Congress president Rahul Gandhi Saturday alleged that institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Election Commission were being "systematically captured" by the RSS and said India cannot be run on one single idea.

There is a feeling among the people that one ideology is being imposed upon them, Gandhi said at an interaction with academicians here.

"(RSS chief) Mohan Bhagwat in his earlier speeches has said: 'We are going to organise the nation'. Who is he to organise the nation? The nation will organise itself. In next couple of months, their fantasy will be smashed," he asserted.

During the interaction with eminent academicians from across the country at the Siri Fort, Gandhi said there are two visions of India and the Congress' vision is that India constitutes of people who live in it.

The only way to understand India is talk to its people, he said.

Gandhi alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's vision of India is that of a "golden bird" which it views as a product.

The product has to be monetised and utilised, and they will decide who will do this, the Congress chief said.

"What we are fighting is the attempted capture of this 'golden bird' by the RSS. They have understood very clearly that electoral battle for them, they can win it once, but they can't repeatedly win it.

"They have understood that. So, now what they are doing is that they are saying elections will come and elections will go, let us capture all of India's institutions and let us capture the golden bird with a bypass surgery," he said.

The educational institutions, the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India, all these are "systematically being captured", Gandhi alleged.

Citing an example, he alleged, "When Mr (Narendra) Modi came to power, a person from Gujarat was chosen to head the SPG. In a short time, he left the position. He told me that he refused a list of SPG officers handpicked by the RSS, and that is why he was sent home."

Gandhi claimed that the reason behind this attack on institutions was that there were monetary benefits for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

"For me, it is impossible to lead India, without having a conversation with India. The idea is, I should be a reflection of what is in your heart," he said.

Gandhi told the professors that he knows that they were feeling under pressure and feeling that an ideology was being imposed on them.

"You feel that one syllabus has now suddenly become acceptable to every single institution in India and I want you to understand and realise that you are not alone when you are fighting this battle, this sense, this feeling that you are getting is not only in your heart, it is in the heart of every single Indian person, it is in the heart of the farmers, it is in the heart of the labourers, it is in the heart of small and medium business," Gandhi said.

A country of over a billion people cannot possibly be run on one single idea and the fact that people are allowed to express is the strength of the country, Gandhi said.

"Look at 3,000 years of India's history, we are going to win, we are not going to lose," Gandhi asserted.

Attacking the government over its education policy, Gandhi said government institutions should be given precedence over private institutions and the government should put money to strengthen them.

"There has to be space for private institutions, but the guiding light, the foundation, the superstructure has to be the public education system," he said.

"The quality private institutions must look towards government institutions and say look that is an IIT that is something we aspire to, it shouldn't be the other way round," he said, adding that the government has to put money into the system.

He also recalled that former US president Barack Obama had said the real competition for America was from the engineers, doctors and lawyers coming out of India. This was praise for the teachers of India, Gandhi said.

The Congress chief asserted that when it comes to the Indian education system, two things are non-negotiable -- teachers should be able to express and they should be given a vision for their own future.

Gandhi said the Congress was commencing its work in drafting a manifesto and invited teachers to form a delegation and come forward with their demands.&nbsp;

Congress president Rahul Gandhi Saturday alleged that institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Election Commission were being "systematically captured" by the RSS and said India cannot be run on one single idea.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi Saturday alleged that institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Election Commission were being "systematically captured" by the RSS and said India cannot be run on one single idea. There is a feeling among the people that one ideology is being imposed upon them, Gandhi said at an interaction with academicians here. "(RSS chief) Mohan Bhagwat in his earlier speeches has said: 'We are going to organise the nation'. Who is he to organise the nation? The nation will organise itself. In next couple of months, their fantasy will be smashed," he asserted. During the interaction with eminent academicians from across the country at the Siri Fort, Gandhi said there are two visions of India and the Congress' vision is that India constitutes of people who live in it. The only way to understand India is talk to its people, he said. Gandhi alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's vision of India is that of a "golden bird" which it views as a product. The product has to be monetised and utilised, and they will decide who will do this, the Congress chief said. "What we are fighting is the attempted capture of this 'golden bird' by the RSS. They have understood very clearly that electoral battle for them, they can win it once, but they can't repeatedly win it. "They have understood that. So, now what they are doing is that they are saying elections will come and elections will go, let us capture all of India's institutions and let us capture the golden bird with a bypass surgery," he said. The educational institutions, the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India, all these are "systematically being captured", Gandhi alleged. Citing an example, he alleged, "When Mr (Narendra) Modi came to power, a person from Gujarat was chosen to head the SPG. In a short time, he left the position. He told me that he refused a list of SPG officers handpicked by the RSS, and that is why he was sent home." Gandhi claimed that the reason behind this attack on institutions was that there were monetary benefits for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). "For me, it is impossible to lead India, without having a conversation with India. The idea is, I should be a reflection of what is in your heart," he said. Gandhi told the professors that he knows that they were feeling under pressure and feeling that an ideology was being imposed on them. "You feel that one syllabus has now suddenly become acceptable to every single institution in India and I want you to understand and realise that you are not alone when you are fighting this battle, this sense, this feeling that you are getting is not only in your heart, it is in the heart of every single Indian person, it is in the heart of the farmers, it is in the heart of the labourers, it is in the heart of small and medium business," Gandhi said. A country of over a billion people cannot possibly be run on one single idea and the fact that people are allowed to express is the strength of the country, Gandhi said. "Look at 3,000 years of India's history, we are going to win, we are not going to lose," Gandhi asserted. Attacking the government over its education policy, Gandhi said government institutions should be given precedence over private institutions and the government should put money to strengthen them. "There has to be space for private institutions, but the guiding light, the foundation, the superstructure has to be the public education system," he said. "The quality private institutions must look towards government institutions and say look that is an IIT that is something we aspire to, it shouldn't be the other way round," he said, adding that the government has to put money into the system. He also recalled that former US president Barack Obama had said the real competition for America was from the engineers, doctors and lawyers coming out of India. This was praise for the teachers of India, Gandhi said. The Congress chief asserted that when it comes to the Indian education system, two things are non-negotiable -- teachers should be able to express and they should be given a vision for their own future. Gandhi said the Congress was commencing its work in drafting a manifesto and invited teachers to form a delegation and come forward with their demands.

Institutions like SC, EC being 'systematically captured' by RSS: Rahul Gandhi

Trump addresses campaign rally in Las Vegas 

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Thursday withdrew a conditional permission for former military ruler Pervez Musharraf to contest elections after he failed to appear in court.

Musharraf had filed his nomination from the northern district of Chitral after the court last week allowed him to contest the July 25 general election but made it conditional on his appearance before it on June 13 in a case linked to his lifelong disqualification by the Peshawar High Court in 2013.

Chief Justice Saqib Nisar yesterday rebuked the former army chief for "cowardice", taunting him for not appearing in court and had told him to appear by 2 pm today.

During the hearing, his counsel Qamar Afzal informed the court that Musharraf, 74, was determined to return but it was not possible for him to come immediately.

''I have spoken to Musharraf, he asks for more time. He plans to come to Pakistan but due to Eid holidays and illness, he can't travel immediately,''&nbspAfzal said.

It prompted the chief justice to adjourn the hearing for an indefinite period, saying the next hearing will be held when the petitioner was ready for it.

Alright, we'll adjourn the court hearing till indefinite time period, will hold it on your wish,&nbspthe judge observed.

But he ordered to withdraw the conditional permission for Musharraf to contest elections.

Earlier today, Musharraf's All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) said on Twitter that preparations for his return were in the final stage.

It was not clear why the plan was changed within hours after it was announced.

Musharraf has been living in Dubai since March 2016, and is wanted in several cases.

He is facing a high-profile treason case and has been declared an absconder due to his persistent failure to appear before the special trial court set up to try him.

The former president was indicted in March 2014 on treason charges for imposing an emergency in the country which led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 other judges.

A conviction for high-profile treason carries the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Musharraf has sought adequate security from the government for his return to appear in court in the treason case.

Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan from 1999 to 2008, has been declared a fugitive in the Benazir Bhutto murder case and Red Mosque cleric killing case.

In April 2013, the Peshawar High Court had disqualified him for life, holding him ineligible to contest elections. It also dismissed his appeal against his disqualification.

Musharraf had filed his nomination from the northern district of Chitral after the court last week allowed him to contest the July 25 general election

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Thursday withdrew a conditional permission for former military ruler Pervez Musharraf to contest elections after he failed to appear in court. Musharraf had filed his nomination from the northern district of Chitral after the court last week allowed him to contest the July 25 general election but made it conditional on his appearance before it on June 13 in a case linked to his lifelong disqualification by the Peshawar High Court in 2013. Chief Justice Saqib Nisar yesterday rebuked the former army chief for "cowardice", taunting him for not appearing in court and had told him to appear by 2 pm today. During the hearing, his counsel Qamar Afzal informed the court that Musharraf, 74, was determined to return but it was not possible for him to come immediately. ''I have spoken to Musharraf, he asks for more time. He plans to come to Pakistan but due to Eid holidays and illness, he can't travel immediately,''&nbspAfzal said. It prompted the chief justice to adjourn the hearing for an indefinite period, saying the next hearing will be held when the petitioner was ready for it. Alright, we'll adjourn the court hearing till indefinite time period, will hold it on your wish,&nbspthe judge observed. But he ordered to withdraw the conditional permission for Musharraf to contest elections. Earlier today, Musharraf's All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) said on Twitter that preparations for his return were in the final stage. It was not clear why the plan was changed within hours after it was announced. Musharraf has been living in Dubai since March 2016, and is wanted in several cases. He is facing a high-profile treason case and has been declared an absconder due to his persistent failure to appear before the special trial court set up to try him. The former president was indicted in March 2014 on treason charges for imposing an emergency in the country which led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 other judges. A conviction for high-profile treason carries the death penalty or life imprisonment. Musharraf has sought adequate security from the government for his return to appear in court in the treason case. Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan from 1999 to 2008, has been declared a fugitive in the Benazir Bhutto murder case and Red Mosque cleric killing case. In April 2013, the Peshawar High Court had disqualified him for life, holding him ineligible to contest elections. It also dismissed his appeal against his disqualification.

Pakistan SC withdraws directive allowing Musharraf to file nomination papers after he fails to appear

India on Thursday expressed its "deep dismay" over a Maldivian court sentencing the island nation's former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the chief justice of its Supreme Court to long prison terms without a "fair trial".

The Ministry of External Affairs said the development casts a doubt on the Maldivian government's commitment to uphold the rule of law and will raise questions on the credibility of the presidential elections in that country, slated for September.

According to Maldivian media reports, Gayoom, 80, and Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed were handed similar prison terms of one year, seven months and six days by a court which found them guilty of obstructing justice.

In a statement, the MEA said India reiterated its "advice" to the Maldivian government to restore the credibility of the electoral and political process by immediately releasing political prisoners, including Gayoom and the chief justice.

Since the beginning of the political crisis in the Maldives, the ministry said, India has repeatedly urged the Maldivian government to allow all institutions, including its Supreme Court and Parliament, to function in an independent manner and permit genuine political dialogue between all political parties.

"This has also been the demand of the international community at large. It is, therefore, with deep dismay that we learned that the former president of the Maldives, as well as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, are being sentenced to long prison terms without fair trial," it said in a statement.&nbsp

"This casts doubt on the commitment of the Government of the Maldives to uphold the rule of law and will also call into question the credibility of the entire process of Presidential elections in September this year," the MEA said.

It said India believes that a democratic, stable and prosperous Maldives is in the interests of all its neighbours in the Indian Ocean.

"It reiterates its advice to the Government of the Maldives to restore the credibility of the electoral and political process by immediately releasing political prisoners including former President Gayoom and Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and creating the necessary conditions for the participation of all political forces in the Presidential Elections," the ministry said.&nbsp

Ties between India and Maldives nosedived after Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen declared emergency on February 5, following an order by the Supreme Court to release a group of Opposition leaders who had been convicted in widely-criticised trials.

On February 21, India reacted strongly over the extension of emergency by a month. The emergency was lifted 45 days later.

In February, Maldives declined India's invitation to participate in the eight-day mega naval exercise - Milan - from March 6-13.&nbsp

The Ministry of External Affairs said the development casts a doubt on the Maldivian government's commitment to uphold the rule of law and will raise questions on the credibility of the presidential elections in that country, slated for September.

India on Thursday expressed its "deep dismay" over a Maldivian court sentencing the island nation's former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the chief justice of its Supreme Court to long prison terms without a "fair trial". The Ministry of External Affairs said the development casts a doubt on the Maldivian government's commitment to uphold the rule of law and will raise questions on the credibility of the presidential elections in that country, slated for September. According to Maldivian media reports, Gayoom, 80, and Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed were handed similar prison terms of one year, seven months and six days by a court which found them guilty of obstructing justice. In a statement, the MEA said India reiterated its "advice" to the Maldivian government to restore the credibility of the electoral and political process by immediately releasing political prisoners, including Gayoom and the chief justice. Since the beginning of the political crisis in the Maldives, the ministry said, India has repeatedly urged the Maldivian government to allow all institutions, including its Supreme Court and Parliament, to function in an independent manner and permit genuine political dialogue between all political parties. "This has also been the demand of the international community at large. It is, therefore, with deep dismay that we learned that the former president of the Maldives, as well as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, are being sentenced to long prison terms without fair trial," it said in a statement. "This casts doubt on the commitment of the Government of the Maldives to uphold the rule of law and will also call into question the credibility of the entire process of Presidential elections in September this year," the MEA said. It said India believes that a democratic, stable and prosperous Maldives is in the interests of all its neighbours in the Indian Ocean. "It reiterates its advice to the Government of the Maldives to restore the credibility of the electoral and political process by immediately releasing political prisoners including former President Gayoom and Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and creating the necessary conditions for the participation of all political forces in the Presidential Elections," the ministry said. Ties between India and Maldives nosedived after Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen declared emergency on February 5, following an order by the Supreme Court to release a group of Opposition leaders who had been convicted in widely-criticised trials. On February 21, India reacted strongly over the extension of emergency by a month. The emergency was lifted 45 days later. In February, Maldives declined India's invitation to participate in the eight-day mega naval exercise - Milan - from March 6-13.

