Bangladesh's highest court on Wednesday ordered opposition leader Khaleda Zia released on bail after her lawyers argued she was unwell.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld another court's decision to grant her bail on a graft case in which she was sentenced to five years in jail in February, her lawyer Joynal Abedin said.

The Supreme Court has appointed a four-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain to hear the pleas. Earlier, it was scheduled to deliver a judgment on Tuesday, however, later the apex court postponed the date of hearing after Attorney General Mahbubey Alam and Khaleda`s lawyer Zainul Abedin placed new arguments in their favour.

On Monday, the attorney general stuck to the previous argument that Khaleda`s lawyer has failed to submit appropriate medical certificates for granting of bail.

He further argued the funds belonging to orphans had been embezzled from the Prime Minister`s fund in the Orphanage Trust case, a fact which was not&nbsp;considered while granting bail to Khaleda.

Mahbubey Alam added that the High Court could hear and dispose of the appeal filed by Khaleda challenging the trial court verdict that sentenced her to five years` imprisonment in this case.

Earlier on March 12, the high court had granted a bail to Khaleda. Later, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the government moved the appeals before the apex court challenging the high court`s bail order.

On February 8, Special Judge`s Court-5 of Dhaka sentenced Khaleda to jail after it had found her and five others guilty in the graft case. Khaleda along with her elder son Tarique Rahman and four others were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with imposing a fine of over 2.1 crore taka (approx Rs 1.6 crore).

The case was filed by the ACC in July 2008, alleging misappropriation of funds amounting to 2.1 crore taka that were said to have come from a foreign bank in the form of grants for orphans.&nbsp;

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld another court's decision to grant her bail on a graft case in which she was sentenced to five years in jail in February, her lawyer Joynal Abedin said

Bangladesh's highest court on Wednesday ordered opposition leader Khaleda Zia released on bail after her lawyers argued she was unwell. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld another court's decision to grant her bail on a graft case in which she was sentenced to five years in jail in February, her lawyer Joynal Abedin said. The Supreme Court has appointed a four-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain to hear the pleas. Earlier, it was scheduled to deliver a judgment on Tuesday, however, later the apex court postponed the date of hearing after Attorney General Mahbubey Alam and Khaleda`s lawyer Zainul Abedin placed new arguments in their favour. On Monday, the attorney general stuck to the previous argument that Khaleda`s lawyer has failed to submit appropriate medical certificates for granting of bail. He further argued the funds belonging to orphans had been embezzled from the Prime Minister`s fund in the Orphanage Trust case, a fact which was not considered while granting bail to Khaleda. Mahbubey Alam added that the High Court could hear and dispose of the appeal filed by Khaleda challenging the trial court verdict that sentenced her to five years` imprisonment in this case. Earlier on March 12, the high court had granted a bail to Khaleda. Later, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the government moved the appeals before the apex court challenging the high court`s bail order. On February 8, Special Judge`s Court-5 of Dhaka sentenced Khaleda to jail after it had found her and five others guilty in the graft case. Khaleda along with her elder son Tarique Rahman and four others were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with imposing a fine of over 2.1 crore taka (approx Rs 1.6 crore). The case was filed by the ACC in July 2008, alleging misappropriation of funds amounting to 2.1 crore taka that were said to have come from a foreign bank in the form of grants for orphans.

Bangladesh SC grants bail to opposition leader Khaleda Zia: Lawyer

The Supreme Court will hear the plea of three witnesses in the Kathua gangrape and murder case, alleging that they are being harassed by the state police, on May 16.&nbsp

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today agreed to hear on Wednesday the plea of Sahil Sharma and two others, who are college friends of the juvenile accused in the case.

According to their plea, they had already recorded their statements before the police and the magistrate.&nbsp

The three witnesses had in their statement before the magistrate said they gave their statement to the police under coercion.

The petition today alleged that the state police was now asking them to re-appear and re-record their statements and exerting pressure in their families.

The apex court had on May 7 transferred the trial in the sensational Kathua gangrape and murder case of an eight-year-old girl from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab, but refrained from handing over the probe to CBI saying there was no need as the investigation has been conducted and the chargesheet filed.

The victim, from a minority nomadic community, had disappeared from near her home in a village close to Kathua in the Jammu region on January 10. Her body was found in the same area a week later.

The state police has filed the main chargesheet against seven persons and a separate chargesheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district.&nbsp

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today agreed to hear on Wednesday the plea of Sahil Sharma and two others, who are college friends of the juvenile accused in the case

The Supreme Court will hear the plea of three witnesses in the Kathua gangrape and murder case, alleging that they are being harassed by the state police, on May 16. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today agreed to hear on Wednesday the plea of Sahil Sharma and two others, who are college friends of the juvenile accused in the case. According to their plea, they had already recorded their statements before the police and the magistrate. The three witnesses had in their statement before the magistrate said they gave their statement to the police under coercion. The petition today alleged that the state police was now asking them to re-appear and re-record their statements and exerting pressure in their families. The apex court had on May 7 transferred the trial in the sensational Kathua gangrape and murder case of an eight-year-old girl from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab, but refrained from handing over the probe to CBI saying there was no need as the investigation has been conducted and the chargesheet filed. The victim, from a minority nomadic community, had disappeared from near her home in a village close to Kathua in the Jammu region on January 10. Her body was found in the same area a week later. The state police has filed the main chargesheet against seven persons and a separate chargesheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district.

Supreme Court to hear Kathua witnesses plea alleging police harassment on May 16

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is all set to organise an Indian Premier League-(IPL) style women's T20 exhibition match prior to the opening play-off game at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai.

The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) member Diana Edulji confirmed the news.&nbsp

Edulji added that the board wants to give an opportunity to women cricketers to experience IPL-style T20 match.

"It is a really good initiative. We wanted to give our women players opportunity to experience this. It`s just that we want to encourage performance of the Indian team and recognise their performance and help them exhibit their game. In case women`s IPL happens in future, then this experience will work for them," she said.

As per reports, a total of 30 players will be part of the two teams, with 20 of them being Indian while 10 will be overseas players.

There will be four foreign players in each team and it is expected to be a dry run for a potential women's IPL in the future.

The opening play-off of the ongoing 11th edition of the tournament is slated to be held on May 22.

The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) member Diana Edulji confirmed the news.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is all set to organise an Indian Premier League-(IPL) style women's T20 exhibition match prior to the opening play-off game at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA) member Diana Edulji confirmed the news. Edulji added that the board wants to give an opportunity to women cricketers to experience IPL-style T20 match. "It is a really good initiative. We wanted to give our women players opportunity to experience this. It`s just that we want to encourage performance of the Indian team and recognise their performance and help them exhibit their game. In case women`s IPL happens in future, then this experience will work for them," she said. As per reports, a total of 30 players will be part of the two teams, with 20 of them being Indian while 10 will be overseas players. There will be four foreign players in each team and it is expected to be a dry run for a potential women's IPL in the future. The opening play-off of the ongoing 11th edition of the tournament is slated to be held on May 22.

