). So far as armed forces in Manipur are concerned, they are having difficult time fighting insurgency," Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told the bench. The AG also questioned the prosecution of personnel from the armed forces and the police for conducting operations in the areas where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is in force, saying "they cannot understand why they are asked to face the prosecution". He said the reported remarks by the bench that "murderers" were walking freely has "shaken" the morale of armed forces and police personnel as they were sacrificing their lives but facing the prospect of being awarded death penalty for the alleged offence of murder. The bench, however, said the oral remarks by the bench during the hearing on July 30 was not "designed or directed" against any individual as it happened during the discussion in the court with the CBI Director. Justice Lalit said that on July 30, they were asking the CBI Director, who was then present in the court, about the status of the case. The court was informed that till then, 14 persons were chargesheeted for the alleged offences of murder, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence by the SIT. "We will make it clear and we will pass an order today that whatever had happened was in the course of discussion (with the CBI Director). It was not intended against any individual," the bench said. Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for petitioners, told the court that persons who were chargesheeted had a "genuine apprehension" that they would not get a fair trial and impartial justice due to the remarks by the bench. "This affects morale of Army and police personnel," he said, adding "this is our submission that this bench should not hear this case". Rohatgi, while making it clear that nobody was saying that court was "biased", said these persons, having been chargesheeted for the offence of murder, were facing the charge of life or death. The bench after hearing the submissions reserved its order on the application seeking its recusal from hearing the matter. During the arguments, Venugopal said personnel from armed forces and police were "sacrificing their lives" in the insurgency hit areas and after the reported remarks by the bench, "they do not know what will happen to them". He said after this remark by the highest court of the land, it would be very difficult for the trial judge to go against the observations of the apex court. "Even if you clarify this, will they ever be able to get rid of this thought from their mind. They are not saying that this matter should not be heard. But some other bench should hear this," Venugopal said. To this, the bench observed, "The CBI is investigating. No court is going to interfere with the investigation. We are just monitoring it. Is it your submission that some other bench should monitor the investigation?" The bench also said it has not been stated that the CBI was not investigating these cases properly. "Morale of entire armed forces in insurgency hit area under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is shaken," the Attorney General said, adding that even before the trial in the alleged encounter cases have started, the police personnel were termed as "murderers". "It is justified that you leave it to other bench to monitor this. Life of people is involved," he said. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is representing the petitioners in the main case related to alleged fake encounters in Manipur by Army, Assam Rifles and state police, said the bench should not recuse from hearing the matter as it had not said that these accused were murderers. "It (seeking recusal) is an attempt to overawe the court," he said, adding that these applications should be dismissed with cost. An advocate, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the main matter, also opposed the plea seeking recusal of the bench. Rohatgi, however, said, "Anybody can make a mistake. The court can also make a mistake. In section 377 (apex court's verdict on gay sex) and adultery case, the mistakes made earlier by this court has been corrected by this court".

SC's remark has 'shaken' morale of armed forces, cops: Centre to Supreme Court

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/antiguan-prime-minister-government-committed-extraditing-choksi-ministry-external">Antiguan Prime Minister, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/antiguan-prime-minister-government-committed-extraditing-choksi-ministry-external">government</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/antiguan-prime-minister-government-committed-extraditing-choksi-ministry-external"> committed to extraditing Choksi: Ministry of External Affairs</a>

Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, on Wednesday shared information on fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi's extradition to India, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-defends-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh-says-could-change-mind-167882">Trump defends Supreme Court pick Kavanaugh but says could change </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-defends-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh-says-could-change-mind-167882">mind</a>

US President Donald Trump praised his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday but said he would be open to withdrawing his nomination if he finds sexual assault allegations against him to be credible.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-verdict-babri-masjid-ram-mandir-today-timeline-key-events-167874">SC verdict on Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir today: A timeline of key events&nbsp;</a>

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pak-foreign-minister-claims-he-had-informal-meeting-trump-white-house-says-only">Pak foreign minister claims he had 'informal meeting' with Trump, US says only handshake&nbsp;</a>

US President Donald Trump had a handshake with Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi during a luncheon in New York, the White House said, but Qureshi described it as an "informal meeting" when they discussed bilateral ties.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-abe-agree-two-way-trade-talks-japan-dodges-us-auto-tariffs-167878">Trump, Abe </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-abe-agree-two-way-trade-talks-japan-dodges-us-auto-tariffs-167878">agree</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-abe-agree-two-way-trade-talks-japan-dodges-us-auto-tariffs-167878"> two-way trade talks, Japan dodges US auto tariffs</a>

US President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed on Wednesday to start trade talks in an arrangement that, for now, protects Japanese automakers from further tariffs, seen as a major threat to the export-dependent economy.

Antiguan Prime Minister, government committed to extraditing Choksi: Ministry of External Affairs Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, on Wednesday shared information on fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi's extradition to India, news agency ANI reported.

Antiguan Prime Minister, government committed to extraditing Choksi: Ministry of External Affairs Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, on Wednesday shared information on fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi's extradition to India, news agency ANI reported. Trump defends Supreme Court pick Kavanaugh but says could change mind US President Donald Trump praised his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday but said he would be open to withdrawing his nomination if he finds sexual assault allegations against him to be credible. SC verdict on Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir today: A timeline of key events The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated that a mosque was not integral to Islam. Pak foreign minister claims he had 'informal meeting' with Trump, US says only handshake US President Donald Trump had a handshake with Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi during a luncheon in New York, the White House said, but Qureshi described it as an "informal meeting" when they discussed bilateral ties. Trump, Abe agree two-way trade talks, Japan dodges US auto tariffs US President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed on Wednesday to start trade talks in an arrangement that, for now, protects Japanese automakers from further tariffs, seen as a major threat to the export-dependent economy.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated&nbsp;that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The history of the dispute dates back to the 16th century, the mosque in question is believed to have been in existence since 1528 -- built in Ayodhya by the commander of Mughal emperor, Mir Baqi. On the other hand, the Archaeological Survey of India suggested the existence of a 10th-century temple at the site.&nbsp;

The case gained prominence again after mediation by Art of Living founder Ravi Shankar in 2017.&nbsp;

The Shia Waqf Board, last month, had proposed the formation of a Ram Mandir at the site in Ayodhya while the mosque can be formed in Lucknow.

Ahead of the Supreme Court's crucial verdict today, here's taking a quick look at the timeline of the events related to the dispute.&nbsp;

1800s: The first recorded clash over Ayodhya site took place in 1853. A fence was created by the Britishers for Hindus and Muslims to worship separately.&nbsp;

1949: The government declared the site a disputed area after a group of Hindus allegedly sneaked in Lord Ram idol in the mosque. Muslims stopped offering namaz. In the coming years, various Hindu organisations filed suits seeking exclusive rights to the site.&nbsp;

1961: Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf sought a suit seeking the possession of Babri mosque site.