India dismayed over long prison terms to former Maldivian president, chief justice

Former Prime Minister and Pakistan Muslim League`s (PML-N) founder Nawaz Sharif claimed that the extended deadline by the Supreme Court for the completion of proceedings against him would badly affect his party performance in the&nbsp;July 25&nbsp;general elections.

This is in reference to the trial in Avenfield properties, Gulf Steel Mills and Al-Azizia Steel Mills, that Sharif is facing.

Nawaz and his family are facing three corruption cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

While appearing before the accountability court, Sharif complained that the trial was being conducted at an unprecedentedly fast pace, to which Judge Mohammad Bashir of the accountability court responded saying that the deadlines for disposal of cases are already set."I want this case should conclude as early as possible since I am also suffering. If the Chief Justice of Pakistan wants to regulate this case, he may transfer it before his own bench to give a verdict to hang me or send me to jail," Dawn quoted the ousted Prime Minister as saying.

He claimed that no lawyer is willing to take his case after Sharif`s lawyer Khwaja Haris&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;terminated his legal services to Nawaz and his family in corruption cases, citing inability to appear before accountability court on weekends.

Haris also stated that the Supreme Court had dictated on completing the trial within a month, which was not possible.

When Sharif said that finding a new lawyer on such a short notice isn`t easy, Judge Bashir explained Sharif that he had not accepted Haris` application for the withdrawal of vakalatnama and he could still convince his lawyer to take back the case.

With the ongoing hindrances regarding the issue, the court put off the proceedings till&nbsp;Thursday.

Sharif said the Pakistani media couldn`t report freely and independently due to certain pressures.

He also questioned the credibility of the upcoming elections on&nbsp;July 25&nbsp;in such an environment.

Nawaz and his family are facing three corruption cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

Former Prime Minister and Pakistan Muslim League`s (PML-N) founder Nawaz Sharif claimed that the extended deadline by the Supreme Court for the completion of proceedings against him would badly affect his party performance in the July 25 general elections. This is in reference to the trial in Avenfield properties, Gulf Steel Mills and Al-Azizia Steel Mills, that Sharif is facing. Nawaz and his family are facing three corruption cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). While appearing before the accountability court, Sharif complained that the trial was being conducted at an unprecedentedly fast pace, to which Judge Mohammad Bashir of the accountability court responded saying that the deadlines for disposal of cases are already set."I want this case should conclude as early as possible since I am also suffering. If the Chief Justice of Pakistan wants to regulate this case, he may transfer it before his own bench to give a verdict to hang me or send me to jail," Dawn quoted the ousted Prime Minister as saying. He claimed that no lawyer is willing to take his case after Sharif`s lawyer Khwaja Haris on Monday terminated his legal services to Nawaz and his family in corruption cases, citing inability to appear before accountability court on weekends. Haris also stated that the Supreme Court had dictated on completing the trial within a month, which was not possible. When Sharif said that finding a new lawyer on such a short notice isn`t easy, Judge Bashir explained Sharif that he had not accepted Haris` application for the withdrawal of vakalatnama and he could still convince his lawyer to take back the case. With the ongoing hindrances regarding the issue, the court put off the proceedings till Thursday. Sharif said the Pakistani media couldn`t report freely and independently due to certain pressures. He also questioned the credibility of the upcoming elections on July 25 in such an environment.

Extended deadline in NAB cases hearing to hit party: Nawaz Sharif

The Supreme Court of Pakistan&nbsp;on Tuesday&nbsp;rejected an appeal against the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a seven-year-old girl in the eastern city of Kasur, a crime which shocked the country at the beginning of the year and triggered protests in several cities nationwide. 
 
On&nbsp;Feb. 17, Imran Ali, 23, was given four death sentences and one life term in jail for kidnapping, rape, murder and terrorism following a four-day trial. 
 
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court that heard the case said that "the crime shocked the whole of society", that Ali had confessed to the crime and the prosecution had provided solid evidence, including CCTV footage and the convict's DNA, which matched a sample taken from the victim's body. 
 
"The court said he doesn't deserve any leniency," Ishtiaq Chaudhry, the lawyer representing the girl's family, told EFE. 
 
Ali can still seek clemency from the country's President, Mamnoon Hussain. 
 
Mohamed Amin, father of the victim, Zainab, told EFE that he was satisfied with the ruling, although he still hoped that he would "be hanged publicly so our daughters are safer from such heinous crimes in the future." 
 
The case of Zainab Amin shocked the country, triggering a wave of violent protests that left two dead, and led to nationwide demonstrations. 
 
Amid the national outcry for accountability, the police acknowledged that in the last year in Kasur alone, at least 11 children had been raped, nine of whom were murdered. 
 
Pakistan recorded at least 17,862 cases of child sexual abuse between 2013-17 - with the victims including 10,620 girls and 7,242 boys - according to a joint report by the Ministry of Human Rights and the non-profit organization Sahil, presented to Parliament in February.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday rejected an appeal against the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a seven-year-old girl in the eastern city of Kasur, a crime which shocked the country at the beginning of the year and triggered protests in several cities nationwide. On Feb. 17, Imran Ali, 23, was given four death sentences and one life term in jail for kidnapping, rape, murder and terrorism following a four-day trial. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court that heard the case said that "the crime shocked the whole of society", that Ali had confessed to the crime and the prosecution had provided solid evidence, including CCTV footage and the convict's DNA, which matched a sample taken from the victim's body. "The court said he doesn't deserve any leniency," Ishtiaq Chaudhry, the lawyer representing the girl's family, told EFE. Ali can still seek clemency from the country's President, Mamnoon Hussain. Mohamed Amin, father of the victim, Zainab, told EFE that he was satisfied with the ruling, although he still hoped that he would "be hanged publicly so our daughters are safer from such heinous crimes in the future." The case of Zainab Amin shocked the country, triggering a wave of violent protests that left two dead, and led to nationwide demonstrations. Amid the national outcry for accountability, the police acknowledged that in the last year in Kasur alone, at least 11 children had been raped, nine of whom were murdered. Pakistan recorded at least 17,862 cases of child sexual abuse between 2013-17 - with the victims including 10,620 girls and 7,242 boys - according to a joint report by the Ministry of Human Rights and the non-profit organization Sahil, presented to Parliament in February.

Pakistani Supreme court rejects 7-year-old Zainab killer's appeal

Taking serious note of alleged exploitation of devotees by 'sevaks' at the Puri Jagannath temple in Odisha, the Supreme Court on Friday passed a slew of directions to prevent any such malpractices and mismanagement, just ahead of the annual Rath Yatra next month.

The top court said it is of prime importance that all devotees have hassle-free visits and the offerings made by them are not misused.&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp

It directed the Odisha government to study the management schemes of other important shrines such as Vaishno Devi in Jammu and Kashmir, Somnath temple in Gujarat, Golden Temple in Punjab, Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh and Dharamsthala temple in Karnataka.

A vacation bench of justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ashok Bhushan, which passed several directions, said proper management of pilgrimage centres in a country of great importance is a matter of public interest.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Mrinalini Padhi that highlighted difficulties faced by devotees at the Jagannath Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation by the sevaks (staff) of the temple.

The petition also pointed out that the environment of the temple was not hygienic as it ought to be, and there are encroachments at its premises.

It alleged that there are deficiencies in the management of the shrine and rituals are being commercialised.

The bench sought response from the Centre, the Odisha government and the temple's management committee and said the issue raised in the petition involves enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 25 and directive principles of the Constitution.

"There is no doubt that proper management of pilgrimage centres of great importance, is a matter of public interest.&nbsp

"These centres are of undoubted religious, social historical and architectural importance, representing cultural heritage of our country," the bench said.

Millions of people visit these centres not only for tourism, but also for seeking inspiration for righteous values and their well being, and make huge offerings and donations for advancement of such values, it said.

"It is of prime importance that all the visitors have hassle-free visits and the offerings made are utilised for righteous objects and not misappropriated in any manner by the staff/sevaks," the bench said.

It directed that the staff or 'sevaks' ought to be duly compensated by the legitimate remuneration as may be determined by the authority concerned.&nbsp

"The issue of hygiene and encroachment also need to be considered. Exploitative practices have to be timely stopped," the bench directed.

Referring to an apex court verdict of 1997, it said under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, there was a requirement of placing of 'hundis' for receiving offerings of devotees visiting the temple.

It directed that district judge of Puri to file an interim report by June 30 on the factual aspects such as difficulties faced by the devotees, exploitative practices and deficiencies in the management, if any.

"The collector/administrator may provide necessary funds, facilities and information, as may be necessary. He (the district judge) may consider any earlier study/report on the subject," the top court said.

The bench directed the administrator of the temple to review the arrangement of CCTV cameras that have been already installed and said video footage should be viewed by an independent committee.

It said the independent committee, which will view the CCTV footage at regular interval, should submit its report to the district judge every month so that necessary directions can be issued.

The top court asked the administrator to ensure that no direct collection of offerings is made by any 'sevak' and all the offerings are made either in the 'hundi' or are deposited and accounted for and properly utilised.

"There should not be any individual pockets (of offerings) made by the sevaks/attendants who may be given their due remuneration as per rules.&nbsp

"To ensure this, the help of CCTV cameras and its footage or other steps may be explored," the bench said.

It directed the Odisha government to constitute, forthwith, a committee which may study the management schemes in the other important shrines and suggest such changes as may be considered necessary.

The bench directed the committee constituted by the state to submit its interim report by June 30.

It asked the Centre to also constitute a committee to collect information with regard to major shrines so that the management practices can be reviewed for the benefit of all visitors, wherever necessary.

The bench appointed senior advocate Gopal Subramanium as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter and directed him to collate all the reports of various committees and give his suggestions, if any.&nbsp

Taking serious note of alleged exploitation of devotees by 'sevaks' at the Puri Jagannath temple in Odisha, the Supreme Court on Friday passed a slew of directions to prevent any such malpractices

Taking serious note of alleged exploitation of devotees by 'sevaks' at the Puri Jagannath temple in Odisha, the Supreme Court on Friday passed a slew of directions to prevent any such malpractices and mismanagement, just ahead of the annual Rath Yatra next month. The top court said it is of prime importance that all devotees have hassle-free visits and the offerings made by them are not misused. It directed the Odisha government to study the management schemes of other important shrines such as Vaishno Devi in Jammu and Kashmir, Somnath temple in Gujarat, Golden Temple in Punjab, Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh and Dharamsthala temple in Karnataka. A vacation bench of justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ashok Bhushan, which passed several directions, said proper management of pilgrimage centres in a country of great importance is a matter of public interest. The bench was hearing a petition filed by Mrinalini Padhi that highlighted difficulties faced by devotees at the Jagannath Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation by the sevaks (staff) of the temple. The petition also pointed out that the environment of the temple was not hygienic as it ought to be, and there are encroachments at its premises. It alleged that there are deficiencies in the management of the shrine and rituals are being commercialised. The bench sought response from the Centre, the Odisha government and the temple's management committee and said the issue raised in the petition involves enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 25 and directive principles of the Constitution. "There is no doubt that proper management of pilgrimage centres of great importance, is a matter of public interest. "These centres are of undoubted religious, social historical and architectural importance, representing cultural heritage of our country," the bench said. Millions of people visit these centres not only for tourism, but also for seeking inspiration for righteous values and their well being, and make huge offerings and donations for advancement of such values, it said. "It is of prime importance that all the visitors have hassle-free visits and the offerings made are utilised for righteous objects and not misappropriated in any manner by the staff/sevaks," the bench said. It directed that the staff or 'sevaks' ought to be duly compensated by the legitimate remuneration as may be determined by the authority concerned. "The issue of hygiene and encroachment also need to be considered. Exploitative practices have to be timely stopped," the bench directed. Referring to an apex court verdict of 1997, it said under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, there was a requirement of placing of 'hundis' for receiving offerings of devotees visiting the temple. It directed that district judge of Puri to file an interim report by June 30 on the factual aspects such as difficulties faced by the devotees, exploitative practices and deficiencies in the management, if any. "The collector/administrator may provide necessary funds, facilities and information, as may be necessary. He (the district judge) may consider any earlier study/report on the subject," the top court said. The bench directed the administrator of the temple to review the arrangement of CCTV cameras that have been already installed and said video footage should be viewed by an independent committee. It said the independent committee, which will view the CCTV footage at regular interval, should submit its report to the district judge every month so that necessary directions can be issued. The top court asked the administrator to ensure that no direct collection of offerings is made by any 'sevak' and all the offerings are made either in the 'hundi' or are deposited and accounted for and properly utilised. "There should not be any individual pockets (of offerings) made by the sevaks/attendants who may be given their due remuneration as per rules. "To ensure this, the help of CCTV cameras and its footage or other steps may be explored," the bench said. It directed the Odisha government to constitute, forthwith, a committee which may study the management schemes in the other important shrines and suggest such changes as may be considered necessary. The bench directed the committee constituted by the state to submit its interim report by June 30. It asked the Centre to also constitute a committee to collect information with regard to major shrines so that the management practices can be reviewed for the benefit of all visitors, wherever necessary. The bench appointed senior advocate Gopal Subramanium as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter and directed him to collate all the reports of various committees and give his suggestions, if any.

Devotees exploitation at Puri Jagannath temple under SC scanner

The district and sessions court on Thursday framed charges against seven of the eight accused of raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua district, news agency PTI reported quoting official sources.&nbsp

The eighth accused in the case is a juvenile.&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp

The trial in the case began on May 31 with the seven accused being produced before the district and sessions judge after the Supreme Court shifted the hearing outside Jammu and Kashmir.

The case was transferred by the Supreme Court from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab for a fair trial following a plea by the victim's family.

While transferring the case from Kathua to Pathankot, about 30 km away, the apex court directed day-to-day in-camera trial in the case.