BCCI confirms IPL-style women's T20 match ahead of play-offs

The five-judge Collegium of the Supreme Court (SC) is expected to meet on Friday to take a decision on the Centre`s objections on the elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph as a judge of the apex court.

The collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, had earlier met on May 2 to reconsider the issue but had deferred the decision on the same.

Justice Joseph`s name was recommended by the Collegium in January along with senior advocate of the top court and now SC Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra.

The Centre cleared Justice Malhotra`s file but sent Justice Joseph`s file back to the Collegium and asked it to reconsider its recommendation.

Justice Joseph`s name was recommended by the Collegium in January along with senior advocate of the top court and now SC Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra.

The five-judge Collegium of the Supreme Court (SC) is expected to meet on Friday to take a decision on the Centre`s objections on the elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph as a judge of the apex court. The collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, had earlier met on May 2 to reconsider the issue but had deferred the decision on the same. Justice Joseph`s name was recommended by the Collegium in January along with senior advocate of the top court and now SC Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra. The Centre cleared Justice Malhotra`s file but sent Justice Joseph`s file back to the Collegium and asked it to reconsider its recommendation.

Justice Joseph elevation: Supreme Court collegium likely to meet today

The Supreme Court collegium has unanimously agreed to send its nomination of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court back to the Centre.&nbsp

The collegium had met today to discuss the issue after the Centre sent Justice Joseph's name back to the collegium on April 26 for reconsideration.&nbsp

The Centre's contention was that Kerala, where Justice Joseph hails from, is already adequately represented in the higher judiciary. And that Justice Joseph is not senior enough to be elevated to the Supreme Court.&nbsp

Justice Joseph is currently 41st in terms of seniority among high court judges.&nbsp

PTI reported earlier that the collegium deliberated on the issue for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-meet-to-decide-on-justice-josephs-elevation-to-sc-concludes-decision-awaited-136113">close to an hour</a>.&nbsp

All the members of the collegium — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — were present at Friday's meeting.&nbsp

The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI Misra.&nbsp

Justice Chelameswar, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, had written to CJI Misra yesterday urging him to convene the meeting and to also send the collegium's nomination of Justice KM Joseph's back to the Centre.&nbsp

PTI reported that in his letter, Justice Chelameswar told the CJI that he was reiterating his decision favouring the elevation of Justice Joseph as a judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10.

PTI added that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, had in his letter responded to all the points raised by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad when he sent back Justice Joseph's name to the collegium for reconsideration.&nbsp

(With inputs from PTI)

The Centre had sent Justice Joseph's name back to the collegium on April 26 for reconsideration. The collegium, which met today, reportedly deliberated on the issue for close to an hour

The Supreme Court collegium has unanimously agreed to send its nomination of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court back to the Centre. The collegium had met today to discuss the issue after the Centre sent Justice Joseph's name back to the collegium on April 26 for reconsideration. The Centre's contention was that Kerala, where Justice Joseph hails from, is already adequately represented in the higher judiciary. And that Justice Joseph is not senior enough to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Justice Joseph is currently 41st in terms of seniority among high court judges. PTI reported earlier that the collegium deliberated on the issue for close to an hour. All the members of the collegium — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — were present at Friday's meeting. The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI Misra. Justice Chelameswar, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, had written to CJI Misra yesterday urging him to convene the meeting and to also send the collegium's nomination of Justice KM Joseph's back to the Centre. PTI reported that in his letter, Justice Chelameswar told the CJI that he was reiterating his decision favouring the elevation of Justice Joseph as a judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. PTI added that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, had in his letter responded to all the points raised by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad when he sent back Justice Joseph's name to the collegium for reconsideration. (With inputs from PTI)

Collegium agrees unanimously to send Justice KM Joseph's name for elevation to SC back to Centre

A crucial meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium was held today to discuss the issue of reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation to the apex court, after it was returned by the Centre. 
Official sources said the members of the Collegium deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour. Details on the outcome of the meeting are awaited.

All members of the Collegium -- Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, participated in the deliberations.&nbsp;

The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI.

It is pertinent to mention that Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the apex court, had on May 9 written a letter to the CJI urging him to convene the Collegium meet to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/convene-meeting-of-collegium-resend-justice-km-josephs-name-to-centre-justice-chelameswar-to-cji-misra-135904">urgently forward Justice Joseph's name</a> to the Centre.

The government had on April 26 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958">returned the Collegium's recommendation</a> 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.

According to an apex court official, Justice Chelameswar, in his letter sent to the CJI, had conveyed that he was reiterating his decision favaouring elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the Collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10.

It is also learnt that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph.

The meeting of the Collegium was expected to take place on May 9 but Justice Chelameswar was on leave.&nbsp;

Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the Collegium on the issue concerning the Uttarakhand Chief Justice.&nbsp;

Justice Jasti Chelameswar had wrtten to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Thursday urging him to convene a meeting of the collegium, and send Justice Joseph's name back to the Centre

A crucial meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium was held today to discuss the issue of reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation to the apex court, after it was returned by the Centre. Official sources said the members of the Collegium deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour. Details on the outcome of the meeting are awaited. All members of the Collegium -- Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, participated in the deliberations. The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI. It is pertinent to mention that Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the apex court, had on May 9 written a letter to the CJI urging him to convene the Collegium meet to urgently forward Justice Joseph's name to the Centre. 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. According to an apex court official, Justice Chelameswar, in his letter sent to the CJI, had conveyed that he was reiterating his decision favaouring elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the Collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. It is also learnt that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph. The meeting of the Collegium was expected to take place on May 9 but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the Collegium on the issue concerning the Uttarakhand Chief Justice.

Meeting of collegium to decide on Justice Joseph's elevation to SC ends, decision awaited

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed all the parties concerned to file their written submissions to put forth their case.

The judgement was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days spanning four months.

A battery of lawyers including Attorney General K K Venugopal, who represented the Centre and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Shyam Divan, Arvind Datar, Rakesh Dwivedi had appeared for various parties.

The constitution bench also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

During the arguments spread over four months, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy and other petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar.