1980s: Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign with an aim to re-open the site and build a grand Ram temple. The Bhartiya Janata Party also backed the movement later on.&nbsp;

1990: A Rath Yatra was launched by the then BJP President LK Advani for the cause of building a Ram Temple on the mosque site. The yatra stretched from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

The Yatra triggered riots across the country, Advani was arrested in Samastipur in Bihar. The BJP withdrew its support to the government leading to early parliamentary elections.

1992: Violent protests and communal riots broke out when a large group of people congregated at the site with an aim to demolish the mosque. A makeshift Ram Mandir was built, Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao vowed to rebuild the mosque.&nbsp;

2002: An Ayodhya Cell was set up by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to resolve the dispute. High Court began hearing the case to determine who owns the Ayodhya site the same year.&nbsp;

2003: The Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple beneath the mosque site after carrying out excavations on the direction of the Allahabad High Court. Muslim bodies disputed the findings.

2010: Allahabad High Court pronounced a historic judgement ruling that the 2.77 acres of disputed Ayodhya land should be divided into 3 parts.&nbsp;

According to the verdict, one-third of the land was to be given to Ram Lalla, represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, one third was entrusted to the Nirmohi Akhara, the remaining one third was to be given to Islamic Sunni Waqf Board.

2017: The matter came into prominence again with the mediation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who called for an out-of-court solution. It was rejected by political parties and various religious boards.

In December Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the matter should be heard only after the completion of 2019 Lok Sabha elections. He told the Court that since the BJP has the issue of Ram Mandir in their election manifesto, the Bench must hear the matter only after July 2019. Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave also echoed Sibal’s arguments and sought leave to recuse themselves from the proceedings.

Court turned down the same. Listed the matter for February 8, 2018, for arguments.

2018: In August, the Shia Central Waqf Board offered a new proposal to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi conflict in Ayodhya – a Ram temple in Ayodhya, a mosque in Lucknow. The proposal has been rejected by several Muslim bodies.

In July, the court reserved verdict to a larger Bench.

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The history of the dispute dates back to the 16th century, the mosque in question is believed to have been in existence since 1528 -- built in Ayodhya by the commander of Mughal emperor, Mir Baqi. On the other hand, the Archaeological Survey of India suggested the existence of a 10th-century temple at the site. The case gained prominence again after mediation by Art of Living founder Ravi Shankar in 2017. The Shia Waqf Board, last month, had proposed the formation of a Ram Mandir at the site in Ayodhya while the mosque can be formed in Lucknow. Ahead of the Supreme Court's crucial verdict today, here's taking a quick look at the timeline of the events related to the dispute. 1800s: The first recorded clash over Ayodhya site took place in 1853. A fence was created by the Britishers for Hindus and Muslims to worship separately. 1949: The government declared the site a disputed area after a group of Hindus allegedly sneaked in Lord Ram idol in the mosque. Muslims stopped offering namaz. In the coming years, various Hindu organisations filed suits seeking exclusive rights to the site. 1961: Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf sought a suit seeking the possession of Babri mosque site. 1980s: Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign with an aim to re-open the site and build a grand Ram temple. The Bhartiya Janata Party also backed the movement later on. 1990: A Rath Yatra was launched by the then BJP President LK Advani for the cause of building a Ram Temple on the mosque site. The yatra stretched from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. The Yatra triggered riots across the country, Advani was arrested in Samastipur in Bihar. The BJP withdrew its support to the government leading to early parliamentary elections. 1992: Violent protests and communal riots broke out when a large group of people congregated at the site with an aim to demolish the mosque. A makeshift Ram Mandir was built, Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao vowed to rebuild the mosque. 2002: An Ayodhya Cell was set up by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to resolve the dispute. High Court began hearing the case to determine who owns the Ayodhya site the same year. 2003: The Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple beneath the mosque site after carrying out excavations on the direction of the Allahabad High Court. Muslim bodies disputed the findings. 2010: Allahabad High Court pronounced a historic judgement ruling that the 2.77 acres of disputed Ayodhya land should be divided into 3 parts. According to the verdict, one-third of the land was to be given to Ram Lalla, represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, one third was entrusted to the Nirmohi Akhara, the remaining one third was to be given to Islamic Sunni Waqf Board. 2017: The matter came into prominence again with the mediation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who called for an out-of-court solution. It was rejected by political parties and various religious boards. In December Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the matter should be heard only after the completion of 2019 Lok Sabha elections. He told the Court that since the BJP has the issue of Ram Mandir in their election manifesto, the Bench must hear the matter only after July 2019. Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave also echoed Sibal’s arguments and sought leave to recuse themselves from the proceedings. Court turned down the same. Listed the matter for February 8, 2018, for arguments. 2018: In August, the Shia Central Waqf Board offered a new proposal to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi conflict in Ayodhya – a Ram temple in Ayodhya, a mosque in Lucknow. The proposal has been rejected by several Muslim bodies. In July, the court reserved verdict to a larger Bench.

SC verdict on Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir today: A timeline of key events 

US President Donald Trump praised his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday but said he would be open to withdrawing his nomination if he finds sexual assault allegations against him to be credible.

"I can always be convinced," Trump said on the eve of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing featuring one of Kavanaugh's accusers.

"If I thought he was guilty of something like this, yes, sure," Trump said at a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

"It's possible I'll hear that, and I'll say, 'Hey, I'm changing my mind.'

"I want to watch," Trump said ahead of the hearing featuring Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers.

"I look forward to what she has to say," Trump said. "I also look forward to what Judge Kavanaugh has to say. I think it's going to be a very important day in the history of our country."

In prepared testimony released on Wednesday, the 51-year-old Blasey Ford said she feared Kavanaugh would rape her during the attack, which she said occurred in the summer of 1982.

Blasey Ford said the incident left her "drastically altered," but it was her "civic duty" to tell lawmakers what happened.&nbsp;

Kavanaugh has also been accused of exposing himself to a classmate, Deborah Ramirez, during an alcohol-fueled Yale University party a few years later.

On Wednesday a third woman came forward with explosive allegations, saying she witnessed sexually abusive behaviour by Kavanaugh when he was a teenager.

Trump described Kavanaugh as a "great gentleman" and a "great intellect" and said he believed the accusations against the conservative judge were "false."

'Big, fat con job'&nbsp;

Trump said he was skeptical because he personally had been the target of "false statements" in the past made by various women.

"I've had a lot of false charges made against me," he said. "People want fame, they want money, they want whatever."

He also slammed his Democratic opponents, accusing them of being "con artists" and destroying the 53-year-old judge's reputation.

The Kavanaugh nomination has turned into a political firestorm ahead of November congressional elections and is threatening to derail Trump's push to get a conservative-minded majority on the top court ahead of the vote.