According to the 15-page charge sheet of the Jammu and Kashmir's Crime Branch, the girl from a minority nomadic community, who was kidnapped on January 10 this year, was allegedly raped in captivity in a small village temple in Kathua district. She was kept sedated for four days before being bludgeoned to death.&nbsp

The eighth accused in the case is a juvenile

The district and sessions court on Thursday framed charges against seven of the eight accused of raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua district, news agency PTI reported quoting official sources. The eighth accused in the case is a juvenile. The trial in the case began on May 31 with the seven accused being produced before the district and sessions judge after the Supreme Court shifted the hearing outside Jammu and Kashmir. The case was transferred by the Supreme Court from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab for a fair trial following a plea by the victim's family. While transferring the case from Kathua to Pathankot, about 30 km away, the apex court directed day-to-day in-camera trial in the case. According to the 15-page charge sheet of the Jammu and Kashmir's Crime Branch, the girl from a minority nomadic community, who was kidnapped on January 10 this year, was allegedly raped in captivity in a small village temple in Kathua district. She was kept sedated for four days before being bludgeoned to death.

Kathua rape-murder case: Pathankot court frames charges against seven accused

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility towards religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state`s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips` religious rights under the US&nbsp;Constitution`s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution`s free speech guarantee.

Two of the court`s four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

The baker case became a cultural flashpoint in the United States, underscoring the tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory. The couple`s supporters noted that the ruling embraced the importance of gay rights and made it clear that businesses open to the public must serve everyone. The baker`s lawyers said the ruling emphasized that the government must respect religious beliefs.

"It`s hard to believe that the government punished me for operating my business consistent with my beliefs about marriage. That isn`t freedom or tolerance," Phillips said in a statement.

"Today`s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

Seventy-two per cent of US&nbsp;adults believe that businesses should not have the right on religious grounds to deny services to customers based on their sexual orientation, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;showed. [L2N1T61CY]

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy said the state commission`s hostility towards religion "was inconsistent with the First Amendment`s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion."

In one exchange at a 2014 hearing before the commission cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."

Kennedy said the commission ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage. 
 
Republican President Donald Trump`s administration, which intervened in the case in support of Phillips, welcomed the ruling. "The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

The decision made it clear that even if the court ultimately rules in a future case that bakers or other businesses that sell creative products such as florists and wedding photographers can avoid punishment under anti-discrimination laws, most businesses open to the public would have no such defence.

Of the 50 states, 21 including Colorado have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.&nbsp;

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognising that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote.

In a written dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by fellow liberal Sonia Sotomayor, said what mattered was that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple.

The litigation, along with similar cases around the country, was part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court`s gay marriage ruling.

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips` Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught.

They filed a successful complaint with the state commission and state courts sided with the couple, prompting Phillips to appeal to the top US&nbsp;court.

Mullins and Craig said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Phillips and others like him who believe that gay marriage is inconsistent with their Christian beliefs have said they should not be required to effectively endorse the practice.

"Government hostility towards people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic towards Jack`s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that," said lawyer Kristen Waggoner of the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Phillips.

The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices&nbsp;on Thursday&nbsp;will consider whether to hear an appeal by a Washington state flower shop owner who refused to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding, based on her Christian beliefs.

&nbsp;

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips` religious rights under the US Constitution`s First Amendment

The US Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility towards religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state`s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips` religious rights under the US Constitution`s First Amendment. But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution`s free speech guarantee. Two of the court`s four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide. The baker case became a cultural flashpoint in the United States, underscoring the tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians. Both sides claimed a measure of victory. The couple`s supporters noted that the ruling embraced the importance of gay rights and made it clear that businesses open to the public must serve everyone. The baker`s lawyers said the ruling emphasized that the government must respect religious beliefs. "It`s hard to believe that the government punished me for operating my business consistent with my beliefs about marriage. That isn`t freedom or tolerance," Phillips said in a statement. "Today`s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are." Seventy-two per cent of US adults believe that businesses should not have the right on religious grounds to deny services to customers based on their sexual orientation, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday showed. [L2N1T61CY] "Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote. But Kennedy said the state commission`s hostility towards religion "was inconsistent with the First Amendment`s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion." In one exchange at a 2014 hearing before the commission cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust." Kennedy said the commission ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage. Republican President Donald Trump`s administration, which intervened in the case in support of Phillips, welcomed the ruling. "The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. The decision made it clear that even if the court ultimately rules in a future case that bakers or other businesses that sell creative products such as florists and wedding photographers can avoid punishment under anti-discrimination laws, most businesses open to the public would have no such defence. Of the 50 states, 21 including Colorado have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people. The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom. "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognising that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote. In a written dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by fellow liberal Sonia Sotomayor, said what mattered was that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. The litigation, along with similar cases around the country, was part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court`s gay marriage ruling. Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a brief encounter at Phillips` Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving the couple distraught. They filed a successful complaint with the state commission and state courts sided with the couple, prompting Phillips to appeal to the top US court. Mullins and Craig said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Phillips and others like him who believe that gay marriage is inconsistent with their Christian beliefs have said they should not be required to effectively endorse the practice. "Government hostility towards people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic towards Jack`s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that," said lawyer Kristen Waggoner of the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Phillips. The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices on Thursday will consider whether to hear an appeal by a Washington state flower shop owner who refused to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding, based on her Christian beliefs.

US Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that let a pregnant illegal immigrant minor held in federal immigration custody obtain an abortion last year at age 17 over the objections of President Donald Trump’s administration. 
The action by the justices provided a legal victory to Trump’s administration even though the teenager already has had the abortion because it eliminated a precedent at the federal appeals court level that could have applied in similar circumstances in which detained minors sought abortions.

In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out the appeals court decision on the grounds that the dispute became moot once the unnamed teenager had the abortion.

The justices, however, declined to take up the administration’s request for disciplinary action against the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who represented the girl, who underwent an abortion in Texas last October.

The administration had accused the ACLU lawyers of misleading the Justice Department over when she would have the abortion. The high court said that it takes misconduct allegations against lawyers seriously but said “not all communication breakdowns constitute misconduct.”

The justices also allowed litigation to continue in lower courts concerning other detained immigrants in detention in a similar situations.

The Trump administration had argued that while the girl was in federal custody, she was subject to its policy of refusing to facilitate abortions. The girl, whose name and nationality were not disclosed, went by the name of “Jane Doe” in legal papers.

While the case was pending at the Supreme Court, litigation continued in lower courts.

On March 30, a federal judge in Washington issued an injunction preventing the administration from impeding access to abortion by detained immigrant minors. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan also certified a class action of similar minors to challenge the administration’s policy.

“Today’s decision doesn’t affect our ongoing efforts to ensure that all ‘Janes’ can get an abortion if they need one,” said ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri. “The district court has blocked the Trump administration’s cruel policy of obstructing unaccompanied immigrant minors’ access to abortion while the case continues, and we won’t stop until we strike it down once and for all.”

The ACLU, which has filed a range of lawsuits against the administration, sued in Washington in October, seeking a decision on obtaining abortions that would be binding in any future cases that arise.

A 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion nationwide. One of the issues raised by the current case is whether illegal immigrant women have the same right to an abortion as American citizens and legal residents.

The case involves the intersection of two divisive social issues on which Trump has taken a hard line: abortion and immigration.

The girl at the center of the legal fight had an abortion on Oct. 25, the day after a U.S. appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s objections.

The Justice Department has said it was preparing to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court when it learned she had already had the abortion early that morning.

She entered the United States without any family in September 2017 and was immediately detained by U.S. authorities and placed in a shelter in Texas for unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors.

She had sought and received a Texas court order to approve the abortion because she a minor, and had scheduled a sonogram and consultation with a physician, as required by Texas law. But the Trump administration refused to let her leave the detention center to carry out those steps.

At the time of the abortion, she was around 15 weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, abortions after 20 weeks are illegal.

The administration had accused the ACLU lawyers of misleading the Justice Department over when she would have the abortion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that let a pregnant illegal immigrant minor held in federal immigration custody obtain an abortion last year at age 17 over the objections of President Donald Trump’s administration. The action by the justices provided a legal victory to Trump’s administration even though the teenager already has had the abortion because it eliminated a precedent at the federal appeals court level that could have applied in similar circumstances in which detained minors sought abortions. In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out the appeals court decision on the grounds that the dispute became moot once the unnamed teenager had the abortion. The justices, however, declined to take up the administration’s request for disciplinary action against the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who represented the girl, who underwent an abortion in Texas last October. The administration had accused the ACLU lawyers of misleading the Justice Department over when she would have the abortion. The high court said that it takes misconduct allegations against lawyers seriously but said “not all communication breakdowns constitute misconduct.” The justices also allowed litigation to continue in lower courts concerning other detained immigrants in detention in a similar situations. The Trump administration had argued that while the girl was in federal custody, she was subject to its policy of refusing to facilitate abortions. The girl, whose name and nationality were not disclosed, went by the name of “Jane Doe” in legal papers. While the case was pending at the Supreme Court, litigation continued in lower courts. On March 30, a federal judge in Washington issued an injunction preventing the administration from impeding access to abortion by detained immigrant minors. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan also certified a class action of similar minors to challenge the administration’s policy. “Today’s decision doesn’t affect our ongoing efforts to ensure that all ‘Janes’ can get an abortion if they need one,” said ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri. “The district court has blocked the Trump administration’s cruel policy of obstructing unaccompanied immigrant minors’ access to abortion while the case continues, and we won’t stop until we strike it down once and for all.” The ACLU, which has filed a range of lawsuits against the administration, sued in Washington in October, seeking a decision on obtaining abortions that would be binding in any future cases that arise. A 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion nationwide. One of the issues raised by the current case is whether illegal immigrant women have the same right to an abortion as American citizens and legal residents. The case involves the intersection of two divisive social issues on which Trump has taken a hard line: abortion and immigration. The girl at the center of the legal fight had an abortion on Oct. 25, the day after a U.S. appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s objections. The Justice Department has said it was preparing to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court when it learned she had already had the abortion early that morning. She entered the United States without any family in September 2017 and was immediately detained by U.S. authorities and placed in a shelter in Texas for unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors. She had sought and received a Texas court order to approve the abortion because she a minor, and had scheduled a sonogram and consultation with a physician, as required by Texas law. But the Trump administration refused to let her leave the detention center to carry out those steps. At the time of the abortion, she was around 15 weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, abortions after 20 weeks are illegal.

Supreme Court throws out immigrant teen abortion ruling

Ahead of the July 25 elections, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Monday started accepting the nomination papers after the Supreme Court announced its verdict rejecting amendments in the forms.

The Lahore High Court ruled on June 1 that the nomination papers do not necessarily seek information regarding candidates' educational background, criminal record, and dual citizenship.

It further ordered the election body to add requirements under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution to the nomination papers.

The ECP will continue to receive the nomination papers, in compliance with the approved format as per Election Act 2017, from June 4 till June 8.

The nominations papers will be scrutinised on June 14 while any appeals against the decision regarding nomination process must be filed till June 19.

On June 27, first candidates' list would be displayed and the candidates would get a day's time to withdraw their nominations.

The final list of candidates along with election symbols would be issued on June 29.&nbsp;

The Lahore High Court ruled on June 1 that the nomination papers do not necessarily seek information regarding candidates' educational background, criminal record, and dual citizenship

Ahead of the July 25 elections, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Monday started accepting the nomination papers after the Supreme Court announced its verdict rejecting amendments in the forms. The Lahore High Court ruled on June 1 that the nomination papers do not necessarily seek information regarding candidates' educational background, criminal record, and dual citizenship. It further ordered the election body to add requirements under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution to the nomination papers. The ECP will continue to receive the nomination papers, in compliance with the approved format as per Election Act 2017, from June 4 till June 8. The nominations papers will be scrutinised on June 14 while any appeals against the decision regarding nomination process must be filed till June 19. On June 27, first candidates' list would be displayed and the candidates would get a day's time to withdraw their nominations. The final list of candidates along with election symbols would be issued on June 29.

Pakistan Election Commission starts accepting nomination papers

Acting on the Supreme Court's direction, the Centre today constituted a Cauvery Water Management Authority (CMA) to address the dispute over sharing of river water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.

On February 16, the apex court had directed the government to form the CMA within six weeks in a verdict that marginally increased Karnataka's share of Cauvery water, reduced the allocation for Tamil Nadu and sought to settle the protracted water dispute between the two southern states.

In a gazette notification, the Ministry of Water Resources said it has framed a scheme constituting the CMA and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee to give effect to the decision of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal as modified by the Supreme Court order.

The authority would comprise a chairman, eight members besides a secretary. Out of eight members, two each will be full-time and part-time members, while the rest four would be part-time members from states.

The chairman of the authority should either be a "senior and eminent engineer? with an experience of water resource management and handling of inter-state water dispute or an IAS officer with an experience in water resources management and handling the inter-state dispute.&nbsp

He will have the tenure of five years or until he reaches the age of 65, whichever is earlier.&nbsp

An emotive issue in all the states concerned and Puducherry, the demand to constitute the authority was one of the reasons behind disruption of the Budget Session by the members of the AIADMK who demanded the constitution of the board.

The apex court, in its verdict delivered on February 16, had asked the Centre to frame the Cauvery management scheme, including creation of the Cauvery Management Board.

The scheme would deal with the issue of water share of the four states in different circumstances like normal and deficient water years in the Cauvery river basin.

It had raised the 270 tmcft share of Cauvery water for Karnataka by 14.75 tmcft and reduced Tamil Nadu's share, while compensating it by allowing extraction of 10 tmcft groundwater from the river basin, saying the issue of drinking water has to be placed on a "higher pedestal".&nbsp

The authority will exercise power and discharge such duty for "sufficient and expedient for securing compliance and implementation" of the Supreme Court order in relation to "storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters".

"If the authority finds that any government of the party states, namely Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Union territory of Puducherry do not cooperate in implementing the decision or direction of the tribunal, it can seek the help of the central government for implementation of the award...," the notification said.

Further, if any delay or shortfall is caused in release of water on account of default of any party state, the authority will take appropriate action.