The court had also not agreed with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India.&nbsp;

The judgement was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days over four months

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed all the parties concerned to file their written submissions to put forth their case. The judgement was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days spanning four months. A battery of lawyers including Attorney General K K Venugopal, who represented the Centre and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Shyam Divan, Arvind Datar, Rakesh Dwivedi had appeared for various parties. The constitution bench also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. During the arguments spread over four months, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it. However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users. Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy and other petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar. The court had also not agreed with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Supreme Court reserves judgement on pleas challenging constitutional validity of Aadhaar

Supreme Court judge, Justice DY Chandrachud, the son of late Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, on Wednesday recalled a personal experience during the hearing on the Aadhaar issue that his mother, who was suffering for Alzheimer's disease, had faced difficulty in authentication to get pension.

Justice Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law of 2016.

During the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, said Aadhaar authentication failures could create problems for those in need and some solution has to be found to address the issue.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems,' Justice Chandrachud said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get benefits due to authentication failures</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems,' Justice Chandrachud said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get benefits due to authentication failures" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Recalling his experience, Justice Chandrachud said "my mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was entitled to family pension being the wife of a former Chief Justice of India (late Justice Y V Chandrachud).

"She had to give a thumb impression for authentication. I recall, every month the bank manager or his representative would come home and affix her thumb print on certain documents and only then could she get the pension", Justice Chandrachud said.

"So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems," he said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get the benefits due to authentication failures.

The top court judge was responding to the arguments of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for former High Court judge Justice (Retd) K S Puttaswamy, who said a 90-year-old woman suffering from various ailments is being threatened that her bank account could be closed for non-authentication by Aadhaar.

Divan said that through that bank account, she was getting her pension and she uses that money for her treatment as she has no one else to look after her.

"There are numerous cases where the Aadhaar authentication failures of the elderly, people suffering from any disease or physical disability, leads to denial of benefits to those otherwise entitled to it," Diwan said.

He said in many villages, young people have now migrated to cities or nearby towns and only the elderly residing there were dependent on their pension or other grants. But due to Aadhaar authentication failure, they were not getting the benefits.

Divan sought to assail a World Bank report which had praised the Aadhaar project and which was relied upon by the government to bolster its case for the 12-digit unique identification number. He said the World Bank had partnered with a private entity for preparing the report titled 'Identification for Development'.

Divan claimed that the same private entity was also the company with which UIDAI had partnered to facilitate Aadhaar.

He said there were 144 notifications issued by various ministries and departments of the government which covered 252 schemes.

The senior lawyer concluded his rejoinder arguments saying that essential government schemes that apply to children or relate to citizen's rehabilitation, food, health and nutrition, should be excluded from the requirement of Aadhaar authentication.

The hearing remained inconclusive on Wednesday and will continue on Thursday.

On May 3, the centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

The petitioners had referred to the technical experts' views on the technical aspect of the Aadhaar architecture and said that a real time surveillance of citizens was possible.

For the first time in a democracy, something like CIDR has been implemented and the apex court has to balance the human rights and new technologies that is capable of being misused, they had said.

Earlier, the court also did not agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Justice DY Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar programme's constitutional validity

Supreme Court judge, Justice DY Chandrachud, the son of late Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, on Wednesday recalled a personal experience during the hearing on the Aadhaar issue that his mother, who was suffering for Alzheimer's disease, had faced difficulty in authentication to get pension. Justice Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law of 2016. During the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, said Aadhaar authentication failures could create problems for those in need and some solution has to be found to address the issue. So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems,' Justice Chandrachud said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get benefits due to authentication failures × Recalling his experience, Justice Chandrachud said "my mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was entitled to family pension being the wife of a former Chief Justice of India (late Justice Y V Chandrachud). "She had to give a thumb impression for authentication. I recall, every month the bank manager or his representative would come home and affix her thumb print on certain documents and only then could she get the pension", Justice Chandrachud said. "So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems," he said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get the benefits due to authentication failures. The top court judge was responding to the arguments of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for former High Court judge Justice (Retd) K S Puttaswamy, who said a 90-year-old woman suffering from various ailments is being threatened that her bank account could be closed for non-authentication by Aadhaar. Divan said that through that bank account, she was getting her pension and she uses that money for her treatment as she has no one else to look after her. "There are numerous cases where the Aadhaar authentication failures of the elderly, people suffering from any disease or physical disability, leads to denial of benefits to those otherwise entitled to it," Diwan said. He said in many villages, young people have now migrated to cities or nearby towns and only the elderly residing there were dependent on their pension or other grants. But due to Aadhaar authentication failure, they were not getting the benefits. Divan sought to assail a World Bank report which had praised the Aadhaar project and which was relied upon by the government to bolster its case for the 12-digit unique identification number. He said the World Bank had partnered with a private entity for preparing the report titled 'Identification for Development'. Divan claimed that the same private entity was also the company with which UIDAI had partnered to facilitate Aadhaar. He said there were 144 notifications issued by various ministries and departments of the government which covered 252 schemes. The senior lawyer concluded his rejoinder arguments saying that essential government schemes that apply to children or relate to citizen's rehabilitation, food, health and nutrition, should be excluded from the requirement of Aadhaar authentication. The hearing remained inconclusive on Wednesday and will continue on Thursday. On May 3, the centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it. However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users. The petitioners had referred to the technical experts' views on the technical aspect of the Aadhaar architecture and said that a real time surveillance of citizens was possible. For the first time in a democracy, something like CIDR has been implemented and the apex court has to balance the human rights and new technologies that is capable of being misused, they had said. Earlier, the court also did not agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Citing mother's example, Supreme Court judge says Aadhaar 'serious issue'

Supreme Court on Thursday expressed reservation over the delay in the inauguration of Eastern Corridor.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The apex court said that they were told that Eastern Corridor has been completed and will be inaugurated by the end of April by the prime minister. However, the court said, news reports say PM won't be available tomorrow or the day&nbsp;after to inaugurate.

Accusing the government of merely passing the buck to the PMO, the&nbsp;court asked the authorities why wait for the PM when the government can ask the ASG appearing in this case to inaugurate?

Meghalaya&nbsp;high court has been working for 5 years&nbsp;without formal inauguration, why not same for the eastern corridor?&nbsp;the court&nbsp;asked.&nbsp;

On April 18, SC was informed that Eastern Corridor is ready and will be inaugurated by end of April. The court asked the authorities to&nbsp;inaugurate it by May 31.&nbsp;

If not inaugurated by May 31, Eastern Corridor to be thrown open to the public, the court said then and had added that&nbsp;delays will not be in the interest of the people of Delhi.

Meghalaya high court has been working for 5 years without formal inauguration, why not same for the eastern corridor? the court asked.