Democrats on Wednesday demanded that Trump withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination or order an FBI investigation.

"He is asking for a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court where he will have the opportunity to rule on matters that will impact Americans for decades," the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a letter to the president.

The third woman to come forward, Julie Swetnick, said she saw Kavanaugh engage in sexually abusive behaviour as a teenager and claimed she had been drugged and gang-raped at a party he attended in approximately 1982.

Kavanaugh strongly denied the allegations by Swetnick, 55, who has worked extensively for the federal government.

"This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone," he said in a statement. "I don't know who this is and this never happened."

Later, the judiciary committee said it had received the fourth allegation, this time in a letter from an anonymous source who said their daughter and others had witnessed Kavanaugh physically assault a woman while intoxicated in Washington in 1998, shoving her "up against the wall very aggressively and sexually."

"There were at least four witnesses including my daughter," the source wrote, adding that the alleged victim was "still traumatized."

But a spokesman for the committee told AFP the letter lacked credibility and the panel had no way to investigate the matter because the complaint was anonymous.

'Physically aggressive behaviour'&nbsp;

Swetnick said she saw Kavanaugh behave as a "mean drunk" at parties they both attended growing up in suburban Maryland.

"I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abusive and physically aggressive behaviour towards girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, 'grinding' against girls, and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts," Swetnick said.

She did not specifically claim Kavanaugh took part or that he was aware of her rape, but said that he and other boys in his circle engaged in similar behaviour.

She said she saw efforts by "Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang-raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys.

"I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room," she said.

"These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh," she said. Judge is a boyhood friend of Kavanaugh who has written a book describing the debauchery of his high school years.

Kavanaugh, in prepared testimony released on Wednesday, repeated his denial of Blasey Ford's allegation and said: "this effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out."

US President Donald Trump praised his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday but said he would be open to withdrawing his nomination if he finds sexual assault allegations against him to be credible.

US President Donald Trump praised his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday but said he would be open to withdrawing his nomination if he finds sexual assault allegations against him to be credible. "I can always be convinced," Trump said on the eve of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing featuring one of Kavanaugh's accusers. "If I thought he was guilty of something like this, yes, sure," Trump said at a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. "It's possible I'll hear that, and I'll say, 'Hey, I'm changing my mind.' "I want to watch," Trump said ahead of the hearing featuring Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers. "I look forward to what she has to say," Trump said. "I also look forward to what Judge Kavanaugh has to say. I think it's going to be a very important day in the history of our country." In prepared testimony released on Wednesday, the 51-year-old Blasey Ford said she feared Kavanaugh would rape her during the attack, which she said occurred in the summer of 1982. Blasey Ford said the incident left her "drastically altered," but it was her "civic duty" to tell lawmakers what happened. Kavanaugh has also been accused of exposing himself to a classmate, Deborah Ramirez, during an alcohol-fueled Yale University party a few years later. On Wednesday a third woman came forward with explosive allegations, saying she witnessed sexually abusive behaviour by Kavanaugh when he was a teenager. Trump described Kavanaugh as a "great gentleman" and a "great intellect" and said he believed the accusations against the conservative judge were "false." 'Big, fat con job' Trump said he was skeptical because he personally had been the target of "false statements" in the past made by various women. "I've had a lot of false charges made against me," he said. "People want fame, they want money, they want whatever." He also slammed his Democratic opponents, accusing them of being "con artists" and destroying the 53-year-old judge's reputation. The Kavanaugh nomination has turned into a political firestorm ahead of November congressional elections and is threatening to derail Trump's push to get a conservative-minded majority on the top court ahead of the vote. Democrats on Wednesday demanded that Trump withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination or order an FBI investigation. "He is asking for a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court where he will have the opportunity to rule on matters that will impact Americans for decades," the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a letter to the president. The third woman to come forward, Julie Swetnick, said she saw Kavanaugh engage in sexually abusive behaviour as a teenager and claimed she had been drugged and gang-raped at a party he attended in approximately 1982. Kavanaugh strongly denied the allegations by Swetnick, 55, who has worked extensively for the federal government. "This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone," he said in a statement. "I don't know who this is and this never happened." Later, the judiciary committee said it had received the fourth allegation, this time in a letter from an anonymous source who said their daughter and others had witnessed Kavanaugh physically assault a woman while intoxicated in Washington in 1998, shoving her "up against the wall very aggressively and sexually." "There were at least four witnesses including my daughter," the source wrote, adding that the alleged victim was "still traumatized." But a spokesman for the committee told AFP the letter lacked credibility and the panel had no way to investigate the matter because the complaint was anonymous. 'Physically aggressive behaviour' Swetnick said she saw Kavanaugh behave as a "mean drunk" at parties they both attended growing up in suburban Maryland. "I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abusive and physically aggressive behaviour towards girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, 'grinding' against girls, and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts," Swetnick said. She did not specifically claim Kavanaugh took part or that he was aware of her rape, but said that he and other boys in his circle engaged in similar behaviour. She said she saw efforts by "Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang-raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys. "I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room," she said. "These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh," she said. Judge is a boyhood friend of Kavanaugh who has written a book describing the debauchery of his high school years. Kavanaugh, in prepared testimony released on Wednesday, repeated his denial of Blasey Ford's allegation and said: "this effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out."

Trump defends Supreme Court pick Kavanaugh but says could change mind

In a big relief to Salman Khan and the team of 'LoveYatri', the Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no coercive action be taken in any part of the country against the film or its makers.&nbsp; 
 
A bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, considered the submission that despite being cleared by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC), an FIR had been registered in Bihar and a criminal complaint was pending in Vadodara in Gujarat. The film is slated to release in theatres on 5th October. 
 
The bench took note of the plea of the producer and said that no coercive action shall be taken against it relating to the content and the name of the movie. 
 
Several private criminal complaints have been filed against the movie alleging that its name has hurt the religious sentiment of Hindus. 
 
The film which was earlier named as 'Loveratri' was changed to 'Loveyatri' by the producers keeping in mind that earlier name sounded like 'Navratri'. 
 
The movie stars Salman's brother-in-law Ayush Sharma and Warina Hussain. 
 
(With PTI inputs)

In a big relief to Salman Khan and the team of 'LoveYatri', the Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no coercive action be taken in any part of the country against the film or its makers.