The authority will also supervise operation of reservoirs and with regulation of water releases therefrom with the assistance of regulation committee, the notification said.

The authority will also look at regulated release of water by Karnataka, at the inter-state contact point presently identified as Billigundulu gauge and discharge station, located on the common border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

The notification further said that the authority at the beginning of the water year (June 1 each year) would determine the total residual storage in the specified reservoirs.&nbsp

"As, it is not possible to know the amount of season-wise river flows which will be available during a season, it will be assumed that the inflows will be according to 50 per cent dependable year (yield 740 TMC)," it said.

The share of each state will be determined on the basis of the flows so assumed together with the available carry-over storage in the reservoirs.&nbsp

"The withdrawals will be allowed during the first time interval of ten days of the season on the basis of the share worked out for each party state, limited to the water requirements during the same period indicated by each party state by placing an indent of water demand with Cauvery Water Regulation Committee," it added.

The authority has also been tasked to advise the states to take suitable measures to improve water use efficiency, by way of promoting micro-irrigation (drip and sprinkler), change in cropping pattern, improved agronomic practices, system deficiency correction and command area development.

It has to also prepare an annual report covering the activities of the authority for the preceding year.&nbsp

The Centre will initially contribute a sum of Rs 2 crore for the functioning of the authority.

Also, the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee has to meet once in 10 days during the months of June and October when the south-west and north-east monsoon set in and again after the monsoon has set in.

Acting on the Supreme Court's direction, the Centre today constituted a Cauvery Water Management Authority (CMA) to address the dispute over sharing of river water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry

Acting on the Supreme Court's direction, the Centre today constituted a Cauvery Water Management Authority (CMA) to address the dispute over sharing of river water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry. On February 16, the apex court had directed the government to form the CMA within six weeks in a verdict that marginally increased Karnataka's share of Cauvery water, reduced the allocation for Tamil Nadu and sought to settle the protracted water dispute between the two southern states. In a gazette notification, the Ministry of Water Resources said it has framed a scheme constituting the CMA and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee to give effect to the decision of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal as modified by the Supreme Court order. The authority would comprise a chairman, eight members besides a secretary. Out of eight members, two each will be full-time and part-time members, while the rest four would be part-time members from states. The chairman of the authority should either be a "senior and eminent engineer? with an experience of water resource management and handling of inter-state water dispute or an IAS officer with an experience in water resources management and handling the inter-state dispute. He will have the tenure of five years or until he reaches the age of 65, whichever is earlier. An emotive issue in all the states concerned and Puducherry, the demand to constitute the authority was one of the reasons behind disruption of the Budget Session by the members of the AIADMK who demanded the constitution of the board. The apex court, in its verdict delivered on February 16, had asked the Centre to frame the Cauvery management scheme, including creation of the Cauvery Management Board. The scheme would deal with the issue of water share of the four states in different circumstances like normal and deficient water years in the Cauvery river basin. It had raised the 270 tmcft share of Cauvery water for Karnataka by 14.75 tmcft and reduced Tamil Nadu's share, while compensating it by allowing extraction of 10 tmcft groundwater from the river basin, saying the issue of drinking water has to be placed on a "higher pedestal". The authority will exercise power and discharge such duty for "sufficient and expedient for securing compliance and implementation" of the Supreme Court order in relation to "storage, apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters". "If the authority finds that any government of the party states, namely Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Union territory of Puducherry do not cooperate in implementing the decision or direction of the tribunal, it can seek the help of the central government for implementation of the award...," the notification said. Further, if any delay or shortfall is caused in release of water on account of default of any party state, the authority will take appropriate action. The authority will also supervise operation of reservoirs and with regulation of water releases therefrom with the assistance of regulation committee, the notification said. The authority will also look at regulated release of water by Karnataka, at the inter-state contact point presently identified as Billigundulu gauge and discharge station, located on the common border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The notification further said that the authority at the beginning of the water year (June 1 each year) would determine the total residual storage in the specified reservoirs. "As, it is not possible to know the amount of season-wise river flows which will be available during a season, it will be assumed that the inflows will be according to 50 per cent dependable year (yield 740 TMC)," it said. The share of each state will be determined on the basis of the flows so assumed together with the available carry-over storage in the reservoirs. "The withdrawals will be allowed during the first time interval of ten days of the season on the basis of the share worked out for each party state, limited to the water requirements during the same period indicated by each party state by placing an indent of water demand with Cauvery Water Regulation Committee," it added. The authority has also been tasked to advise the states to take suitable measures to improve water use efficiency, by way of promoting micro-irrigation (drip and sprinkler), change in cropping pattern, improved agronomic practices, system deficiency correction and command area development. It has to also prepare an annual report covering the activities of the authority for the preceding year. The Centre will initially contribute a sum of Rs 2 crore for the functioning of the authority. Also, the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee has to meet once in 10 days during the months of June and October when the south-west and north-east monsoon set in and again after the monsoon has set in.

Centre forms Cauvery Water Management Authority

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and his father Mulayam Singh Yadav today vacated their official residences (government bungalows) in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court.

The father-son duo - both former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh - had moved Supreme Court seeking "appropriate time" for vacating their official residences allocated by the Uttar Pradesh government.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Former Chief Ministers Mulayam Singh Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav vacate their official residences in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. <a href="https://t.co/krbv3nTseM">pic.twitter.com/krbv3nTseM</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1002165684699361280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 31, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp

Their plea was filed in the backdrop of the May 7 judgement of the Supreme Court that had struck down an amendment in a state legislation allowing former chief ministers to retain government accommodation even after demitting office.

The two leaders had sought two years' time from UP government to vacate their official residences and shifting to their private accommodations in Lucknow.

The top court had on May 7 held that former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh cannot retain government accommodation after demitting office and had said that a chief minister was at par with a common man once his or her term ends.

The court, in its 29-page order, had said once such persons demit public office held by them, there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man.

The two leaders had sought two years' time from UP government to vacate their official residences and shifting to their private accommodations in Lucknow.

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and his father Mulayam Singh Yadav today vacated their official residences (government bungalows) in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. The father-son duo - both former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh - had moved Supreme Court seeking "appropriate time" for vacating their official residences allocated by the Uttar Pradesh government. Former Chief Ministers Mulayam Singh Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav vacate their official residences in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/krbv3nTseM — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) May 31, 2018 × Their plea was filed in the backdrop of the May 7 judgement of the Supreme Court that had struck down an amendment in a state legislation allowing former chief ministers to retain government accommodation even after demitting office. The two leaders had sought two years' time from UP government to vacate their official residences and shifting to their private accommodations in Lucknow. The top court had on May 7 held that former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh cannot retain government accommodation after demitting office and had said that a chief minister was at par with a common man once his or her term ends. The court, in its 29-page order, had said once such persons demit public office held by them, there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man.

Akhilesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav comply with Supreme Court order, vacate government bungalows

The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to grant interim bail to a former principal of a medical college and hospital in Uttar Pradesh where scores of children had died last year allegedly due to shortage of oxygen supply.

Dr Rajeev Kumar Mishra of Gorakhpur’s BRD medical college and hospital told the top court that he has been in jail for more than ten months and the children had died due to Japanese Encephalitis disease and not for shortage of oxygen.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and M M Shantanagoudar issued notice to Uttar Pradesh government on the plea of Mishra and listed the matter for June 6.

More than 60 children, mostly infants, had died at the government-run Baba Raghav Das Medical College in Gorakhpur within a week in August 2017. There were allegations that the deaths occurred due to disruption in oxygen supply over unpaid bills to the vendor.

At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mishra, said he was arrested on August 29, 2017 and has remained in jail for over ten months.

“Chargesheet has been filed in the case. The co-accused in the case including one doctor Kafeel Khan, who was the head of the Encephalitis ward, and the Oxygen gas supplier Manish Bhandari have already got bail. I should be granted at least interim bail till the petition is disposed of,” Rohatgi said.

When the bench asked him what was in the chargesheet filed against his client, the senior lawyer said it has been alleged that Mishra had not cleared the bills for supply of oxygen, due to which the gas supply to the hospital was cut.

To this, the bench said, “then what do you expect, that you will not clear the bills and the vendor will keep supplying the gas”.

Rohatgi said “oxygen gas was not the issue, as the children had died due to a disease called Japanese encephalitis”.

He said at least interim bail should be granted till the petition is disposed of as over ten months have gone by.

The bench, however, refused the plea and sought response from the state government.

Mishra had approached the apex court challenging the order of Allahabad High Court dated April 30, by which it had denied bail to him. He has been booked for criminal negligence and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The state government had told the High Court that due to the alleged role of Misra, the oxygen supply got halted in the hospital as he had stopped payments to the supplier to allegedly force the company to pay him kickbacks.

On April 9, the top court had granted bail to the proprietor of a firm which supplied oxygen to the hospital saying he had spent seven months in jail for an offence which entailed maximum punishment of three years imprisonment.

SC refuses interim bail to principal of BRD Medical College Gorakhpur

The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to grant interim bail to a former principal of a medical college and hospital in Uttar Pradesh where scores of children had died last year allegedly due to shortage of oxygen supply. Dr Rajeev Kumar Mishra of Gorakhpur’s BRD medical college and hospital told the top court that he has been in jail for more than ten months and the children had died due to Japanese Encephalitis disease and not for shortage of oxygen. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and M M Shantanagoudar issued notice to Uttar Pradesh government on the plea of Mishra and listed the matter for June 6. More than 60 children, mostly infants, had died at the government-run Baba Raghav Das Medical College in Gorakhpur within a week in August 2017. There were allegations that the deaths occurred due to disruption in oxygen supply over unpaid bills to the vendor. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mishra, said he was arrested on August 29, 2017 and has remained in jail for over ten months. “Chargesheet has been filed in the case. The co-accused in the case including one doctor Kafeel Khan, who was the head of the Encephalitis ward, and the Oxygen gas supplier Manish Bhandari have already got bail. I should be granted at least interim bail till the petition is disposed of,” Rohatgi said. When the bench asked him what was in the chargesheet filed against his client, the senior lawyer said it has been alleged that Mishra had not cleared the bills for supply of oxygen, due to which the gas supply to the hospital was cut. To this, the bench said, “then what do you expect, that you will not clear the bills and the vendor will keep supplying the gas”. Rohatgi said “oxygen gas was not the issue, as the children had died due to a disease called Japanese encephalitis”. He said at least interim bail should be granted till the petition is disposed of as over ten months have gone by. The bench, however, refused the plea and sought response from the state government. Mishra had approached the apex court challenging the order of Allahabad High Court dated April 30, by which it had denied bail to him. He has been booked for criminal negligence and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The state government had told the High Court that due to the alleged role of Misra, the oxygen supply got halted in the hospital as he had stopped payments to the supplier to allegedly force the company to pay him kickbacks. On April 9, the top court had granted bail to the proprietor of a firm which supplied oxygen to the hospital saying he had spent seven months in jail for an offence which entailed maximum punishment of three years imprisonment.

Supreme Court refuses interim bail to principal of BRD Medical College Gorakhpur

Supreme Court, on Tuesday, dismissed Yug Tuli's Special Leave Petition for bail. However, the apex court has granted Tuli the liberty to renew his request for bail after three months.

Yug Tuli, the co-owner of Mojo's Bistro restaurant, is accused in the December 2017 fire incident at Mumbai's Kamala Mills compound in which 14 people were killed.

Tuli was arrested in mid-January and had approached the high court after his bail plea was rejected by the sessions court.

In his plea, Tuli had claimed that the tragedy occurred due to the "mistake" of the staff at "1 Above", the other restaurant that was gutted in the blaze on the intervening night of December 28-29.

Those accused include the owners of the Kamala Mills compound, Mojo Bistro, 1 Above, along with two BMC officials.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition of Yug Tuli, accused in Kamala Mills compound fire incident, for bail. Court gave him liberty to renew his request for bail after 3 months.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1001360602059628545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A massive fire had swept through the two resto-pubs at the Kamala Mills compound in central Mumbai during the early hours of December 29.

Yug Tuli, the co-owner of Mojo's Bistro restaurant, is accused in the December 2017 fire incident at Mumbai's Kamala Mills compound

Supreme Court, on Tuesday, dismissed Yug Tuli's Special Leave Petition for bail. However, the apex court has granted Tuli the liberty to renew his request for bail after three months. Yug Tuli, the co-owner of Mojo's Bistro restaurant, is accused in the December 2017 fire incident at Mumbai's Kamala Mills compound in which 14 people were killed. Tuli was arrested in mid-January and had approached the high court after his bail plea was rejected by the sessions court. In his plea, Tuli had claimed that the tragedy occurred due to the "mistake" of the staff at "1 Above", the other restaurant that was gutted in the blaze on the intervening night of December 28-29. Those accused include the owners of the Kamala Mills compound, Mojo Bistro, 1 Above, along with two BMC officials. Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition of Yug Tuli, accused in Kamala Mills compound fire incident, for bail. Court gave him liberty to renew his request for bail after 3 months. — ANI (@ANI) May 29, 2018 × A massive fire had swept through the two resto-pubs at the Kamala Mills compound in central Mumbai during the early hours of December 29.

Kamala Mills fire case: Supreme Court dismisses Yug Tuli's special petition for bail

The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up an appeal by Indian villagers against a power plant in Gujarat, funded by US-based International Finance Corporation (IFC), which has allegedly resulted in environmental damages.

"Petition granted", the Supreme Court said on Monday. The case would come up for hearing in the next session, beginning October.

The villagers, led by Budha Ismail Jam, along with several other farmers and fishermen, allege that coal-fired Tata Mundra Power Plant has resulted in widespread environmental damages.

Washington DC-based IFC, the financing wing of the World Bank, has provided USD 450 million in financial assistance to the project.

The Supreme Court said it would decide whether the IFC enjoyed immunity under the 1945 International Organisations Immunity Act.

Jam and other petitioners knocked the door of the Supreme Court this year after lower courts dismissed their petitions arguing that the IFC enjoyed immunity, like other foreign countries, under the 1945 International Organizations Immunity Act.