Supreme Court on Thursday expressed reservation over the delay in the inauguration of Eastern Corridor. The apex court said that they were told that Eastern Corridor has been completed and will be inaugurated by the end of April by the prime minister. However, the court said, news reports say PM won't be available tomorrow or the day after to inaugurate. Accusing the government of merely passing the buck to the PMO, the court asked the authorities why wait for the PM when the government can ask the ASG appearing in this case to inaugurate? Meghalaya high court has been working for 5 years without formal inauguration, why not same for the eastern corridor? the court asked. On April 18, SC was informed that Eastern Corridor is ready and will be inaugurated by end of April. The court asked the authorities to inaugurate it by May 31. If not inaugurated by May 31, Eastern Corridor to be thrown open to the public, the court said then and had added that delays will not be in the interest of the people of Delhi.

Why wait for PM Modi to inaugurate the Eastern Corridor, asks Supreme Court

In a "startling" revelation, the Supreme Court was today told that hardly 5-10 percent sexual assault victims across the country were getting compensation under the relevant schemes in various states. 
 
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) told a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta that as per the available data of Andhra Pradesh, out of 901 cases lodged last year, only one victim has received compensation. 
 
"The data of state legal services authority of the states on the utilisation of fund have been compiled. Hardly 5-10 percent victims (of sexual assault) are able to get compensation. It is startling. In Andhra Pradesh, 901 cases were registered (in 2017), but only one victim got compensation. At the outer limit, maximum 10 percent victims were getting compensation," S S Rathi, Director of NALSA, told the bench. 
 
As per the NALSA data, in 2016, 840 such cases were lodged in Andhra Pradesh but only eight victims got compensation. 
 
Out of 1,028 cases registered in 2017 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in the state, only 11 victims got compensated. 
 
Similarly, in Rajasthan, 3,305 such FIRs were registered in 2017 and 140 victims had received compensation under these schemes, while in Bihar, 1,199 FIRs of sexual assaults were lodged in the 2017 but only 82 victims were compensated, the data showed. 
 
The complete data would soon be filed in the apex court, he said. 
 
During the hearing, senior advocate Indira Jaising, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, referred to the victim compensation scheme proposed by the NALSA for the victims of sexual assaults and said they wanted to have two "vital additions" in the scheme, the funds for which was earlier shared with the Centre. 
 
Jaising said the police must mandatorily inform the legal services authority of the state government about the lodging of FIRs in sexual assault cases so that the process of giving compensation to the victim can be expedited. 
 
She said that 'suo motu'&nbsp;(on its own) power should also be given to the legal services authority to grant compensation to the victims, as was already being done in Delhi. 
 
The bench, on hearing the brief submissions, said it would pass directions on&nbsp;May 10&nbsp;with regard to the compensation scheme for victims and survivors of sexual assaults. 
 
The apex court said it would consider in July the issues related to section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences and utilisation of Nirbhaya Fund by the states. 
 
Nirbhaya Fund was announced by the Centre in 2013 after the December 16, 2012 gangrape and murder case in Delhi to support the initiatives on women's safety across the country. 
 
The top court had earlier observed that nothing would materialise if money from the Nirbhaya fund was not properly spent on women's welfare. 
 
It had said there was no lack of funds under the scheme but the issue was of proper utilisation. 
 
Earlier, the Centre had told the apex court that it was finding it difficult to get the cooperation of states on the issue relating to disbursal of compensation to the victims of sexual assault under the Nirbhaya scheme. 
 
Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court after the December 16, 2012 incident in Delhi raising concerns over safety and security of women. 
 
All the petitions were tagged by the apex court and several directions have been issued from time to time in this regard.

As per the NALSA data, in 2016, 840 such cases were lodged in Andhra Pradesh but only eight victims got compensation

In a "startling" revelation, the Supreme Court was today told that hardly 5-10 percent sexual assault victims across the country were getting compensation under the relevant schemes in various states. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) told a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta that as per the available data of Andhra Pradesh, out of 901 cases lodged last year, only one victim has received compensation. "The data of state legal services authority of the states on the utilisation of fund have been compiled. Hardly 5-10 percent victims (of sexual assault) are able to get compensation. It is startling. In Andhra Pradesh, 901 cases were registered (in 2017), but only one victim got compensation. At the outer limit, maximum 10 percent victims were getting compensation," S S Rathi, Director of NALSA, told the bench. As per the NALSA data, in 2016, 840 such cases were lodged in Andhra Pradesh but only eight victims got compensation. Out of 1,028 cases registered in 2017 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in the state, only 11 victims got compensated. Similarly, in Rajasthan, 3,305 such FIRs were registered in 2017 and 140 victims had received compensation under these schemes, while in Bihar, 1,199 FIRs of sexual assaults were lodged in the 2017 but only 82 victims were compensated, the data showed. The complete data would soon be filed in the apex court, he said. During the hearing, senior advocate Indira Jaising, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, referred to the victim compensation scheme proposed by the NALSA for the victims of sexual assaults and said they wanted to have two "vital additions" in the scheme, the funds for which was earlier shared with the Centre. Jaising said the police must mandatorily inform the legal services authority of the state government about the lodging of FIRs in sexual assault cases so that the process of giving compensation to the victim can be expedited. She said that 'suo motu' (on its own) power should also be given to the legal services authority to grant compensation to the victims, as was already being done in Delhi. The bench, on hearing the brief submissions, said it would pass directions on May 10 with regard to the compensation scheme for victims and survivors of sexual assaults. The apex court said it would consider in July the issues related to section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences and utilisation of Nirbhaya Fund by the states. Nirbhaya Fund was announced by the Centre in 2013 after the December 16, 2012 gangrape and murder case in Delhi to support the initiatives on women's safety across the country. The top court had earlier observed that nothing would materialise if money from the Nirbhaya fund was not properly spent on women's welfare. It had said there was no lack of funds under the scheme but the issue was of proper utilisation. Earlier, the Centre had told the apex court that it was finding it difficult to get the cooperation of states on the issue relating to disbursal of compensation to the victims of sexual assault under the Nirbhaya scheme. Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court after the December 16, 2012 incident in Delhi raising concerns over safety and security of women. All the petitions were tagged by the apex court and several directions have been issued from time to time in this regard.

Only five-ten percent sexual assault victims get compensation

The Supreme Court today told the Centre that it was in "sheer contempt" of its direction on Cauvery water sharing for failing to frame a scheme for distribution of water between the southern riparian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry.

The top court directed the Secretary of the Union Water Resources Ministry to personally appear before it on May 14 with a draft of the Cauvery management scheme to implement its verdict on water sharing between four states including Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

It had in February asked the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance of its judgement on the decades-old Cauvery dispute.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra told the Centre that once the judgment has been delivered on the issue, it has to be implemented.

While posting the matter for May 14, the bench, which was not happy with the development, said the Centre was in "sheer contempt".