In a big relief to Salman Khan and the team of 'LoveYatri', the Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no coercive action be taken in any part of the country against the film or its makers. A bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, considered the submission that despite being cleared by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC), an FIR had been registered in Bihar and a criminal complaint was pending in Vadodara in Gujarat. The film is slated to release in theatres on 5th October. The bench took note of the plea of the producer and said that no coercive action shall be taken against it relating to the content and the name of the movie. Several private criminal complaints have been filed against the movie alleging that its name has hurt the religious sentiment of Hindus. The film which was earlier named as 'Loveratri' was changed to 'Loveyatri' by the producers keeping in mind that earlier name sounded like 'Navratri'. The movie stars Salman's brother-in-law Ayush Sharma and Warina Hussain. (With PTI inputs)

LoveYatri: Supreme Court rules out coercive action against Salman Khan produced film

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, while reading out the verdict today, described the law as "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" stating that adultery cannot be a criminal offence and that a husband is not the master of a woman.&nbsp;

CJI Misra maintained that women must be treated equally as men.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Parameters of fundamental rights should include rights of women. Individual dignity important in a sanctified society.System can't treat women unequally. Women can't be asked to think what a society desires:CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Sec 497(Adultery) <a href="https://t.co/FMRLxi5n9t">pic.twitter.com/FMRLxi5n9t</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045181361902903297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 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>

"Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife," the apex court ruled.&nbsp;

However, the top court noted that adultery can form the basis for the dissolution of a marriage and can be ground for divorce.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Section 497 (Adultery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional: Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra <a href="https://t.co/gRDrl3TpWy">pic.twitter.com/gRDrl3TpWy</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045182687709880320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 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>

"Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women and views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage," CJI Misra read out the verdict.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women &amp; views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage: CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Section 497 (Adultery) of IPC
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045181366109753344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 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>

The five-judge bench also pronounced that mere adultery cannot be called a crime unless something is added. "It is a matter of absolute privacy," the Court ruled.&nbsp;

The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9xykP6-Gn1k" width="560"></iframe>

India's adultery law states that: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."&nbsp;

Another part of the law which drew much criticism was that the law permitted a woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but no such provision was available for the wife of the adulterous man.

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery.

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, while reading out the verdict today, described the law as "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" stating that adultery cannot be a criminal offence and that a husband is not the master of a woman. CJI Misra maintained that women must be treated equally as men. Parameters of fundamental rights should include rights of women. Individual dignity important in a sanctified society.System can't treat women unequally. Women can't be asked to think what a society desires:CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Sec 497(Adultery) pic.twitter.com/FMRLxi5n9t — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × "Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife," the apex court ruled. However, the top court noted that adultery can form the basis for the dissolution of a marriage and can be ground for divorce. Section 497 (Adultery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional: Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra pic.twitter.com/gRDrl3TpWy — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × "Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women and views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage," CJI Misra read out the verdict. Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women & views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage: CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Section 497 (Adultery) of IPC — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × The five-judge bench also pronounced that mere adultery cannot be called a crime unless something is added. "It is a matter of absolute privacy," the Court ruled. The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman. India's adultery law states that: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor." Another part of the law which drew much criticism was that the law permitted a woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but no such provision was available for the wife of the adulterous man.

Adultery not a criminal offence, husband not the master: Supreme Court quashes Section 497

In its verdict on the constitutionality of the Unique Identification Number Aadhaar, the Supreme Court pronounced today, "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies."

"CBSE, UGC and NEET making Aadhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">The verdict</a> brought relief to customers making Aadhaar not mandatory for buying cellular connections and SIM cards. Bank account holders will no longer be required to link the 12-digit identification number to their accounts.

"No mobile company can demand Aadhaar card," the top court ruled on Wednesday.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
No mobile company can demand "Aadhaar card": Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/IRAm5pOUee">pic.twitter.com/IRAm5pOUee</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044829880200908800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 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>

However, it will still be compulsory to link the Permanent account number (PAN) to Aadhaar and for filing IT returns. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Aadhaar card is mandatory for PAN linking: Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/cBiKwJbdjX">pic.twitter.com/cBiKwJbdjX</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044830700376084480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 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 top court called Aadhaar different from other ID proofs adding that there are sufficient safeguards in Aadhaar's structure.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court strikes down the section 57 of Aadhaar Act; as a result, private companies cannot ask for Aadhaar card <a href="https://t.co/sg9HMax86L">pic.twitter.com/sg9HMax86L</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044833022640558081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 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>

"There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification," said Supreme Court.

"The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society," the Apex court said.

In its verdict on the constitutionality of the Unique Identification Number Aadhaar, the Supreme Court pronounced today, "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies.

In its verdict on the constitutionality of the Unique Identification Number Aadhaar, the Supreme Court pronounced today, "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies." "CBSE, UGC and NEET making Aadhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court. The verdict brought relief to customers making Aadhaar not mandatory for buying cellular connections and SIM cards. Bank account holders will no longer be required to link the 12-digit identification number to their accounts. "No mobile company can demand Aadhaar card," the top court ruled on Wednesday. No mobile company can demand "Aadhaar card": Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/IRAm5pOUee — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × However, it will still be compulsory to link the Permanent account number (PAN) to Aadhaar and for filing IT returns. Aadhaar card is mandatory for PAN linking: Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/cBiKwJbdjX — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × The top court called Aadhaar different from other ID proofs adding that there are sufficient safeguards in Aadhaar's structure. Supreme Court strikes down the section 57 of Aadhaar Act; as a result, private companies cannot ask for Aadhaar card pic.twitter.com/sg9HMax86L — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × "There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification," said Supreme Court. "The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society," the Apex court said.

Aadhaar not mandatory for mobile phone connections, bank accounts: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court of India is likely to pronounce its verdict on decriminalisation of&nbsp;Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision).

The case will be heard by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM KHawilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indur Malhotra.&nbsp;

The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman.&nbsp;

India's adultery law states that: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."&nbsp;

Another part which has drew a row of criticism is that the law permits woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but there is no such provision for the wife of the adulterous man. She cannot file a complaint against her husband or the other woman.

Interestingly, the adultery law, like much of Indian law, is a remnant of Victorian-era law handed down to the country by the British.&nbsp;

England itself has dropped the adultery law from its statute books.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India is likely to pronounce its verdict on decriminalisation of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision). The case will be heard by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM KHawilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indur Malhotra.

The Supreme Court of India is likely to pronounce its verdict on decriminalisation of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision). The case will be heard by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice AM KHawilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indur Malhotra. The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman. India's adultery law states that: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor." Another part which has drew a row of criticism is that the law permits woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but there is no such provision for the wife of the adulterous man. She cannot file a complaint against her husband or the other woman. Interestingly, the adultery law, like much of Indian law, is a remnant of Victorian-era law handed down to the country by the British. England itself has dropped the adultery law from its statute books.

Supreme Court likely to pronounce verdict on discriminatory adultery law today

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict Thursday on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict.&nbsp;

M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.

It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the "sweeping" observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as "it had and will have a bearing" on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.

The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century".

He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict.

The state government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise".

Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict Thursday on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict Thursday on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict. M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam. It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the "sweeping" observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as "it had and will have a bearing" on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century". He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict. The state government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise". Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench. The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

SC verdict today on plea for hearing by larger bench on whether mosques are integral to Islam

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions on quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees, declaring that states don't need to collect quantifiable data on backwardness. &nbsp;

The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the matter (the Nagaraj judgement) to a larger bench.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, S K Kaul and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter.

In 2006, a five-judge constitution bench, in its verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court says there is no need to collect data on SC/ST in reservation in promotion in government services <a href="https://t.co/4S6zBTrPcy">https://t.co/4S6zBTrPcy</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044818155753938944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 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 Centre had earlier alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting quota benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had strongly argued in favour of granting quota to SC and ST employees, saying there was a presumption of backwardness in their favour.

Venugopal had argued that the SC and ST communities have been facing caste-based discrimination for long and the stigma of caste is attached to them despite the fact that some of them have come up.

Earlier, the top court had questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions.

(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions on quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees, declaring that states don't need to collect quantifiable data on backwardness.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions on quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees, declaring that states don't need to collect quantifiable data on backwardness. The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the matter (the Nagaraj judgement) to a larger bench. The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, S K Kaul and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter. In 2006, a five-judge constitution bench, in its verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities. Supreme Court says there is no need to collect data on SC/ST in reservation in promotion in government services https://t.co/4S6zBTrPcy — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × The Centre had earlier alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting quota benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had strongly argued in favour of granting quota to SC and ST employees, saying there was a presumption of backwardness in their favour. Venugopal had argued that the SC and ST communities have been facing caste-based discrimination for long and the stigma of caste is attached to them despite the fact that some of them have come up. Earlier, the top court had questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions. (With inputs from PTI)

No need to collect data on backwardness: Supreme Court on quota benefits for SC/ST 

The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar will have different impact for different folks, a relief for those who no longer have to link their cards to their bank accounts and mobiles but tying millions dependent on subsidies to the biometric id, say activists and others.&nbsp;

The apex court Wednesday declared the Aadhaar scheme constitutionally valid, striking down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.&nbsp;

Some like Bipasha Mukherjee, 21, whose mobile stopped working for 72 hours last month, welcomed the judgement.&nbsp;

Following a visit to the telecom company's customer care centre, she was told the connection was disrupted because the "sim was not linked to her Aadhaar card".

"I was completely cut off for three days without any explanation from the telecom company," she said. 
However, Bipasha's relief did not trickle down to Gauri Devi, who works as a household help in Dwarka and needs the Aadhaar to avail facilities of welfare schemes and government subsidies.

In fact, Gauri said, it further polarises the haves and the have-nots.

She told PTI that she and her two sons applied for Aadhaar, but only her younger son received the document.

While the younger son could get admission to the Vidya Bharti School in North West Delhi, life became tougher for her. Collecting rations and accessing subsidised health services for her family was "impossible" without the card.&nbsp;

"Nothing happens without Aadhaar. To avail each subsidy, be it for food or health services, we are supposed to have the card. I did not get my Aadhaar even after registering myself...We are being deprived for no fault of ours," she said.&nbsp;

According to farmer leader and activist Vijoo Krishnan, food security, particularly among the poor, has been "worst hit" by the judgement.&nbsp;

According to data revealed earlier this year by the Right To Food (RTF) campaign, an advocacy group, 14 people allegedly starved to death in Jharkhand over 10 months after being denied rations because they didn't have Aadhaar cards.&nbsp;

"Denial of ration/food grains have been reported widely over UID issues including problems of biometric... The starvation deaths in Jharkhand, massive malnutrition and related deaths of children in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and tribal areas are pointers to the danger that lies in such a judgement," the Delhi-based activist said.&nbsp;

According to human rights organisation Amnesty India, "making an Aadhaar card a prerequisite to access essential services and benefits can obstruct access to several constitutional rights, including the rights of people to food, health care, education and social security".&nbsp;

Right to food activist Dipa Sinha added that they were expecting that welfare schemes would be delinked from Aaadhar too. 
"So, in that way the judgment is quite disappointing," she said.&nbsp;

Not everyone agreed with her.

Charles Assisi, who has co-authored an upcoming book titled, "The Aadhaar Effect: Why the World's Largest Identity Project Matters", said the verdict was, "very balanced" and that the country was "headed in the right direction".

According to him, the scheme, in fact, benefits people at the bottom of the totem pole the most.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

"One of the things we figured out is that the poorest of the country, that run into a few hundred million people, have absolutely no form of identity. You have to provide them with that so they can claim their rightful dues," Assisi told PTI.

"It brings them into the formal economy," he said.

Social media, too, was abuzz with mixed reactions.&nbsp;

While many took to Twitter to express their relief over freedom from "harassment" at the hands of banks and telecom companies, others used the social networking site to voice their disappointment.&nbsp;

A Jaiveer Shergill on Twitter "withdrew" his consent to share his data, and asked telecom companies and banks to "delete" the information they might have about him.&nbsp;"Dear Mobile Phone Operators &amp; Banks-You harassed us &amp; forced us to link #Aadhaar to your system-After #SupremeCourt Judgment -Kindly delete the data collected otherwise u shall b considered in possession of stolen property as I withdraw my consent to use my info #AadhaarVerdict," he tweeted.&nbsp;

Many noted that the verdict "has hurt welfare", adding that there was need and possibility of a review petition.&nbsp;

"Some important Modifications to #Aadhaar sought by majority judgment..But it is overall a disappointment as it doesn't consider large failures reported by welfare beneficiaries &amp; that mandation of #UID has hurt welfare. JYC's strong dissent opens up possibility of a review petition," Srinivasan Ramani tweeted, referring to Justice D Y Chandrachud's dissenting judgement.

Another tweeter Sunit Arora wrote the constitutional validation of Adhaar will result in great suffering for the poor.&nbsp;

"Very disappointing #Aadhaar verdict. Constitutional validity sets the stage for a (future) fascist state. The abject poor will suffer the most.

"A future government will HAVE to challenge this," Arora wrote.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar will have different impact for different folks, a relief for those who no longer have to link their cards to their bank accounts and mobiles but tying millions dependent on subsidies to the biometric id, say activists and others.