In their petition, the villagers argued that the Tata Mundra Power Plant has failed to comply with international environmental standards. This has resulted in devastation of local environment.

"International organisations play an ever-increasing role in the economic landscape of this country and the world. Therefore, the question whether they are absolutely immune from any kind of lawsuit - no matter how strictly commercial their activities no matter how egregious their actions and no matter the views of the Executive Branch - has great significance," the petitioners argued.

In 2015, the applicants - Indian farmers, fishermen, a trade union of fishworkers, and a local government entity - sued the IFC in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. They brought claims for negligence, negligent supervision, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract.

The petitioners lost the case before a district court in 2016 and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2017. Both the courts argued that IFC enjoys immunity.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHv9tHOLxaU" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The villagers allege the coal-fired Tata Mundra Power Plant, funded by the US-based International Finance Corporation, has caused widespread environmental damage

The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up an appeal by Indian villagers against a power plant in Gujarat, funded by US-based International Finance Corporation (IFC), which has allegedly resulted in environmental damages. "Petition granted", the Supreme Court said on Monday. The case would come up for hearing in the next session, beginning October. The villagers, led by Budha Ismail Jam, along with several other farmers and fishermen, allege that coal-fired Tata Mundra Power Plant has resulted in widespread environmental damages. Washington DC-based IFC, the financing wing of the World Bank, has provided USD 450 million in financial assistance to the project. The Supreme Court said it would decide whether the IFC enjoyed immunity under the 1945 International Organisations Immunity Act. Jam and other petitioners knocked the door of the Supreme Court this year after lower courts dismissed their petitions arguing that the IFC enjoyed immunity, like other foreign countries, under the 1945 International Organizations Immunity Act. In their petition, the villagers argued that the Tata Mundra Power Plant has failed to comply with international environmental standards. This has resulted in devastation of local environment. "International organisations play an ever-increasing role in the economic landscape of this country and the world. Therefore, the question whether they are absolutely immune from any kind of lawsuit - no matter how strictly commercial their activities no matter how egregious their actions and no matter the views of the Executive Branch - has great significance," the petitioners argued. In 2015, the applicants - Indian farmers, fishermen, a trade union of fishworkers, and a local government entity - sued the IFC in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. They brought claims for negligence, negligent supervision, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract. The petitioners lost the case before a district court in 2016 and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2017. Both the courts argued that IFC enjoys immunity. ×

US Supreme Court to hear appeal by Indian villagers against Gujarat power plant

In a bid to perhaps outsmart the Supreme Court, BSP chief has converted her official accommodation into a memorial for late party supremo Kanshiram.&nbsp;

Instead of vacating her official residence at 13 A, Mall Avenue, Lucknow, Mayawati has reportedly gotten a signboard on the premises declaring it to be ‘Shri Kanshiram Ji Yaadgar Vishraam Sthal’.&nbsp;

Supreme Court has recently ordered former Uttar Pradesh chief ministers to vacate their official residences.

The Supreme Court had earlier this month said that former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh cannot retain government accommodation after demitting office, observing that a chief minister was at par with a common man once his or her term ends.

The court was hearing a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari, challenging the amendments made by the erstwhile Akhilesh Yadav government to the UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981.

As per the notice served by the UP Government after Supreme Court’s order, six former CMs of UP, including Mayawati and Akhilesh, will have to vacate their government bungalows by the end of this month.

Though Mayawati is set to vacate her government bungalow situated at 13A Mall Avenue and is reportedly moving to a new address 9 Mall Avenue, which happens to be bang opposite to her house. But on Monday morning one board had come up at 13A Mall Avenue which read 'Kanshiram Yaadgar Vishram Sthal'.

Six former CMs of UP, including Mayawati and Akhilesh, will have to vacate their government bungalows by the end of this month.

In a bid to perhaps outsmart the Supreme Court, BSP chief has converted her official accommodation into a memorial for late party supremo Kanshiram. Instead of vacating her official residence at 13 A, Mall Avenue, Lucknow, Mayawati has reportedly gotten a signboard on the premises declaring it to be ‘Shri Kanshiram Ji Yaadgar Vishraam Sthal’. Supreme Court has recently ordered former Uttar Pradesh chief ministers to vacate their official residences. The Supreme Court had earlier this month said that former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh cannot retain government accommodation after demitting office, observing that a chief minister was at par with a common man once his or her term ends. The court was hearing a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari, challenging the amendments made by the erstwhile Akhilesh Yadav government to the UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981. As per the notice served by the UP Government after Supreme Court’s order, six former CMs of UP, including Mayawati and Akhilesh, will have to vacate their government bungalows by the end of this month. Though Mayawati is set to vacate her government bungalow situated at 13A Mall Avenue and is reportedly moving to a new address 9 Mall Avenue, which happens to be bang opposite to her house. But on Monday morning one board had come up at 13A Mall Avenue which read 'Kanshiram Yaadgar Vishram Sthal'.

Mayawati converts govt bungalow into Kanshi Ram memorial as Supreme Court orders to vacate it

Asma Nawab spent two decades in jail, wrongfully accused of murdering her family. Finally acquitted, she is seeking a new life, free from whispers and memories, as her plight draws fresh questions over Pakistan's woeful justice system.

Nawab was just 16 years old when someone slit the throats of her parents and only brother during an attempted robbery at their home in Pakistan's chaotic port city of Karachi in 1998.

With the killings dominating headlines, prosecutors pushed for swift justice in a 12-day trial that ended with a death sentence handed to Nawab and her then-fiance.&nbsp

The next 20 years were "very painful", Nawab, now 36, says tearfully.&nbsp

At first the other inmates were sceptical at her protests of innocence, but eventually, she formed a new "family" of women -- some convicted of kidnappings, others of murders.

They supported one another when progress on their cases was poor, or family neglected them.

"We would cry on Eid and other festivals... It was very painful. I would feel it intensely" when relatives failed to visit, she said through sobs. "Only once my uncle came to see me."

Though her trial was speedy, her appeal moved at a glacial speed through Pakistan's creaky justice system.

It was not until 2015 that her lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court, which -- after a three-year hearing -- ordered Nawab released due to lack of evidence last month.

"The verdict of this case was given in 12 days but it took 19 and a half years to dispose of the appeals," her lawyer Javed Chatari told AFP.

Nawab said the acquittal left her stunned. "I really couldn't believe it," she told AFP.

The verdict left her "perplexed", she said, and she struggled to understand what would come next. "How would I face the world after living so long in jail?"

Judicial woes

Stories like Nawab's are common in Pakistan, where the judiciary lacks the capacity to cope with the country's surging population and an expanding case load, resulting in a mammoth backlog.

In 2017 alone, there were more than than 38,000 cases pending in Pakistan's Supreme Court in addition to hundreds of thousands awaiting trial across the judiciary, according to a Human Rights Commission Pakistan report released in April. &nbsp

Rampant corruption in Pakistan's police force also means the wealthy are able to bypass the law, while deep-seated patriarchy means women in particular face an uneven playing field in the justice system.

"Unequal power structures allow for people with advantage -- money or power -- to rise above the law. For the poor, the system is sluggish and sometimes is so weak that it is safe to label it as almost non-existent," said lawyer Benazir Jaoti, who specialises in women's legal and political empowerment in Pakistan.&nbsp

"Within the system, women are one of the groups of people that are significantly disadvantaged, it being a patriarchal society and a patriarchal system."

Even when the system finally comes through, as it did with Nawab's acquittal, that is usually as far as it goes, leaving those whose lives have been dismantled to repair the damage with little or no support.&nbsp

Going home again

Nawab has had little to return to since leaving Karachi's central prison in early April.

With her loved ones dead, her family house was looted then fell into disrepair.

Any potential compensation from the state will take time to process, her lawyer admits, acknowledging there's a high chance she will receive nothing. In the meantime, she is unemployed.

During her first visit back to her humble family home she quietly wept as her lawyer broke the gate's lock with a hammer.

"(The police) left nothing behind," she said after walking through the dilapidated house covered in dust and cobwebs.

"I lost my parents and now I see none of their belongings."&nbsp

Nearly two decades after being convicted, Nawab still holds the media as much as the courts responsible for her treatment, saying she was unfairly portrayed as the culprit in the murders, including in a TV drama based on the case.

Although she has been exonerated, her release has done little to change the public narrative.

Persecution persists, Nawab says, with people in the streets frequently whispering cold remarks when she walks past.&nbsp

"Society will not accept the verdict," agreed Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Farooq, commenting on the case. "She cannot get rid of this stigma as far as society is concerned."

But Nawab says she must move on and has plans to finish her studies and find a job.

She has also vowed to raise awareness for other wrongly imprisoned women. Her lawyer says he will help her set up an NGO to give women like her the support she never had.

"I don't want any other woman to have to endure the ordeal that I lived through," says Nawab.&nbsp

"So I will raise their voices for them."

Nawab was just 16 years old when someone slit the throats of her parents and only brother during an attempted robbery at their home in Pakistan's chaotic port city of Karachi in 1998

Asma Nawab spent two decades in jail, wrongfully accused of murdering her family. Finally acquitted, she is seeking a new life, free from whispers and memories, as her plight draws fresh questions over Pakistan's woeful justice system. Nawab was just 16 years old when someone slit the throats of her parents and only brother during an attempted robbery at their home in Pakistan's chaotic port city of Karachi in 1998. With the killings dominating headlines, prosecutors pushed for swift justice in a 12-day trial that ended with a death sentence handed to Nawab and her then-fiance. The next 20 years were "very painful", Nawab, now 36, says tearfully. At first the other inmates were sceptical at her protests of innocence, but eventually, she formed a new "family" of women -- some convicted of kidnappings, others of murders. They supported one another when progress on their cases was poor, or family neglected them. "We would cry on Eid and other festivals... It was very painful. I would feel it intensely" when relatives failed to visit, she said through sobs. "Only once my uncle came to see me." Though her trial was speedy, her appeal moved at a glacial speed through Pakistan's creaky justice system. It was not until 2015 that her lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court, which -- after a three-year hearing -- ordered Nawab released due to lack of evidence last month. "The verdict of this case was given in 12 days but it took 19 and a half years to dispose of the appeals," her lawyer Javed Chatari told AFP. Nawab said the acquittal left her stunned. "I really couldn't believe it," she told AFP. The verdict left her "perplexed", she said, and she struggled to understand what would come next. "How would I face the world after living so long in jail?" Judicial woes Stories like Nawab's are common in Pakistan, where the judiciary lacks the capacity to cope with the country's surging population and an expanding case load, resulting in a mammoth backlog. In 2017 alone, there were more than than 38,000 cases pending in Pakistan's Supreme Court in addition to hundreds of thousands awaiting trial across the judiciary, according to a Human Rights Commission Pakistan report released in April. Rampant corruption in Pakistan's police force also means the wealthy are able to bypass the law, while deep-seated patriarchy means women in particular face an uneven playing field in the justice system. "Unequal power structures allow for people with advantage -- money or power -- to rise above the law. For the poor, the system is sluggish and sometimes is so weak that it is safe to label it as almost non-existent," said lawyer Benazir Jaoti, who specialises in women's legal and political empowerment in Pakistan. "Within the system, women are one of the groups of people that are significantly disadvantaged, it being a patriarchal society and a patriarchal system." Even when the system finally comes through, as it did with Nawab's acquittal, that is usually as far as it goes, leaving those whose lives have been dismantled to repair the damage with little or no support. Going home again Nawab has had little to return to since leaving Karachi's central prison in early April. With her loved ones dead, her family house was looted then fell into disrepair. Any potential compensation from the state will take time to process, her lawyer admits, acknowledging there's a high chance she will receive nothing. In the meantime, she is unemployed. During her first visit back to her humble family home she quietly wept as her lawyer broke the gate's lock with a hammer. "(The police) left nothing behind," she said after walking through the dilapidated house covered in dust and cobwebs. "I lost my parents and now I see none of their belongings." Nearly two decades after being convicted, Nawab still holds the media as much as the courts responsible for her treatment, saying she was unfairly portrayed as the culprit in the murders, including in a TV drama based on the case. Although she has been exonerated, her release has done little to change the public narrative. Persecution persists, Nawab says, with people in the streets frequently whispering cold remarks when she walks past. "Society will not accept the verdict," agreed Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Farooq, commenting on the case. "She cannot get rid of this stigma as far as society is concerned." But Nawab says she must move on and has plans to finish her studies and find a job. She has also vowed to raise awareness for other wrongly imprisoned women. Her lawyer says he will help her set up an NGO to give women like her the support she never had. "I don't want any other woman to have to endure the ordeal that I lived through," says Nawab. "So I will raise their voices for them."

Wrongful imprisonment sheds light on slow justice in Pakistan

The Supreme Court of India turned down a plea by the Congress and the JD(S) challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's decision to appoint KG Bopaiah as the pro-tem Speaker&nbsp;but allowed a live&nbsp;telecast of the trust vote today.

"Law can't direct the Governor to appoint a particular person as Pro-tem speaker. Unless convention becomes legal norm, it can't be enforced by Court," the top court said. 
 
"Live broadcast of floor test would be the best way to ensure transparency of proceedings," the Supreme Court said.

During the hearing, Congress leader and counsel for the party and the JD(S) Kapil Sibal told the court that the individual appointed as pro-tem Speaker must be the senior most member of the House which is a convention in the Parliament as well.

"Long-standing convention has been broken after the appointment of Bopaiah," Kapil Sibal said, adding, "Even the Supreme Court has ratified this practice in two judgments."

Justice SA Bobde replied stating that there had been instances where the senior most MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) wasn't appointed as Pro tem speaker.&nbsp;

Kapil Sibal replied stating, "KG Bopaiah has different history. His decision of disqualification was set aside by this Court earlier."

The Congress leader also asked the top court to restrain Bopaiah but not to delay the floor test.

The Supreme Court judge replied stating that the court could not restrain Bopaiah without hearing him.

The Congress and the JD(S) were also representated by Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani was also present in the court.

The BJP government was represented by Attorney General KK Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had yesterday asked the BS Yeddyurappa-led BJP government to conduct a floor test on Saturday to prove their majority in the Karnataka assembly.