"We do not want to come back to square one. Once the judgment has been delivered, it has to be implemented," the bench also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

Attorney General K K Venugopal said the Centre was seeking time in view of the fact that the Union Cabinet has not met due to the ongoing campaigning for the assembly polls in Karnataka.

Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade , appearing for Tamil Nadu, opposed the AG's plea and said "this is the fit case for contempt. Somebody has to be sent to jail".

The apex court had earlier asked the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance of its judgement on the decades-old Cauvery dispute.&nbsp;

It had modified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of 2007 and made it clear that it will not be extending time for this on any ground.

The top court had on February 16 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". PTI

The court directed the Secretary of the Union Water Resources Ministry to personally appear before it on May 14 with a draft of the Cauvery management scheme

The Supreme Court today told the Centre that it was in "sheer contempt" of its direction on Cauvery water sharing for failing to frame a scheme for distribution of water between the southern riparian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry. The top court directed the Secretary of the Union Water Resources Ministry to personally appear before it on May 14 with a draft of the Cauvery management scheme to implement its verdict on water sharing between four states including Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. It had in February asked the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance of its judgement on the decades-old Cauvery dispute. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra told the Centre that once the judgment has been delivered on the issue, it has to be implemented. While posting the matter for May 14, the bench, which was not happy with the development, said the Centre was in "sheer contempt". "We do not want to come back to square one. Once the judgment has been delivered, it has to be implemented," the bench also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said. Attorney General K K Venugopal said the Centre was seeking time in view of the fact that the Union Cabinet has not met due to the ongoing campaigning for the assembly polls in Karnataka. Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade , appearing for Tamil Nadu, opposed the AG's plea and said "this is the fit case for contempt. Somebody has to be sent to jail". The apex court had earlier asked the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance of its judgement on the decades-old Cauvery dispute. It had modified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of 2007 and made it clear that it will not be extending time for this on any ground. The top court had on February 16 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". PTI

SC tells Centre it is in 'sheer contempt' for not framing Cauvery water sharing plan

The Supreme Court has quashed a law passed by the Uttar Pradesh government granting "permanent residential accommodation" for ex-chief ministers in the state.

The top court struck down Section4(3) of UP ministers allowance Act which allowed ex-CMs in the state to occupy government bungalows.

After an NGO filed a petition in the Supreme Court, the bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi passed the judgement.

India's apex court said former CMs in the state are not entitled to government houses.&nbsp;

"Once a person demits public office, there is nothing to distinguish them from common man", the Court stated.&nbsp;

Two years ago the SP-led Akhilesh Yadav government had moved a statute to get over the judgment.

Two years ago the SP-led Akhilesh Yadav government had moved a statute to get over the judgment.

The Supreme Court has quashed a law passed by the Uttar Pradesh government granting "permanent residential accommodation" for ex-chief ministers in the state. The top court struck down Section4(3) of UP ministers allowance Act which allowed ex-CMs in the state to occupy government bungalows. After an NGO filed a petition in the Supreme Court, the bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi passed the judgement. India's apex court said former CMs in the state are not entitled to government houses. "Once a person demits public office, there is nothing to distinguish them from common man", the Court stated. Two years ago the SP-led Akhilesh Yadav government had moved a statute to get over the judgment.

No permanent residential accommodation for ex-UP chief ministers: Supreme Court

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is all set to hear on Tuesday a petition moved by two Congress MPs challenging rejection of the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu.

The bench will be headed by Justice A K Sikri, number six in seniority. The other members are Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and A K Goel, who are next in the sequence of seniority.

The senior-most judges - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- who had held the controversial January 12 press conference in which they had virtually revolted against the CJI by raising a litany of allegations against him, have been kept out of the matter.

The setting up of the constitution bench was mentioned in Tuesday's list of business for the Supreme Court.

The development came hours after Justice Chelameswar, before whom the petition of the two Congress MPs was mentioned, expressed reservation in hearing the matter asking senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to "come back tomorrow".

The issue was raised at the start of the court's work in the morning when Sibal, one of the signatories to the impeachment notice in Rajya Sabha, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most after CJI Misra.

In the petition challenging the rejection of impeachment notice against the CJI by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the two MPs claimed that the reasons given were "wholly extraneous" and not legally tenable.

While Justice Chelameswar had initially asked him to mention the matter before the CJI, the bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, later asked Sibal and Bhushan to "come back tomorrow". Justice Chelameswar also said he was on the verge of retirement.

Making his submissions, Sibal said Chairman Venkaiah Naidu cannot summarily reject the notice bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members who had recently retired, on the ground that there was "no proved misbehaviour".

The bench asked Sibal and Bhushan to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, citing a constitution bench judgment on the powers of master of roster.

However, BJP leaders and advocates Meenakshi Lekhi and Aman Sinha told PTI there was no merit in the challenge to the rejection of the impeachment notice as the Rajya Sabha Chairman's order was well reasoned and completely dealt with each and every ground.

While Lekhi termed the filing of plea in the apex court as a "deceptive methodology" of the Congress party to remain in the news, Sinha said there was no legal ground to challenge the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

In the apex court, Justice Chelameswar, who was initially reluctant to order listing of the petition said "there was a five-judge constitution bench verdict on powers of master of roster. It would be appropriate if you mention the matter in court number-1 before the bench of Chief Justice".

However, after the submissions, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come tomorrow so they could take a call on the issue. "You come back tomorrow. We will see", the bench said.

The two leaders who have filed the petition are Rajya Sabha Congress MPs Partap Singh Bajwa from Punjab and Amee Harshadray Yajnik from Gujarat.

A five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had on November 10 last year categorically stated that the Chief Justice of India was the "master of the roster".

Advancing his arguments, Sibal said "I am aware of the procedure but it can't be mentioned anywhere else. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. I am just asking for urgent listing and not seeking any interim relief."

He said the CJI cannot order for listing and hence the senior-most judge of the court must pass some orders as it was a matter of constitutional importance.

Naidu had on April 23 rejected the impeachment notice given by seven opposition parties led by the Congress on five grounds of "misbehaviour". This was the first time that an impeachment notice was filed against a sitting CJI.

The petition of the two Congress MPs filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes in the top court alleged that the charges contained in the notice of the motion were extremely serious and called for a full fledged inquiry.

It also said the reasons given by Naidu while rejecting the impeachment notice were "not legally tenable" and deserved to be set aside for being "wholly extraneous" and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and the Inquiry Act.