The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar will have different impact for different folks, a relief for those who no longer have to link their cards to their bank accounts and mobiles but tying millions dependent on subsidies to the biometric id, say activists and others. The apex court Wednesday declared the Aadhaar scheme constitutionally valid, striking down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. Some like Bipasha Mukherjee, 21, whose mobile stopped working for 72 hours last month, welcomed the judgement. Following a visit to the telecom company's customer care centre, she was told the connection was disrupted because the "sim was not linked to her Aadhaar card". "I was completely cut off for three days without any explanation from the telecom company," she said. However, Bipasha's relief did not trickle down to Gauri Devi, who works as a household help in Dwarka and needs the Aadhaar to avail facilities of welfare schemes and government subsidies. In fact, Gauri said, it further polarises the haves and the have-nots. She told PTI that she and her two sons applied for Aadhaar, but only her younger son received the document. While the younger son could get admission to the Vidya Bharti School in North West Delhi, life became tougher for her. Collecting rations and accessing subsidised health services for her family was "impossible" without the card. "Nothing happens without Aadhaar. To avail each subsidy, be it for food or health services, we are supposed to have the card. I did not get my Aadhaar even after registering myself...We are being deprived for no fault of ours," she said. According to farmer leader and activist Vijoo Krishnan, food security, particularly among the poor, has been "worst hit" by the judgement. According to data revealed earlier this year by the Right To Food (RTF) campaign, an advocacy group, 14 people allegedly starved to death in Jharkhand over 10 months after being denied rations because they didn't have Aadhaar cards. "Denial of ration/food grains have been reported widely over UID issues including problems of biometric... The starvation deaths in Jharkhand, massive malnutrition and related deaths of children in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and tribal areas are pointers to the danger that lies in such a judgement," the Delhi-based activist said. According to human rights organisation Amnesty India, "making an Aadhaar card a prerequisite to access essential services and benefits can obstruct access to several constitutional rights, including the rights of people to food, health care, education and social security". Right to food activist Dipa Sinha added that they were expecting that welfare schemes would be delinked from Aaadhar too. "So, in that way the judgment is quite disappointing," she said. Not everyone agreed with her. Charles Assisi, who has co-authored an upcoming book titled, "The Aadhaar Effect: Why the World's Largest Identity Project Matters", said the verdict was, "very balanced" and that the country was "headed in the right direction". According to him, the scheme, in fact, benefits people at the bottom of the totem pole the most. "One of the things we figured out is that the poorest of the country, that run into a few hundred million people, have absolutely no form of identity. You have to provide them with that so they can claim their rightful dues," Assisi told PTI. "It brings them into the formal economy," he said. Social media, too, was abuzz with mixed reactions. While many took to Twitter to express their relief over freedom from "harassment" at the hands of banks and telecom companies, others used the social networking site to voice their disappointment. A Jaiveer Shergill on Twitter "withdrew" his consent to share his data, and asked telecom companies and banks to "delete" the information they might have about him. "Dear Mobile Phone Operators & Banks-You harassed us & forced us to link #Aadhaar to your system-After #SupremeCourt Judgment -Kindly delete the data collected otherwise u shall b considered in possession of stolen property as I withdraw my consent to use my info #AadhaarVerdict," he tweeted. Many noted that the verdict "has hurt welfare", adding that there was need and possibility of a review petition. "Some important Modifications to #Aadhaar sought by majority judgment..But it is overall a disappointment as it doesn't consider large failures reported by welfare beneficiaries & that mandation of #UID has hurt welfare. JYC's strong dissent opens up possibility of a review petition," Srinivasan Ramani tweeted, referring to Justice D Y Chandrachud's dissenting judgement. Another tweeter Sunit Arora wrote the constitutional validation of Adhaar will result in great suffering for the poor. "Very disappointing #Aadhaar verdict. Constitutional validity sets the stage for a (future) fascist state. The abject poor will suffer the most. "A future government will HAVE to challenge this," Arora wrote.

Aadhaar verdict: Different impact for different folks

Congress president Rahul Gandhi thanked the Supreme Court for its verdict on the Aadhaar Act on Wednesday and said that it was an "instrument"&nbsp;for his party but a tool of "oppression and surveillance"&nbsp;for the BJP.

"For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment.

"For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance.

"Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting India," Rahul Gandhi said on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. 
 
For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. 
 
Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting 🇮🇳. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AadhaarVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AadhaarVerdict</a>
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi/status/1044891845782896640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme.

The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," the ruling noted.&nbsp;

The verdict also rendered the unique identification number not mandatory for new mobile connections and banking services, however, it will still be required for Personal Account Number (PAN) and for filing ITR.&nbsp;

Congress president Rahul Gandhi thanked the Supreme Court for its verdict on the Aadhaar Act on Wednesday and said that it was an "instrument" for his party but a tool of "oppression and surveillance" for the BJP.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi thanked the Supreme Court for its verdict on the Aadhaar Act on Wednesday and said that it was an "instrument" for his party but a tool of "oppression and surveillance" for the BJP. "For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. "For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. "Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting India," Rahul Gandhi said on Twitter. For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting 🇮🇳. #AadhaarVerdict — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) September 26, 2018 × The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. The top court, in its verdict today, stated that "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," the ruling noted. The verdict also rendered the unique identification number not mandatory for new mobile connections and banking services, however, it will still be required for Personal Account Number (PAN) and for filing ITR.

Rahul thanks Supreme Court for supporting 'Congress's vision' on Aadhaar

Hours after Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar, former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram launched a scathing attack on the government and said that BJP led NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a ''monster'' that will rule every aspect of a person's life.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
''The NDA tried to convert <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758">Aadhaar</a> into a monster that will rule every aspect of a person's life. And the NDA had been firmly rebuffed,'' Chidambaram tweeted.

The majority judgment in the Aadhaar case has retrieved the UPA's ''original'' idea of Aadhaar, he said in another tweet.

Aadhaar was meant to be a ''benign instrument'' to deliver benefits, subsidies and services to the poor. Glad that the UPA's policy has been vindicated, he said.

Picking on NDA, the Congress leader said the dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments,&nbsp;

''The dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments, especially the imperious NDA government. They would do well to heed those lessons,'' he said in another tweet.

Justice Chandrachud in his judgment said passing of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill is a fraud on the Constitution.&nbsp;

''The Act came perilously close to being struck down on the ground it was passed as a Money Bill when it was not. The Act was saved by judicial forbearance,''&nbsp;Chidambaram said.

Several provisions of the Act and the Regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional, he said and added the Supreme Court judgement is a humbling lesson for the Ministry of Law.

Congress leader said&nbsp;Aadhaar remains work in progress and the future government will surely bring in amendments.

''For now, we can be satisfied that a rampaging government has been restrained and the reach of Aadhaar has been contained to benefits, subsidies and services paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India,'' he further said.

Hours after Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar, former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram launched a scathing attack on the government and said that BJP led NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a ''monster'' that will rule every aspect of a person's life.