The top court was hearing a petition challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's invitation to BS Yeddyurappa to become chief minister.

The floor test will take place at 4 pm today.

The Supreme Court also said that oath should be administered to all MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) before the floor test and BS Yeddyurappa cannot take any policy decisions till the trust vote.

In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three.

The BJP insists it should stake claim to form the government by virtue of being the single largest party while the Congress, which has struck a post-poll alliance with the JD(S), says they have 117 seats, six more than the half-way mark of 111.

The top court was hearing an application by the Congress and the JD(S) challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's decision to appoint KG Bopaiah as the pro-tem speaker

The Supreme Court of India turned down a plea by the Congress and the JD(S) challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's decision to appoint KG Bopaiah as the pro-tem Speaker but allowed a live telecast of the trust vote today. "Law can't direct the Governor to appoint a particular person as Pro-tem speaker. Unless convention becomes legal norm, it can't be enforced by Court," the top court said. "Live broadcast of floor test would be the best way to ensure transparency of proceedings," the Supreme Court said. During the hearing, Congress leader and counsel for the party and the JD(S) Kapil Sibal told the court that the individual appointed as pro-tem Speaker must be the senior most member of the House which is a convention in the Parliament as well. "Long-standing convention has been broken after the appointment of Bopaiah," Kapil Sibal said, adding, "Even the Supreme Court has ratified this practice in two judgments." Justice SA Bobde replied stating that there had been instances where the senior most MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) wasn't appointed as Pro tem speaker. Kapil Sibal replied stating, "KG Bopaiah has different history. His decision of disqualification was set aside by this Court earlier." The Congress leader also asked the top court to restrain Bopaiah but not to delay the floor test. The Supreme Court judge replied stating that the court could not restrain Bopaiah without hearing him. The Congress and the JD(S) were also representated by Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani was also present in the court. The BJP government was represented by Attorney General KK Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. The Supreme Court had yesterday asked the BS Yeddyurappa-led BJP government to conduct a floor test on Saturday to prove their majority in the Karnataka assembly. The top court was hearing a petition challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's invitation to BS Yeddyurappa to become chief minister. The floor test will take place at 4 pm today. The Supreme Court also said that oath should be administered to all MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) before the floor test and BS Yeddyurappa cannot take any policy decisions till the trust vote. In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three. The BJP insists it should stake claim to form the government by virtue of being the single largest party while the Congress, which has struck a post-poll alliance with the JD(S), says they have 117 seats, six more than the half-way mark of 111.

Supreme Court allows live telecast of Karnataka floor test, Bopaiah to remain pro-tem speaker

Supreme Court has agreed to hear Congress plea on the appointment of BJP MLA KG Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker tomorrow at 10:30 am, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

Congress-JDS filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker in the Supreme Court on Friday evening.

According to reports, the petition stated that Bopaiah's appointment is a blatant move to manipulate voting during trust motion.

However, Supreme Court rejected another Congress plea to video record the voting in trust motion.

The court also rejected Attorney General K K Venugopal plea to the bench to consider a secret ballot.&nbsp;

Earlier Randeep Surjewala accused Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala of launching yet another encounter on the Constitution by appointing KG Bopaiah as pro tem Speaker instead of the senior most MLA.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court to hear Congress's plea regarding the appointment of pro tem speaker of BJP MLA tomorrow at 10:30am. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KarnatakaElections2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KarnatakaElections2018</a> <a href="https://t.co/ctAoL0ic9R">pic.twitter.com/ctAoL0ic9R</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/997515061013835776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 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>

&nbsp;

Congress-JDS filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker in the Supreme Court on Friday evening.

Supreme Court has agreed to hear Congress plea on the appointment of BJP MLA KG Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker tomorrow at 10:30 am, news agency ANI reported. Congress-JDS filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker in the Supreme Court on Friday evening. According to reports, the petition stated that Bopaiah's appointment is a blatant move to manipulate voting during trust motion. However, Supreme Court rejected another Congress plea to video record the voting in trust motion. The court also rejected Attorney General K K Venugopal plea to the bench to consider a secret ballot. Earlier Randeep Surjewala accused Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala of launching yet another encounter on the Constitution by appointing KG Bopaiah as pro tem Speaker instead of the senior most MLA. Supreme Court to hear Congress's plea regarding the appointment of pro tem speaker of BJP MLA tomorrow at 10:30am. #KarnatakaElections2018 pic.twitter.com/ctAoL0ic9R — ANI (@ANI) May 18, 2018 ×

Supreme Court to hear Congress plea on pro-tem Speaker on Saturday morning

Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa faces his first big test in the Supreme Court today. The top court will resume hearing a petition challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's invitation to Yeddyurappa to become chief minister.

In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three.

The BJP insists it should stake claim to form the government by virtue of being the single largest party while the Congress, which has struck a post-poll alliance with the JD(S), says they have more seats, four more than the half-way mark. Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi told the top court that the only way that the Yeddyurappa government could also cross the half-way mark is by horse-trading.

The BJP claims the support of 105 lawmakers including an independent.

The Congress-JDS combine has moved out their lawmakers from Bengaluru to neighbouring Hyderabad to ensure the 116 MLAs they have stay intact.

&nbspIn a rare pre-dawn hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court had refused to stop Yeddyurappa from being sworn in but had made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it.

A special bench comprising Justices AK Sikri, SA Bobde and Ashok Bhushan had directed the Centre to place before it two communications, sent by Yeddyurappa to Governor Vajubhai Vala in which he had staked claim to form the government, saying their perusal was necessary to decide the case.

"Here, there are three major parties. BJP is the single largest party, Congress is second and JD (S) is third. Now, the Congress-JD (S) combine outweighs the BJP. Then, in this situation, on what basis he (Yeddyurappa) has staked claim to form the government? We do not have those letters. It's only on surmises. The arithmetic is such that defies on what basis it was done," the bench had observed.

The top court also issued notices to Karnataka government and Yeddyurappa seeking their replies on the plea filed by Congress-JD (S) combine and posted the matter for hearing today.

 
&nbsp

Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa faces his first big test in the Supreme Court today

Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa faces his first big test in the Supreme Court today. The top court will resume hearing a petition challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's invitation to Yeddyurappa to become chief minister. In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three. The BJP insists it should stake claim to form the government by virtue of being the single largest party while the Congress, which has struck a post-poll alliance with the JD(S), says they have more seats, four more than the half-way mark. Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi told the top court that the only way that the Yeddyurappa government could also cross the half-way mark is by horse-trading. The BJP claims the support of 105 lawmakers including an independent. The Congress-JDS combine has moved out their lawmakers from Bengaluru to neighbouring Hyderabad to ensure the 116 MLAs they have stay intact. &nbspIn a rare pre-dawn hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court had refused to stop Yeddyurappa from being sworn in but had made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it. A special bench comprising Justices AK Sikri, SA Bobde and Ashok Bhushan had directed the Centre to place before it two communications, sent by Yeddyurappa to Governor Vajubhai Vala in which he had staked claim to form the government, saying their perusal was necessary to decide the case. "Here, there are three major parties. BJP is the single largest party, Congress is second and JD (S) is third. Now, the Congress-JD (S) combine outweighs the BJP. Then, in this situation, on what basis he (Yeddyurappa) has staked claim to form the government? We do not have those letters. It's only on surmises. The arithmetic is such that defies on what basis it was done," the bench had observed. The top court also issued notices to Karnataka government and Yeddyurappa seeking their replies on the plea filed by Congress-JD (S) combine and posted the matter for hearing today.

Supreme Court to hear plea challenging invitation to Yeddyurappa to be chief minister

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-to-challenge-the-appointment-of-kg-bopaiah-as-pro-tem-speaker-in-the-sc-137972">Karnataka crisis: Congress to challenge KG Bopaiah's appointment as pro-tem Speaker in Supreme Court</a>

Congress to challenge the appointment of KG Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker in the Supreme Court on Friday. According to television reports, Congress is moving Supreme Court to challenge the Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's decision to appoint KG Bopiah as pro-tem speaker ahead of the floor test on Saturday 4 pm.&nbsp

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ahead-of-pm-modis-visit-to-jk-pakistan-summons-indian-high-commissioner-over-unprovoked-ceasefire-violations-along-loc-137934">Pakistan summons Indian High Commissioner over 'unprovoked ceasefire violations' along LoC</a>

As PM Modi prepares to visit J&K on Saturday, Pakistan today summoned Indian High Commissioner over "unprovoked ceasefire violations" allegedly carried out by Indian forces along the Line of Control(LoC).

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-allows-karti-chidambaram-to-travel-abroad-137929">Supreme Court allows Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad</a>

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel to offshore locations in United Kingdom, Germany and Spain with certain conditions, including that he would not open or close a bank account abroad.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-denies-offering-200-billion-package-to-slash-us-trade-gap-137953">China denies offering $200 billion </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-denies-offering-200-billion-package-to-slash-us-trade-gap-137953">package</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-denies-offering-200-billion-package-to-slash-us-trade-gap-137953"> to slash US trade gap</a>

China denied on Friday that it had offered a package to slash the US trade deficit by up to $200 billion, hours after it dropped an anti-dumping probe into US sorghum imports in a conciliatory gesture as top negotiators meet in Washington.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/congo-faces-very-high-risk-from-ebola-outbreak-who--137926">Congo faces 'very high' risk from Ebola outbreak: WHO</a>

Democratic Republic of Congo faces a "very high" public health risk from Ebola because the disease has been confirmed in a patient in a big city, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday, raising its assessment from "high" previously.

&nbsp

Karnataka crisis: Congress to challenge KG Bopaiah's appointment as pro-tem Speaker in Supreme Court Congress to challenge the appointment of KG Bopaiah as pro-tem Speaker in the Supreme Court on Friday. According to television reports, Congress is moving Supreme Court to challenge the Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's decision to appoint KG Bopiah as pro-tem speaker ahead of the floor test on Saturday 4 pm. Pakistan summons Indian High Commissioner over 'unprovoked ceasefire violations' along LoC As PM Modi prepares to visit J&K on Saturday, Pakistan today summoned Indian High Commissioner over "unprovoked ceasefire violations" allegedly carried out by Indian forces along the Line of Control(LoC). Supreme Court allows Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel to offshore locations in United Kingdom, Germany and Spain with certain conditions, including that he would not open or close a bank account abroad. China denies offering $200 billion package to slash US trade gap China denied on Friday that it had offered a package to slash the US trade deficit by up to $200 billion, hours after it dropped an anti-dumping probe into US sorghum imports in a conciliatory gesture as top negotiators meet in Washington. Congo faces 'very high' risk from Ebola outbreak: WHO Democratic Republic of Congo faces a "very high" public health risk from Ebola because the disease has been confirmed in a patient in a big city, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday, raising its assessment from "high" previously.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Supreme Court today asked the Yeddyurappa-led BJP government to conduct a floor test on Saturday to prove their majority in the Karnataka assembly.

The top court was hearing a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-challenging-invitation-to-yeddyurappa-to-be-chief-minister-137831">petition challenging</a> Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's invitation to BS Yeddyurappa to become chief minister.

The floor test will take place at 4 pm tomorrow. The Supreme Court also said that oath should be administered to all MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) before the floor test tomorrow and BS Yeddyurappa cannot take any policy decisions until tomorrow.

"The test will be as per the rules of the house. There will be no secret ballot," the Supreme Court justices said.

Lawyers for BS Yeddyurappa had requested until Monday to be able to prove it has the numbers to form a government. They had also wanted a secret ballot.

The Supreme Court said that the governor had to see which side had the numbers to form the government on the face of a claim of majority support by the&nbsp;single largest party and on the other a written support of majority to the Cong-JDS combine.

Justice Sikri said the best course was for a floor test. "Let there be a floor test and let the House decide," said the Supreme Court judge.

The Congress party said in the top court that there should be videography and proper security to MLAs to enable them vote fearlessly. The Supreme Court said that it would order the Director General of Police to make proper arrangement for floor test on Saturday. 
 
The Supreme Court began the hearing by asking the counsel for letters of support given by BS Yeddyurappa&nbsp;to the governor. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing the BJP-led central government handed over Yeddyurappa's letters to the top court.

Yeddyurappa's letter stated that he had been elected as leader of the largest party, the BJP and that he had the support of the necessary number of lawmakers and was ready to prove it on the floor of House.

The top court observed that BS Yeddyurappa's letter of support did&nbsp;not mention the names of the MLAs who had offered their support.

In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three.

The BJP insists it should stake claim to form the government by virtue of being the single largest party while the Congress, which has struck a post-poll alliance with the JD(S), says they have more seats, four more than the half-way mark.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kDSnOVBVUoA" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said that the governor had to see which side had the numbers to form the government

The Supreme Court today asked the Yeddyurappa-led BJP government to conduct a floor test on Saturday to prove their majority in the Karnataka assembly. The top court was hearing a petition challenging Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala's invitation to BS Yeddyurappa to become chief minister. The floor test will take place at 4 pm tomorrow. The Supreme Court also said that oath should be administered to all MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) before the floor test tomorrow and BS Yeddyurappa cannot take any policy decisions until tomorrow. "The test will be as per the rules of the house. There will be no secret ballot," the Supreme Court justices said. Lawyers for BS Yeddyurappa had requested until Monday to be able to prove it has the numbers to form a government. They had also wanted a secret ballot. The Supreme Court said that the governor had to see which side had the numbers to form the government on the face of a claim of majority support by the single largest party and on the other a written support of majority to the Cong-JDS combine. Justice Sikri said the best course was for a floor test. "Let there be a floor test and let the House decide," said the Supreme Court judge. The Congress party said in the top court that there should be videography and proper security to MLAs to enable them vote fearlessly. The Supreme Court said that it would order the Director General of Police to make proper arrangement for floor test on Saturday. The Supreme Court began the hearing by asking the counsel for letters of support given by BS Yeddyurappa to the governor. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing the BJP-led central government handed over Yeddyurappa's letters to the top court. Yeddyurappa's letter stated that he had been elected as leader of the largest party, the BJP and that he had the support of the necessary number of lawmakers and was ready to prove it on the floor of House. The top court observed that BS Yeddyurappa's letter of support did not mention the names of the MLAs who had offered their support. In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three. The BJP insists it should stake claim to form the government by virtue of being the single largest party while the Congress, which has struck a post-poll alliance with the JD(S), says they have more seats, four more than the half-way mark. ×

Supreme Court calls for floor test in Karnataka assembly tomorrow

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel to offshore locations in United Kingdom, Germany and Spain with certain conditions, including that he would not open or close a bank account abroad.