It sought setting aside of the Chairman's order terming the charges contained in the notice of motion are "extremely serious" and merit "a full-fledged inquiry to test their veracity".&nbsp;

The SC bench hearing the petition will be headed by Justice AK Sikri. The plea will be heard Tuesday

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is all set to hear on Tuesday a petition moved by two Congress MPs challenging rejection of the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu. The bench will be headed by Justice A K Sikri, number six in seniority. The other members are Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and A K Goel, who are next in the sequence of seniority. The senior-most judges - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- who had held the controversial January 12 press conference in which they had virtually revolted against the CJI by raising a litany of allegations against him, have been kept out of the matter. The setting up of the constitution bench was mentioned in Tuesday's list of business for the Supreme Court. The development came hours after Justice Chelameswar, before whom the petition of the two Congress MPs was mentioned, expressed reservation in hearing the matter asking senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to "come back tomorrow". The issue was raised at the start of the court's work in the morning when Sibal, one of the signatories to the impeachment notice in Rajya Sabha, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most after CJI Misra. In the petition challenging the rejection of impeachment notice against the CJI by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the two MPs claimed that the reasons given were "wholly extraneous" and not legally tenable. While Justice Chelameswar had initially asked him to mention the matter before the CJI, the bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, later asked Sibal and Bhushan to "come back tomorrow". Justice Chelameswar also said he was on the verge of retirement. Making his submissions, Sibal said Chairman Venkaiah Naidu cannot summarily reject the notice bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members who had recently retired, on the ground that there was "no proved misbehaviour". The bench asked Sibal and Bhushan to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, citing a constitution bench judgment on the powers of master of roster. However, BJP leaders and advocates Meenakshi Lekhi and Aman Sinha told PTI there was no merit in the challenge to the rejection of the impeachment notice as the Rajya Sabha Chairman's order was well reasoned and completely dealt with each and every ground. While Lekhi termed the filing of plea in the apex court as a "deceptive methodology" of the Congress party to remain in the news, Sinha said there was no legal ground to challenge the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman. In the apex court, Justice Chelameswar, who was initially reluctant to order listing of the petition said "there was a five-judge constitution bench verdict on powers of master of roster. It would be appropriate if you mention the matter in court number-1 before the bench of Chief Justice". However, after the submissions, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come tomorrow so they could take a call on the issue. "You come back tomorrow. We will see", the bench said. The two leaders who have filed the petition are Rajya Sabha Congress MPs Partap Singh Bajwa from Punjab and Amee Harshadray Yajnik from Gujarat. A five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had on November 10 last year categorically stated that the Chief Justice of India was the "master of the roster". Advancing his arguments, Sibal said "I am aware of the procedure but it can't be mentioned anywhere else. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. I am just asking for urgent listing and not seeking any interim relief." He said the CJI cannot order for listing and hence the senior-most judge of the court must pass some orders as it was a matter of constitutional importance. Naidu had on April 23 rejected the impeachment notice given by seven opposition parties led by the Congress on five grounds of "misbehaviour". This was the first time that an impeachment notice was filed against a sitting CJI. The petition of the two Congress MPs filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes in the top court alleged that the charges contained in the notice of the motion were extremely serious and called for a full fledged inquiry. It also said the reasons given by Naidu while rejecting the impeachment notice were "not legally tenable" and deserved to be set aside for being "wholly extraneous" and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and the Inquiry Act. It sought setting aside of the Chairman's order terming the charges contained in the notice of motion are "extremely serious" and merit "a full-fledged inquiry to test their veracity".

Supreme Court to hear petition challenging rejection of impeachment notice against CJI Misra

The Supreme Court has transferred the Kathua case to Pathankot, Punjab.&nbsp;

The Kathua gang rape and murder had shocked the nation.&nbsp;

An eight-year-old Bakarwal girl had been abducted, kept in captivity in a temple, sedated, gang-raped, and finally murdered.&nbsp;

The police have arrested eight people including a juvenile.&nbsp;

The police chargesheet said the accused carried out their premeditated crime to scare the girl's minority community — they're nomads — out of Jammu.&nbsp;

The victim's father had asked the Supreme Court for the case to be transferred out of Jammu. He had told the court that he feared for his family's safety.&nbsp;

The Jammu and Kashmir government had earlier on Monday told the court that it did not want the case transferred out of the state, and that a fair trial would be conducted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Security is the main concern, we have adequate security in Pathankot: Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on transfer of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kathua?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kathua</a> case to Pathankot Court <a href="https://t.co/z6bzcd9vVk">pic.twitter.com/z6bzcd9vVk</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/993437352197611520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court meanwhile has ordered daily in-camera (the public will not be allowed into the courtroom) hearings in the case.&nbsp;

The court also refused to hand the probe over to the CBI saying there was no need for it since the investigation had been conducted and the charge sheet filed.

The victim's father's plea had been heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The victim's father had asked the Supreme Court for the case to be transferred out of Jammu. He had told the court that he feared for his family's safety

The Supreme Court has transferred the Kathua case to Pathankot, Punjab. The Kathua gang rape and murder had shocked the nation. An eight-year-old Bakarwal girl had been abducted, kept in captivity in a temple, sedated, gang-raped, and finally murdered. The police have arrested eight people including a juvenile. The police chargesheet said the accused carried out their premeditated crime to scare the girl's minority community — they're nomads — out of Jammu. The victim's father had asked the Supreme Court for the case to be transferred out of Jammu. He had told the court that he feared for his family's safety. The Jammu and Kashmir government had earlier on Monday told the court that it did not want the case transferred out of the state, and that a fair trial would be conducted. Security is the main concern, we have adequate security in Pathankot: Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on transfer of #Kathua case to Pathankot Court pic.twitter.com/z6bzcd9vVk — ANI (@ANI) May 7, 2018 × The Supreme Court meanwhile has ordered daily in-camera (the public will not be allowed into the courtroom) hearings in the case. The court also refused to hand the probe over to the CBI saying there was no need for it since the investigation had been conducted and the charge sheet filed. The victim's father's plea had been heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Supreme Court transfers Kathua case to Pathankot, Punjab

An adult couple has a right to live together without marriage, the Supreme Court said, while asserting that a 20-year-old Kerala woman, whose marriage had been annulled, could choose whom she wanted to live with.&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/R1aTow3UCyY" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The top court held that live-in relationships were now even recognized by the Legislature and they had found a place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.&nbsp;

The observations came while the apex court was hearing a plea filed by one Nandakumar against a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with Thushara on the ground that he had not attained the legal age of marriage.

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act states that a girl can't marry before the age of 18, and a boy before 21.

Nandakumar, who had approached the top court, will turn 21 on May 30 this year.

The high court had also granted the custody of Thushara to her father after noting that she was not Nandakumar's "lawfully wedded" wife.

A bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said their marriage could not said to be "null and void" merely because Nandakumar was less than 21 years of age at the time of marriage.

"Appellant no 1 as well as Thushara are Hindus. Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of section 12, which can be attracted in such a case, at the most, the marriage would be a voidable marriage...