Hours after Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar, former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram launched a scathing attack on the government and said that BJP led NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a ''monster'' that will rule every aspect of a person's life. ''The NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a monster that will rule every aspect of a person's life. And the NDA had been firmly rebuffed,'' Chidambaram tweeted. The majority judgment in the Aadhaar case has retrieved the UPA's ''original'' idea of Aadhaar, he said in another tweet. Aadhaar was meant to be a ''benign instrument'' to deliver benefits, subsidies and services to the poor. Glad that the UPA's policy has been vindicated, he said. Picking on NDA, the Congress leader said the dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments, ''The dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud has many valuable lessons for all governments, especially the imperious NDA government. They would do well to heed those lessons,'' he said in another tweet. Justice Chandrachud in his judgment said passing of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill is a fraud on the Constitution. ''The Act came perilously close to being struck down on the ground it was passed as a Money Bill when it was not. The Act was saved by judicial forbearance,'' Chidambaram said. Several provisions of the Act and the Regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional, he said and added the Supreme Court judgement is a humbling lesson for the Ministry of Law. Congress leader said Aadhaar remains work in progress and the future government will surely bring in amendments. ''For now, we can be satisfied that a rampaging government has been restrained and the reach of Aadhaar has been contained to benefits, subsidies and services paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India,'' he further said.

NDA tried to convert Aadhaar into a 'monster': P Chidambaram 

Finance minister Arun Jaitley welcomed Supreme Court's decision of upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme as he called the verdict "historic" and said that its concept has been accepted after judicial review.

"It is a historic order, Aadhaar's concept has been accepted after judicial review, we welcome this decision of Supreme Court," Jaitley said in a press briefing after he chaired a cabinet meeting in the capital.

Taking a dig at Congress, Jaitley said, "Everyone who has been criticizing Aadhaar should understand that they cannot defy technology. Mainstream should accept changes, one can understand the fringe being against".

He continued his attack by saying that the "Congress cuts a very sorry figure here, they introduced the idea but they did not know what to do with it." &nbsp;

Elaborating on the importance of Aadhaar for proper distribution of welfare scheme and its benefits, he said&nbsp;the government is saving over Rs 90,000 crore due to Aadhaar.

The top court pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law today where it <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">upheld the validity of the Unique Identification number</a>.

"Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court.

The court's judgement means that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758">private bodies like mobile telecom operator companies</a>, e-commerce firms, private banks cannot mandatorily ask for Aadhaar details of their customers.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley welcomed Supreme Court's decision of upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme as he called the verdict "historic" and said that its concept has been accepted after judicial review.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley welcomed Supreme Court's decision of upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme as he called the verdict "historic" and said that its concept has been accepted after judicial review. "It is a historic order, Aadhaar's concept has been accepted after judicial review, we welcome this decision of Supreme Court," Jaitley said in a press briefing after he chaired a cabinet meeting in the capital. Taking a dig at Congress, Jaitley said, "Everyone who has been criticizing Aadhaar should understand that they cannot defy technology. Mainstream should accept changes, one can understand the fringe being against". He continued his attack by saying that the "Congress cuts a very sorry figure here, they introduced the idea but they did not know what to do with it." Elaborating on the importance of Aadhaar for proper distribution of welfare scheme and its benefits, he said the government is saving over Rs 90,000 crore due to Aadhaar. The top court pronounced its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law today where it upheld the validity of the Unique Identification number. "Aadhaar cannot be insisted upon in schools and private companies. CBSE, UGC and NEET making Adhaar making mandatory are bad," said Supreme Court. The court's judgement means that private bodies like mobile telecom operator companies, e-commerce firms, private banks cannot mandatorily ask for Aadhaar details of their customers.

'It is a historic order', says Jaitley after Supreme Court's Aadhaar verdict

The Supreme Court today allowed "live streaming" in certain cases.&nbsp;Live streaming will bring transparency, the apex court said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/live-streaming-of-court-proceedings-can-be-undertaken-centre-tells-supreme-court-150168">Also Read:&nbsp;Live streaming of court proceedings can be undertaken,&nbsp;Centre tells Supreme Court</a>

The three-judge bench while delivering the verdict said it will "serve public interest".

The top court said "it will start from the Supreme Court. Rules have to be followed for this. Live streaming of court proceedings will bring accountability into the judicial system."

Senior advocate Indira Jaising in her petition had sought live streaming of court proceedings in cases that are of "constitutional and national importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of people."&nbsp;

The petition said live streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance would empower and provide access to ''ordinary citizens'' who cannot personally go to the court due to social and economic constraints, even though the decision might impact them.

Enabling citizens to understand the reasoning in cases affecting their rights forms part of their right to dignity and is an intrinsic value of their right to be heard under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, the petition added.

The Supreme Court today allowed "live streaming" in certain cases. Live streaming will bring transparency, the apex court said. Also Read: Live streaming of court proceedings can be undertaken, Centre tells Supreme Court The three-judge bench while delivering the verdict said it will "serve public interest".

The Supreme Court today allowed "live streaming" in certain cases. Live streaming will bring transparency, the apex court said. Also Read: Live streaming of court proceedings can be undertaken, Centre tells Supreme Court The three-judge bench while delivering the verdict said it will "serve public interest". The top court said "it will start from the Supreme Court. Rules have to be followed for this. Live streaming of court proceedings will bring accountability into the judicial system." Senior advocate Indira Jaising in her petition had sought live streaming of court proceedings in cases that are of "constitutional and national importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of people." The petition said live streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance would empower and provide access to ''ordinary citizens'' who cannot personally go to the court due to social and economic constraints, even though the decision might impact them. Enabling citizens to understand the reasoning in cases affecting their rights forms part of their right to dignity and is an intrinsic value of their right to be heard under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, the petition added.

Supreme Court allows live streaming of court proceedings in 'certain cases'

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking to ban lawmakers from practising as advocates.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit legislators from practising as lawyers.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to bar lawyer-lawmakers (MPs, MLAs, MLCs) from practising in courts during their tenure in legislature.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking to ban lawmakers from practising as advocates. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit legislators from practising as lawyers.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking to ban lawmakers from practising as advocates. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit legislators from practising as lawyers. The court was hearing a PIL filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to bar lawyer-lawmakers (MPs, MLAs, MLCs) from practising in courts during their tenure in legislature.

Lawyers elected as lawmakers can practice in courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce the crucial judgment on petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar on Wednesday.

The case will be&nbsp;heard&nbsp;by the five-judge constitutional bench comprising, chief justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

The top court tomorrow will essentially decide on whether Aadhaar government can continue seeking it as a mandatory identification in the name of furthering its welfare goals.

Last year, the Central government had made it mandatory for all financial institutions including banks, to verify and link Aadhaar of the customers with their accounts.&nbsp; It also made it mandatory to link the unique identification number with welfare schemes, as well as essential services like banking and phone, in the name of weeding out benami deals and black money.