Karti, who has been facing probe in various corruption cases, was allowed to go abroad from May 19 to 27 by a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said "he (Karti) shall not open or close any overseas bank account" and not enter into any property transaction abroad.&nbsp

It asked Karti to furnish an undertaking before it, saying he would follow the conditions and apprise it about the flight details and date of arrival back to India.

The court also made it clear that its permission to Karti to travel abroad should not be used in any court of law for grant of statutory and regular bail in any other offence.

The bench told Karti that he would cooperate in investigation and hand over passport to investigation agency, that is the Enforcement Directorate, on return.

Karti, who has been facing probe in various corruption cases, was allowed to go abroad from May 19 to 27 by a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel to offshore locations in United Kingdom, Germany and Spain with certain conditions, including that he would not open or close a bank account abroad. Karti, who has been facing probe in various corruption cases, was allowed to go abroad from May 19 to 27 by a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said "he (Karti) shall not open or close any overseas bank account" and not enter into any property transaction abroad. It asked Karti to furnish an undertaking before it, saying he would follow the conditions and apprise it about the flight details and date of arrival back to India. The court also made it clear that its permission to Karti to travel abroad should not be used in any court of law for grant of statutory and regular bail in any other offence. The bench told Karti that he would cooperate in investigation and hand over passport to investigation agency, that is the Enforcement Directorate, on return.

Supreme Court allows Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad

Though the cause list of the apex court for tomorrow mentions his name in the bench headed by the CJI, attempts to reach Justice Chelameswar's office for confirmation did not fructify.

It is a custom in the Supreme Court that any retiring judge on his last working day, shares the dias with the CJI in court number 1.

The question has created lot of speculation in the legal circles whether Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge in the apex court who led a virtual revolt against the CJI by holding the January 12 presser, will sit with him on the last day of normal working of the Supreme Court which adjourns for summer vacation from May 19.&nbsp

The judge will retire on June 22 when the court will be on vacation.

However, it is a bitter truth that the senior most judge has been on the other side of the CJI on issues like allocation of cases or collegium-related matters, which became apparent after the January 12 press conference.

Justice Chelameswar has also refused the invite of the Supreme Court Bar Association to attend the farewell function in his honour, which was proposed for tomorrow.&nbsp 
&nbsp

It is a custom in the Supreme Court that any retiring judge on his last working day, shares the dias with the CJI in court number 1.

Though the cause list of the apex court for tomorrow mentions his name in the bench headed by the CJI, attempts to reach Justice Chelameswar's office for confirmation did not fructify. It is a custom in the Supreme Court that any retiring judge on his last working day, shares the dias with the CJI in court number 1. The question has created lot of speculation in the legal circles whether Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge in the apex court who led a virtual revolt against the CJI by holding the January 12 presser, will sit with him on the last day of normal working of the Supreme Court which adjourns for summer vacation from May 19. The judge will retire on June 22 when the court will be on vacation. However, it is a bitter truth that the senior most judge has been on the other side of the CJI on issues like allocation of cases or collegium-related matters, which became apparent after the January 12 press conference. Justice Chelameswar has also refused the invite of the Supreme Court Bar Association to attend the farewell function in his honour, which was proposed for tomorrow.

Will Justice Chelameswar share dias with CJI on his last day in SC?

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-yeddyurappas-swearing-in-ceremony-137537">In </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-yeddyurappas-swearing-in-ceremony-137537">late-night</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-yeddyurappas-swearing-in-ceremony-137537"> hearing, Supreme Court refuses to stay Yeddyurappa's swearing-in ceremony</a>

The Supreme Court today refused to stay BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa's swearing-in as Karnataka Chief Minister after a rare pre-dawn hearing which saw the Congress-JD (S) combine making a last-ditch attempt to stall the saffron party's surge in the southern state.

The top court, which commenced the hearing at 2.11 am and ended at 5.28 am, however made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/live-natak-in-karnataka-continues-both-sides-to-meet-governor-mlas-report-poaching-attempts-137278">Live: Yeddyurappa&nbsp;sworn in as Karnataka Chief Minister&nbsp;</a>

The BJP's BS Yeddyurappa was sworn in as Karnataka Chief Minister today

Yeddyurappa took oath as the 23rd chief minister of Karnataka after the Supreme Court early today morning decided not to put a stay on the swearing-in while conducting a post-midnight hearing.

Yeddyurappa, who succeeds Siddaramaiah, took oath as the Chief Minister of Karnataka at 9.00 am at the Raj Bhavan.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-discloses-payment-to-attorney-who-paid-off-stormy-daniels-137545">Trump discloses payment to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-discloses-payment-to-attorney-who-paid-off-stormy-daniels-137545">attorney</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-discloses-payment-to-attorney-who-paid-off-stormy-daniels-137545"> who paid off </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-discloses-payment-to-attorney-who-paid-off-stormy-daniels-137545">porn</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-discloses-payment-to-attorney-who-paid-off-stormy-daniels-137545"> star</a>

President Donald Trump has formally disclosed that he reimbursed his personal attorney more than $100,000 last year, apparently in connection with the payment of hush money to a porn star, government records show.

The disclosure caps a series of contradictory statements from Trump and his representatives on the scandal swirling around lawyer Michael Cohen -- which has widened to ensnare major corporations and a Russian oligarch.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/north-korea-pledges-not-to-create-security-concerns-for-india-137548">North Korea pledges not to create security concerns for India</a>

Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs General VK Singh (retired) became the first Indian minister to visit North Korea in 20 years as the latter pledged not to ever create concerns for India's security.

The MoS highlighted the threat posed to India from nuclear proliferation. In response to that, North Korea emphasised that being a friendly country, it will never allow any actions that would create concerns for India's security.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-again-defers-decision-on-justice-josephs-elevation-to-supreme-court-137556">Collegium again defers </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-again-defers-decision-on-justice-josephs-elevation-to-supreme-court-137556">decision</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-again-defers-decision-on-justice-josephs-elevation-to-supreme-court-137556"> on Justice Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court</a>

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre.

The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior-most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour.

Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days.

In late-night hearing, Supreme Court refuses to stay Yeddyurappa's swearing-in ceremony The Supreme Court today refused to stay BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa's swearing-in as Karnataka Chief Minister after a rare pre-dawn hearing which saw the Congress-JD (S) combine making a last-ditch attempt to stall the saffron party's surge in the southern state. The top court, which commenced the hearing at 2.11 am and ended at 5.28 am, however made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it. Live: Yeddyurappa sworn in as Karnataka Chief Minister The BJP's BS Yeddyurappa was sworn in as Karnataka Chief Minister today Yeddyurappa took oath as the 23rd chief minister of Karnataka after the Supreme Court early today morning decided not to put a stay on the swearing-in while conducting a post-midnight hearing. Yeddyurappa, who succeeds Siddaramaiah, took oath as the Chief Minister of Karnataka at 9.00 am at the Raj Bhavan. Trump discloses payment to attorney who paid off porn star President Donald Trump has formally disclosed that he reimbursed his personal attorney more than $100,000 last year, apparently in connection with the payment of hush money to a porn star, government records show. The disclosure caps a series of contradictory statements from Trump and his representatives on the scandal swirling around lawyer Michael Cohen -- which has widened to ensnare major corporations and a Russian oligarch. North Korea pledges not to create security concerns for India Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs General VK Singh (retired) became the first Indian minister to visit North Korea in 20 years as the latter pledged not to ever create concerns for India's security. The MoS highlighted the threat posed to India from nuclear proliferation. In response to that, North Korea emphasised that being a friendly country, it will never allow any actions that would create concerns for India's security. Collegium again defers decision on Justice Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre. The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior-most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour. Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days.

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre.

The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour.

Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days.

At its last meeting on May 11, the Collegium had agreed in principle to reiterate its recommendation for elevating Justice Joseph as a judge of the apex court, almost three weeks after it was returned by the Centre, but could not decide on a date.

It had then adopted a resolution which stated that there was a need for further discussion on the issue of sending the other names of judges to the Centre and had decided to meet again today.

"The Chief Justice and other members of the Collegium have, on principle, unanimously agreed that the recommendation for appointment of Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court (Parent High Court: Kerala)as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be reiterated.

"However, the said reiteration should also be accompanied by the recommendation of the names of Chief Justices of High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, for which detailed discussion is required," the resolution of May 11 had said.

It had also decided to consider the names of other High Court Judges for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court.

Official sources said those high court judges who are in the race to be elevated to the apex court are Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, who is originally from the Calcutta HC, Gujarat HC Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, whose parent cadre is Telangana and Andhra Pradesh HC, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who is originally from Rajasthan HC.

The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

The Collegium has recommended the name of Additional Judge Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala to be appointed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

"Taking into consideration the material on record, the Collegium finds Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judge (of the Rajasthan High Court).

"In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend, for the present, that Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against one of the existing vacancies," its resolution said.

The collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four most senior SC judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated on the issue for more than an hour. This was their second meeting in 5 days

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre. The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour. Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days. At its last meeting on May 11, the Collegium had agreed in principle to reiterate its recommendation for elevating Justice Joseph as a judge of the apex court, almost three weeks after it was returned by the Centre, but could not decide on a date. It had then adopted a resolution which stated that there was a need for further discussion on the issue of sending the other names of judges to the Centre and had decided to meet again today. "The Chief Justice and other members of the Collegium have, on principle, unanimously agreed that the recommendation for appointment of Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court (Parent High Court: Kerala)as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be reiterated. "However, the said reiteration should also be accompanied by the recommendation of the names of Chief Justices of High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, for which detailed discussion is required," the resolution of May 11 had said. It had also decided to consider the names of other High Court Judges for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court. Official sources said those high court judges who are in the race to be elevated to the apex court are Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, who is originally from the Calcutta HC, Gujarat HC Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, whose parent cadre is Telangana and Andhra Pradesh HC, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who is originally from Rajasthan HC. The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. The Collegium has recommended the name of Additional Judge Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala to be appointed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court. "Taking into consideration the material on record, the Collegium finds Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judge (of the Rajasthan High Court). "In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend, for the present, that Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against one of the existing vacancies," its resolution said.

Collegium again defers decision on Justice KM Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

Collegium again defers decision on Justice Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

Senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani on Thursday approached the Supreme Court in his personal capacity against Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala`s decision of inviting BJP leader BS&nbspYeddyurappa to form a new government in the state despite being eight short of a simple majority in the assembly.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> Senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani speaks on Karnataka politics, says, 'What has BJP said to Guv, that he did such a stupid action? Order of Guv is open invitation to do corruption.' Jethmalani has approached SC against Karnataka Guv's invitation to Yeddyurappa for forming govt. <a href="https://t.co/uLa0oXcPQZ">pic.twitter.com/uLa0oXcPQZ</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/997019222332067840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM&nbspKhanwilkar and Justice DY&nbspChandrachud asked Jethmalani to mention his plea on Friday before the bench concerned.

Jethmalani, who had taken retirement from law practice, told the bench that the Karnataka Governor`s order is a "gross abuse of Constitutional power".

The apex court early on Thursday after a midnight hearing refused to stall the swearing-in of Yeddyurappa as Karnataka`s new Chief Minister.

Yeddyurappa took the oath as the Chief Minister of Karnataka on Thursday at 9 a.m. at the Raj Bhavan amid tight security.

The court, however, sought the communications which Yeddyurappa had written to Karnataka Governor informing him his election as BJP legislature party.

The apex court said that the swearing-in is subject to the final outcome of the matter before it.

The bench headed by Justice A.K. Sikri, while seeking Yeddyurappa`s response on the petition by Congress and Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) seeking to stall his swearing-in, has directed further hearing of the matter at 10.30 a.m. on Friday.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud asked Jethmalani to mention his plea on Friday before the bench concerned.

Senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani on Thursday approached the Supreme Court in his personal capacity against Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala`s decision of inviting BJP leader BS&nbspYeddyurappa to form a new government in the state despite being eight short of a simple majority in the assembly. #WATCH Senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani speaks on Karnataka politics, says, 'What has BJP said to Guv, that he did such a stupid action? Order of Guv is open invitation to do corruption.' Jethmalani has approached SC against Karnataka Guv's invitation to Yeddyurappa for forming govt. pic.twitter.com/uLa0oXcPQZ — ANI (@ANI) May 17, 2018 × A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM&nbspKhanwilkar and Justice DY&nbspChandrachud asked Jethmalani to mention his plea on Friday before the bench concerned. Jethmalani, who had taken retirement from law practice, told the bench that the Karnataka Governor`s order is a "gross abuse of Constitutional power". The apex court early on Thursday after a midnight hearing refused to stall the swearing-in of Yeddyurappa as Karnataka`s new Chief Minister. Yeddyurappa took the oath as the Chief Minister of Karnataka on Thursday at 9 a.m. at the Raj Bhavan amid tight security. The court, however, sought the communications which Yeddyurappa had written to Karnataka Governor informing him his election as BJP legislature party. The apex court said that the swearing-in is subject to the final outcome of the matter before it. The bench headed by Justice A.K. Sikri, while seeking Yeddyurappa`s response on the petition by Congress and Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) seeking to stall his swearing-in, has directed further hearing of the matter at 10.30 a.m. on Friday.

Ram Jethmalani moves SC against Karnataka Governor''s decision

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on finalisation of the Cauvery management scheme which will deal with the smooth distribution of water among four southern riparian states.

According to news agency PTI, a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it will consider the suggestions given by all stakeholders while finalising the Cauvery scheme.