"It is sufficient to note that both appellant no 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock," the bench said.

While setting aside the order of the high court granting custody of woman to her father, the apex court said that "we make it clear that the freedom of choice would be of Thushara as to with whom she wants to live".

It also referred to a recent case involving a woman from Kerala, Hadiya, where it had restored her marriage with Shafin Jahan on the ground that it was a marriage between two consenting adults.

The apex court had also clarified that a court cannot interfere in the marriage of two consenting adult and cannot annul the marriage in a habeas corpus (a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, for securing the person's release) petition.&nbsp;

The top court held that live-in relationships were now even recognized by the Legislature and they had found a place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

An adult couple has a right to live together without marriage, the Supreme Court said, while asserting that a 20-year-old Kerala woman, whose marriage had been annulled, could choose whom she wanted to live with. × The top court held that live-in relationships were now even recognized by the Legislature and they had found a place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The observations came while the apex court was hearing a plea filed by one Nandakumar against a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with Thushara on the ground that he had not attained the legal age of marriage. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act states that a girl can't marry before the age of 18, and a boy before 21. Nandakumar, who had approached the top court, will turn 21 on May 30 this year. The high court had also granted the custody of Thushara to her father after noting that she was not Nandakumar's "lawfully wedded" wife. A bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said their marriage could not said to be "null and void" merely because Nandakumar was less than 21 years of age at the time of marriage. "Appellant no 1 as well as Thushara are Hindus. Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of section 12, which can be attracted in such a case, at the most, the marriage would be a voidable marriage... "It is sufficient to note that both appellant no 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock," the bench said. While setting aside the order of the high court granting custody of woman to her father, the apex court said that "we make it clear that the freedom of choice would be of Thushara as to with whom she wants to live". It also referred to a recent case involving a woman from Kerala, Hadiya, where it had restored her marriage with Shafin Jahan on the ground that it was a marriage between two consenting adults. The apex court had also clarified that a court cannot interfere in the marriage of two consenting adult and cannot annul the marriage in a habeas corpus (a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, for securing the person's release) petition.

Adult couple can live together without marriage: Supreme Court

In the wake of the controversy surrounding the non-elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph, Supreme Court judge K Joseph on Sunday stated that such an incident had never happened before.

"The meeting is going to be convened. It is not right for me to say anything before that happens. Never has it happened before like this that the names sent by the Collegium are asked to be reconsidered," news agency ANI stated quoting Justice Joseph.

The Collegium had, on January 10, recommended the names of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Indu Malhotra for elevation to the Supreme Court.

While the Centre had cleared Justice Indu Malhotra's file, it sent Justice Joseph's file back to the Collegium and asked it to reconsider its recommendation.

The Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, and K Joseph, had earlier met to reconsider the case of Joseph but deferred its decision on it.

The meeting is also scheduled to hold discussions over the removal of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh.&nbsp

The Collegium had, on January 10, recommended the names of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Indu Malhotra for elevation to the Supreme Court.

In the wake of the controversy surrounding the non-elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph, Supreme Court judge K Joseph on Sunday stated that such an incident had never happened before. "The meeting is going to be convened. It is not right for me to say anything before that happens. Never has it happened before like this that the names sent by the Collegium are asked to be reconsidered," news agency ANI stated quoting Justice Joseph. The Collegium had, on January 10, recommended the names of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Indu Malhotra for elevation to the Supreme Court. While the Centre had cleared Justice Indu Malhotra's file, it sent Justice Joseph's file back to the Collegium and asked it to reconsider its recommendation. The Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, and K Joseph, had earlier met to reconsider the case of Joseph but deferred its decision on it. The meeting is also scheduled to hold discussions over the removal of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh.

This has never happened before: SC Judge on non-elevation of KM Joseph

The Supreme Court today asked the Karnataka government to give 4 tmc water to Tamil Nadu, ordering that the state would "face consequences" if it breaches order.

Karnataka must release water to Tamil Nadu for April and May, India's top court said.

India's Attorney General&nbsp;Venugopal told the apex court that PM Modi and his Cabinet were busy with the impending Karnataka elections.&nbsp;

Karnataka must tell us how much water it can release, it said, adding, the court is not concerned about the Karnataka elections. 
&nbsp; 
In February, the Supreme Court had directed Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu after several decades of dispute.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

India's highest court had also allowed Tami Nadu to draw an additional 10 TMC 'groundwater' from a total of 20 TMC beneath the Cauvery basin.&nbsp;

The court had said there should be "no deviance" of the order by any state.

The Supreme Court had said the order will remain in force for the next 15 years.

Karnataka must tell us how much water it can release, India's apex court said.

The Supreme Court today asked the Karnataka government to give 4 tmc water to Tamil Nadu, ordering that the state would "face consequences" if it breaches order. Karnataka must release water to Tamil Nadu for April and May, India's top court said. India's Attorney General Venugopal told the apex court that PM Modi and his Cabinet were busy with the impending Karnataka elections. Karnataka must tell us how much water it can release, it said, adding, the court is not concerned about the Karnataka elections. In February, the Supreme Court had directed Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu after several decades of dispute. India's highest court had also allowed Tami Nadu to draw an additional 10 TMC 'groundwater' from a total of 20 TMC beneath the Cauvery basin. The court had said there should be "no deviance" of the order by any state. The Supreme Court had said the order will remain in force for the next 15 years.

Cauvery row: Karnataka must release water to Tamil Nadu, or face consequences, says SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Centre's demand for a stay on its verdict on the SC/ST Act and said it favoured "100 per cent" the protection of the rights of these communities and punishing those guilty of atrocities against them.

The top court also strongly disagreed with the Centre's contention that its March 20 verdict had led to loss of lives in the violence that had broken out later in several states.

The Centre told the top court that its March 20 verdict, laying guidelines putting certain safeguards on the immediate arrest of a person for offences, countermanded the law enacted by the legislature and should thus be stayed and the case referred to a larger bench.

However, a bench of Justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit refused to stay the verdict and said various aspects and earlier judgements of the top court were considered before arriving at this conclusion.

"It's not that the judgement says there shall be no registration of crime. It's not that accused shall not be arrested. The safeguards were for the purpose that a person should not be readily arrested or an innocent punished because there was no provision of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act," the bench said.

The top court said under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, theoretically a person cannot get anticipatory bail, but soon after his arrest, he can get regular bail even in offences where the punishment is just six months.

"The anticipatory bail provision was not there in-laws like TADA and MCOCA, where the offences were supposed to be of greater magnitude. If there is a grave offence, this judgement will not come in the way of arrest," the bench said.