While this was seen as a move of integrating a number of services, the system faced flak from the nation, particularly due to numerous reports suggesting data breaches.

However, in March this year, the Supreme Court indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones.

In the same month, the government stated that around 16,65,85,421 Aadhaar cars had been linked with PermanentAccountn Number (PAN) as on March 5.

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce the crucial judgment on petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar on Wednesday. The case will be heard by the five-judge constitutional bench comprising, chief justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce the crucial judgment on petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar on Wednesday. The case will be heard by the five-judge constitutional bench comprising, chief justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khawilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The top court tomorrow will essentially decide on whether Aadhaar government can continue seeking it as a mandatory identification in the name of furthering its welfare goals. Last year, the Central government had made it mandatory for all financial institutions including banks, to verify and link Aadhaar of the customers with their accounts. It also made it mandatory to link the unique identification number with welfare schemes, as well as essential services like banking and phone, in the name of weeding out benami deals and black money. While this was seen as a move of integrating a number of services, the system faced flak from the nation, particularly due to numerous reports suggesting data breaches. However, in March this year, the Supreme Court indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones. In the same month, the government stated that around 16,65,85,421 Aadhaar cars had been linked with PermanentAccountn Number (PAN) as on March 5.

Can Aadhaar be made mandatory? Supreme Court judgement today

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master.

Luthra, who mentioned the matter before the bench, said the court should fix a date for hearing as it is an urgent matter.

"You wait and see. You give the mentioning memo, we will see to it," the bench said.

In their plea, Luthra along with petitioner advocate Satyaveer Sharma said they are seeking adjudication of the question of law for which they are relying on

the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court.

The plea said the petitioners were also relying on an undated letter addressed to Chief Justice of India and circulated by the four apex court judges.

"This act of the four senior most judges of the court was not less than a sabotage to the judicial system of the country. They tried to arouse public furore in the country in the names of certain internal differences in this court," the plea said.

It said that "the petitioners are aggrieved of the actions and omissions on the part of respondent 1 (Union of India) and respondent 2 (Chief Justice of India), which has resulted into appointment of respondent 3 (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) as the Chief Justice of India instead of reprimanding him for his illegal and anti-institutional act".

The petition said that act of Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 "is illegal and unconstitutional and also against the canons of law because the appointment on highest post of judiciary has been awarded to a person who is guilty of committing judicial impropriety and judicial misconduct".

The plea also sought quashing of the order of appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the Chief Justice of India with effect from October 3.

On September 3, the president has appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He will take oath on October 3 after incumbent Chief Justice Dipak Misra retires.

Justice Gogoi will be the first Chief Justice of India from Assam. The warrant of appointment of Justice Gogoi as Chief Justice had come in less than 10 days after Chief Justice Dipak Misra recommended his name as successor.&nbsp;

Justice Gogoi would have a tenure as Chief Justice of India of about 13 months till his retirement on November 17, 2019.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master. Luthra, who mentioned the matter before the bench, said the court should fix a date for hearing as it is an urgent matter. "You wait and see. You give the mentioning memo, we will see to it," the bench said. In their plea, Luthra along with petitioner advocate Satyaveer Sharma said they are seeking adjudication of the question of law for which they are relying on the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court. The plea said the petitioners were also relying on an undated letter addressed to Chief Justice of India and circulated by the four apex court judges. "This act of the four senior most judges of the court was not less than a sabotage to the judicial system of the country. They tried to arouse public furore in the country in the names of certain internal differences in this court," the plea said. It said that "the petitioners are aggrieved of the actions and omissions on the part of respondent 1 (Union of India) and respondent 2 (Chief Justice of India), which has resulted into appointment of respondent 3 (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) as the Chief Justice of India instead of reprimanding him for his illegal and anti-institutional act". The petition said that act of Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 "is illegal and unconstitutional and also against the canons of law because the appointment on highest post of judiciary has been awarded to a person who is guilty of committing judicial impropriety and judicial misconduct". The plea also sought quashing of the order of appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the Chief Justice of India with effect from October 3. On September 3, the president has appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He will take oath on October 3 after incumbent Chief Justice Dipak Misra retires. Justice Gogoi will be the first Chief Justice of India from Assam. The warrant of appointment of Justice Gogoi as Chief Justice had come in less than 10 days after Chief Justice Dipak Misra recommended his name as successor. Justice Gogoi would have a tenure as Chief Justice of India of about 13 months till his retirement on November 17, 2019.

SC to hear plea challenging appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as next CJI

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 which seeks to criminalize the practice of Triple Talaq, reported news agency ANI.

The petition has been filed by the Samastha Kerala Jam’eyyath ul-Ulama, a religious organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics based in Kerala, the report added.

The petitioner has prayed that the Triple Talaq ordinance be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21. It further contends that the ordinance was promulgated by a misuse of Article 123 of the Constitution.

This petition comes close on the heels of a similar petition filed in the Bombay High Court, challenging the Triple Talaq Ordinance as being “illegal, null, void, unreasonable and arbitrary.”

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017 was passed in the Lok Sabha in December last year. However, the Bill did not see the light of day as Opposition in the Rajya Sabha expressed reservations over some provisions.

The Centre, therefore, took the Ordinance route, introducing a few changes to the 2017 Bill.

One of the changes introduced is that the police can lodge an FIR only if approached by the victim, her blood relations, or people who become her relatives by virtue of marriage.

Further, the offence has now been made non-compoundable, where a magistrate can use his powers to settle the dispute.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 which seeks to criminalize the practice of Triple Talaq, reported news agency ANI.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 which seeks to criminalize the practice of Triple Talaq, reported news agency ANI. The petition has been filed by the Samastha Kerala Jam’eyyath ul-Ulama, a religious organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics based in Kerala, the report added. The petitioner has prayed that the Triple Talaq ordinance be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21. It further contends that the ordinance was promulgated by a misuse of Article 123 of the Constitution. This petition comes close on the heels of a similar petition filed in the Bombay High Court, challenging the Triple Talaq Ordinance as being “illegal, null, void, unreasonable and arbitrary.” The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017 was passed in the Lok Sabha in December last year. However, the Bill did not see the light of day as Opposition in the Rajya Sabha expressed reservations over some provisions. The Centre, therefore, took the Ordinance route, introducing a few changes to the 2017 Bill. One of the changes introduced is that the police can lodge an FIR only if approached by the victim, her blood relations, or people who become her relatives by virtue of marriage. Further, the offence has now been made non-compoundable, where a magistrate can use his powers to settle the dispute.

Triple Talaq Ordinance challenged in Supreme Court 

supreme-court

Supreme Court, News on Supreme Court, stories on Supreme Court, articles on Supreme Court, Supreme Court stories at Wion, Supreme Court news, Supreme Court latest news

supreme court