"We will pronounce the order tomorrow. If that is not possible, then we will pass the order on May 22 or 23," PTI reported quoting the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Karnataka government, submitted suggestions to be dealt while finalising the Cauvery scheme.

Divan said that Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) had provided for minimum water to be allowed to remain in the reservoir on behalf of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to maintain a steady flow of water, adding that, the draft scheme does not deal with this aspect.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the Union has modified the provision of the scheme that had empowered it to pass directions from time to time with regard to water distribution.

The top court on Wednesday asked the central government to modify its draft scheme for setting up of a Cauvery Management Board (CMB) that will be the sole authority for implementing the Cauvery Water Tribunal Award.

It also sought to drop the clause which said that in case of a dispute, the matter would be decided by the Centre and it would be final and binding.

The Centre was also asked to drop the clause that said that the Centre would give directions from time to time to the implementing authority -- a clause objected to by Tamil Nadu.

The 2007 Cauvery Water Tribunal Award was modified and reaffirmed by the top court by its February 16 verdict.

The court said the Central government would only be issuing administrative directions for implementing the award.

The CMB would be headquartered in Delhi while the office of the regulatory authority would be in Bengaluru.

&nbsp

(With PTI inputs)

&nbsp

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Karnataka government, submitted suggestions to be dealt while finalising the Cauvery scheme.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on finalisation of the Cauvery management scheme which will deal with the smooth distribution of water among four southern riparian states. According to news agency PTI, a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it will consider the suggestions given by all stakeholders while finalising the Cauvery scheme. "We will pronounce the order tomorrow. If that is not possible, then we will pass the order on May 22 or 23," PTI reported quoting the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Karnataka government, submitted suggestions to be dealt while finalising the Cauvery scheme. Divan said that Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) had provided for minimum water to be allowed to remain in the reservoir on behalf of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to maintain a steady flow of water, adding that, the draft scheme does not deal with this aspect. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the Union has modified the provision of the scheme that had empowered it to pass directions from time to time with regard to water distribution. The top court on Wednesday asked the central government to modify its draft scheme for setting up of a Cauvery Management Board (CMB) that will be the sole authority for implementing the Cauvery Water Tribunal Award. It also sought to drop the clause which said that in case of a dispute, the matter would be decided by the Centre and it would be final and binding. The Centre was also asked to drop the clause that said that the Centre would give directions from time to time to the implementing authority -- a clause objected to by Tamil Nadu. The 2007 Cauvery Water Tribunal Award was modified and reaffirmed by the top court by its February 16 verdict. The court said the Central government would only be issuing administrative directions for implementing the award. The CMB would be headquartered in Delhi while the office of the regulatory authority would be in Bengaluru. (With PTI inputs)

Cauvery dispute: Supreme Court reserves order on Centre's draft scheme

The Supreme Court today refused to stay BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa's swearing-in as Karnataka Chief Minister after a rare pre-dawn hearing which saw the Congress-JD (S) combine making a last-ditch attempt to stall the saffron party's surge in the southern state.

The top court, which commenced the hearing at 2.11 am and ended at 5.28 am, however made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it.

A special bench comprising Justices AK Sikri, SA Bobde and Ashok Bhushan directed the Centre to place before it two communications, sent by Yeddyurappa to Governor Vajubhai Vala in which he had staked claim to form the government, saying their perusal was necessary to decide the case.

The top court also issued notices to Karnataka government and Yeddyurappa seeking their replies on the plea filed by Congress-JD (S) combine and posted the matter for hearing tomorrow.

"This Court is not passing any order staying the oath taking ceremony of BS Yeddyurappa. In case, he is given oath in the meantime, that shall be subject to further orders of this court and final outcome of the writ petition," the bench said. 
 
While senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress-JD (S) combine, persisted with his arguments that the swearing-in ceremony should be stayed or deferred, the bench said, "we are not staying the oath taking ceremony".

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing three BJP MLAs Govind M Karjol, CM Udasi and Basavaraj Bommai, opposed the arguments to defer or stay the swearing-in ceremony, which was scheduled yesterday for today morning.

"We do not know what transpired in the meeting between the BJP leader (Yeddyurappa) and the Governor. I do not think BS Yeddyurappa is served or represented here. The whole thing is in a grey area and in a realm of speculation," Venugopal said.

Rohatgi also questioned the manner in which the petition was filed in the midnight and said, "Heavens will not fall if somebody is sworn-in. This is not a matter of life or death or as if someone is going to be hanged".

He said that constitutional obligation of the Governor was to invite a party to form a new government and his action could always be judicially reviewed and the court may order for restoration of status-quo ante also as was done in the case of Arunachal Pradesh.

"Courts should not stop a constitutional functionary (Governor) from discharging his constitutional duty. In this country, action will be amenable but office of the Governor cannot be injuncted," Rohatgi said.

At the outset, Singhvi referred to the number of seats won by the BJP, Congress and JD (S) and said the Congress-JD (S) combine has the majority in the house with 117 MLAs while the BJP had only 104 seats which was below the majority mark of 112 at present.

He also questioned the Governor's decision to give 15 days time to Yeddyurppa to prove majority in the house and claimed that this might lead to "horse trading" and "poaching" of MLAs.

Singhvi said that they were not sure how much time Yeddyurppa himself had sought from the Governor to prove the majority but as per their information, the BJP leader had sought seven days time.

He urged the court to defer the swearing-in, scheduled to be held at 9.30 am today, till 4.30 pm and said the Centre or BJP should be asked to place before the bench the letters sent by Yeddyurppa to the Governor.

However, the Attorney General told the bench, "We really do not know what was the basis of which the Governor invited him (Yeddyurppa)".

He said that swearing-in should not be deferred or stayed as it was for a constitutional office and no purpose would be served by stopping it since it was "purely a reversable situation".

"Let this matter be heard. Let floor test take place. No irreversible damage will be done," Venugopal said.

"Here, there are three major parties. BJP is the single largest party, Congress is second and JD (S) is third. Now, the Congress-JD (S) combine outweigh the BJP. Then, in this situation, on what basis he (Yeddyurppa) has staked claim to form the government? We do not have those letters. It's only on surmises. The arithmetic is such that defies on what basis it was done," the bench observed.

To this, Venugopal raised a doubt on the authenticity of the signatures of MLAs submitted by Congress-JD (S) combine leader HD Kumaraswamy and said, "They may have given signed letter which may not be genuine".

Singhvi, while contending that "humongous things are happening in terms of money", expressed gratitude that three judges of the apex court were hearing the matter at 2 am.

"If a Governor passes an order (inviting Yeddyurppa to form government) at 9.30 pm and the oath taking ceremony is at 9.30 am, I have no option but to make your night black. I am extremely grateful that three judges of the Supreme Court are sitting in the court at 2 am to hear the matter. It is a victory of democracy irrespective of what is the outcome. The democracy has won," he told the bench.

Meanwhile, senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani mentioned before the Chief Justice of India bench of Dipak Misra, justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud his application for urgent hearing against the Karnataka Governor for inviting BS Yeddyurappa for making government. The bench directed him to mention it tomorrow before an appropriate bench.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en">
Sr lawyer Ram Jethmalani mentioned before CJI Bench of Dipak Misra, justices AM Khanwilkar&DY Chandrachud his application for urgent hearing against Karnataka Guv for inviting BS Yedurappa for making govt. The Bench directed him to mention it tomorrow before an appropriate bench. <a href="https://t.co/DGANrJ3jvu">pic.twitter.com/DGANrJ3jvu</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/996995761266200576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three.

The court heard the plea in a marathon session from 2.11 am to 5.28 am Thursday morning. It did not stay the swearing in but made very clear that it was subject to the final outcome of the hearing

The Supreme Court today refused to stay BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa's swearing-in as Karnataka Chief Minister after a rare pre-dawn hearing which saw the Congress-JD (S) combine making a last-ditch attempt to stall the saffron party's surge in the southern state. The top court, which commenced the hearing at 2.11 am and ended at 5.28 am, however made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation in the state would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it. A special bench comprising Justices AK Sikri, SA Bobde and Ashok Bhushan directed the Centre to place before it two communications, sent by Yeddyurappa to Governor Vajubhai Vala in which he had staked claim to form the government, saying their perusal was necessary to decide the case. The top court also issued notices to Karnataka government and Yeddyurappa seeking their replies on the plea filed by Congress-JD (S) combine and posted the matter for hearing tomorrow. "This Court is not passing any order staying the oath taking ceremony of BS Yeddyurappa. In case, he is given oath in the meantime, that shall be subject to further orders of this court and final outcome of the writ petition," the bench said. While senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress-JD (S) combine, persisted with his arguments that the swearing-in ceremony should be stayed or deferred, the bench said, "we are not staying the oath taking ceremony". Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing three BJP MLAs Govind M Karjol, CM Udasi and Basavaraj Bommai, opposed the arguments to defer or stay the swearing-in ceremony, which was scheduled yesterday for today morning. "We do not know what transpired in the meeting between the BJP leader (Yeddyurappa) and the Governor. I do not think BS Yeddyurappa is served or represented here. The whole thing is in a grey area and in a realm of speculation," Venugopal said. Rohatgi also questioned the manner in which the petition was filed in the midnight and said, "Heavens will not fall if somebody is sworn-in. This is not a matter of life or death or as if someone is going to be hanged". He said that constitutional obligation of the Governor was to invite a party to form a new government and his action could always be judicially reviewed and the court may order for restoration of status-quo ante also as was done in the case of Arunachal Pradesh. "Courts should not stop a constitutional functionary (Governor) from discharging his constitutional duty. In this country, action will be amenable but office of the Governor cannot be injuncted," Rohatgi said. At the outset, Singhvi referred to the number of seats won by the BJP, Congress and JD (S) and said the Congress-JD (S) combine has the majority in the house with 117 MLAs while the BJP had only 104 seats which was below the majority mark of 112 at present. He also questioned the Governor's decision to give 15 days time to Yeddyurppa to prove majority in the house and claimed that this might lead to "horse trading" and "poaching" of MLAs. Singhvi said that they were not sure how much time Yeddyurppa himself had sought from the Governor to prove the majority but as per their information, the BJP leader had sought seven days time. He urged the court to defer the swearing-in, scheduled to be held at 9.30 am today, till 4.30 pm and said the Centre or BJP should be asked to place before the bench the letters sent by Yeddyurppa to the Governor. However, the Attorney General told the bench, "We really do not know what was the basis of which the Governor invited him (Yeddyurppa)". He said that swearing-in should not be deferred or stayed as it was for a constitutional office and no purpose would be served by stopping it since it was "purely a reversable situation". "Let this matter be heard. Let floor test take place. No irreversible damage will be done," Venugopal said. "Here, there are three major parties. BJP is the single largest party, Congress is second and JD (S) is third. Now, the Congress-JD (S) combine outweigh the BJP. Then, in this situation, on what basis he (Yeddyurppa) has staked claim to form the government? We do not have those letters. It's only on surmises. The arithmetic is such that defies on what basis it was done," the bench observed. To this, Venugopal raised a doubt on the authenticity of the signatures of MLAs submitted by Congress-JD (S) combine leader HD Kumaraswamy and said, "They may have given signed letter which may not be genuine". Singhvi, while contending that "humongous things are happening in terms of money", expressed gratitude that three judges of the apex court were hearing the matter at 2 am. "If a Governor passes an order (inviting Yeddyurppa to form government) at 9.30 pm and the oath taking ceremony is at 9.30 am, I have no option but to make your night black. I am extremely grateful that three judges of the Supreme Court are sitting in the court at 2 am to hear the matter. It is a victory of democracy irrespective of what is the outcome. The democracy has won," he told the bench. Meanwhile, senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani mentioned before the Chief Justice of India bench of Dipak Misra, justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud his application for urgent hearing against the Karnataka Governor for inviting BS Yeddyurappa for making government. The bench directed him to mention it tomorrow before an appropriate bench. Sr lawyer Ram Jethmalani mentioned before CJI Bench of Dipak Misra, justices AM Khanwilkar&DY Chandrachud his application for urgent hearing against Karnataka Guv for inviting BS Yedurappa for making govt. The Bench directed him to mention it tomorrow before an appropriate bench. pic.twitter.com/DGANrJ3jvu — ANI (@ANI) May 17, 2018 × In the May 12 polls, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 104 members, while Congress secured 78, the JD(S) 37 and others three.

Congress plea against Yeddyurappa swearing in: Next hearing in SC tomorrow

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

Institutions like SC, EC being 'systematically captured' by RSS: Rahul Gandhi

Trump addresses campaign rally in Las Vegas

Pakistan SC withdraws directive allowing Musharraf to file nomination papers after he fails to appear

India dismayed over long prison terms to former Maldivian president, chief justice

Extended deadline in NAB cases hearing to hit party: Nawaz Sharif

Pakistani Supreme court rejects 7-year-old Zainab killer's appeal

Devotees exploitation at Puri Jagannath temple under SC scanner

Kathua rape-murder case: Pathankot court frames charges against seven accused

US Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

Supreme Court throws out immigrant teen abortion ruling

Pakistan Election Commission starts accepting nomination papers

Centre forms Cauvery Water Management Authority

Akhilesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav comply with Supreme Court order, vacate government bungalows

Supreme Court refuses interim bail to principal of BRD Medical College Gorakhpur

Kamala Mills fire case: Supreme Court dismisses Yug Tuli's special petition for bail

US Supreme Court to hear appeal by Indian villagers against Gujarat power plant

Mayawati converts govt bungalow into Kanshi Ram memorial as Supreme Court orders to vacate it

Wrongful imprisonment sheds light on slow justice in Pakistan

Supreme Court allows live telecast of Karnataka floor test, Bopaiah to remain pro-tem speaker

Supreme Court to hear Congress plea on pro-tem Speaker on Saturday morning

Supreme Court to hear plea challenging invitation to Yeddyurappa to be chief minister

News brief: Big stories of the day

Supreme Court calls for floor test in Karnataka assembly tomorrow

Supreme Court allows Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad

Will Justice Chelameswar share dias with CJI on his last day in SC?

News brief: Big stories of the day