It clarified that the court has not asked for non-registration of an FIR for the offences under the SC/ST Act, but sought verification before registration of FIR, so that innocents do not get penalised.

However, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for Centre, said after the March 20 verdict, there has been loss of lives in several parts of country and that the order contradicts the existing provisions of SC/ST Act.

"There are separation of powers which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the court can only lay down guidelines for disposal of a case but cannot lay guidelines in general in the nature of law, for the whole country," he said.

The bench disagreed with the submission of the AG and said there were several apex court verdicts by which rules were framed including bringing in the existence of Collegium system for appointment of judges.

Venugopal said that courts can fill up the gap in legislation but cannot lay down the guidelines which are in inconsistent with the law made by the legislation.

The bench said that it has not added a single new word in the law and just incorporated in its order, what was already existing in the law.

The Attorney General said that the March 20 judgement is in direct contradiction of section 18 of SC/ST Act (anticipatory bail), section 4 of SC/ST Act (lodging of FIR) and section 41 of CrPC (power of arrest).

He said that this judgement can be termed as "judicial activism of the court" in view of a seven-judge verdict of 2002 which dealt with "what amounts to legislation by courts".

"This is a matter which required to be settled by a larger bench as one other bench has gone into this issue and decided the law. This March 20 judgement has resulted in loss of lives," Venugopal said and sought stay of the verdict.

The bench rejected the submission and said "No, this judgement cannot be blamed for the loss of lives. We are hundred percent for the protection of rights of SC/ST community. Those who took law into their hands should be punished in accordance with law. Those at fault needs to be punished".

The bench clarified that as far as section 4 of the SC/ST Act is concerned which deals with lodging of FIR, safeguards were put to avoid false implication of an individual.

"If a DSP rank officer is satisfied with the allegation, he can certainly proceed forward and lodge an FIR against the accused under the Act. Our concern was that without verifying of the allegation no case should be lodged against an innocent," it said.

The bench said all these were done to avoid harassment of public servants from frivolous complaints and there are several verdicts of the top court in this regard.

The apex court also dismissed a recall application filed by the original applicant B K Gaikwad, who had lodged the FIR in the case.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 16.

The Centre had moved the apex court on April 2 seeking review of its judgement by which safeguards were put on the provisions for immediate arrest under the SC/ST Act.

The top court had on April 3 refused to keep the March 20 verdict in abeyance till it decided the Centre's review petition.

The apex court had on March 20 said that on "several occasions", innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants deterred from performing their duties, which was never the intention of the legislature while enacting the SC/ST Act.

Several states were rocked by wide spread violence and clashes following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's March 20 order, that claimed eight lives.

The SC clarified that it has not asked for non-registration of an FIR for the offences under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Centre's demand for a stay on its verdict on the SC/ST Act and said it favoured "100 per cent" the protection of the rights of these communities and punishing those guilty of atrocities against them. The top court also strongly disagreed with the Centre's contention that its March 20 verdict had led to loss of lives in the violence that had broken out later in several states. The Centre told the top court that its March 20 verdict, laying guidelines putting certain safeguards on the immediate arrest of a person for offences, countermanded the law enacted by the legislature and should thus be stayed and the case referred to a larger bench. However, a bench of Justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit refused to stay the verdict and said various aspects and earlier judgements of the top court were considered before arriving at this conclusion. "It's not that the judgement says there shall be no registration of crime. It's not that accused shall not be arrested. The safeguards were for the purpose that a person should not be readily arrested or an innocent punished because there was no provision of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act," the bench said. The top court said under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, theoretically a person cannot get anticipatory bail, but soon after his arrest, he can get regular bail even in offences where the punishment is just six months. "The anticipatory bail provision was not there in-laws like TADA and MCOCA, where the offences were supposed to be of greater magnitude. If there is a grave offence, this judgement will not come in the way of arrest," the bench said. It clarified that the court has not asked for non-registration of an FIR for the offences under the SC/ST Act, but sought verification before registration of FIR, so that innocents do not get penalised. However, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for Centre, said after the March 20 verdict, there has been loss of lives in several parts of country and that the order contradicts the existing provisions of SC/ST Act. "There are separation of powers which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the court can only lay down guidelines for disposal of a case but cannot lay guidelines in general in the nature of law, for the whole country," he said. The bench disagreed with the submission of the AG and said there were several apex court verdicts by which rules were framed including bringing in the existence of Collegium system for appointment of judges. Venugopal said that courts can fill up the gap in legislation but cannot lay down the guidelines which are in inconsistent with the law made by the legislation. The bench said that it has not added a single new word in the law and just incorporated in its order, what was already existing in the law. The Attorney General said that the March 20 judgement is in direct contradiction of section 18 of SC/ST Act (anticipatory bail), section 4 of SC/ST Act (lodging of FIR) and section 41 of CrPC (power of arrest). He said that this judgement can be termed as "judicial activism of the court" in view of a seven-judge verdict of 2002 which dealt with "what amounts to legislation by courts". "This is a matter which required to be settled by a larger bench as one other bench has gone into this issue and decided the law. This March 20 judgement has resulted in loss of lives," Venugopal said and sought stay of the verdict. The bench rejected the submission and said "No, this judgement cannot be blamed for the loss of lives. We are hundred percent for the protection of rights of SC/ST community. Those who took law into their hands should be punished in accordance with law. Those at fault needs to be punished". The bench clarified that as far as section 4 of the SC/ST Act is concerned which deals with lodging of FIR, safeguards were put to avoid false implication of an individual. "If a DSP rank officer is satisfied with the allegation, he can certainly proceed forward and lodge an FIR against the accused under the Act. Our concern was that without verifying of the allegation no case should be lodged against an innocent," it said. The bench said all these were done to avoid harassment of public servants from frivolous complaints and there are several verdicts of the top court in this regard. The apex court also dismissed a recall application filed by the original applicant B K Gaikwad, who had lodged the FIR in the case. The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 16. The Centre had moved the apex court on April 2 seeking review of its judgement by which safeguards were put on the provisions for immediate arrest under the SC/ST Act. The top court had on April 3 refused to keep the March 20 verdict in abeyance till it decided the Centre's review petition. The apex court had on March 20 said that on "several occasions", innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants deterred from performing their duties, which was never the intention of the legislature while enacting the SC/ST Act. Several states were rocked by wide spread violence and clashes following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's March 20 order, that claimed eight lives.

Supreme Court rejects Centre's plea to stay verdict on SC/ST law

The Supreme Court today took strong note of the Centre not yet framing the Cauvery management scheme to implement its verdict on river water sharing between four southern states, even as Tamil Nadu attacked the union government for its "partisan" attitude saying this was the "end of cooperative federalism".

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the Centre to file an affidavit by May 8 giving details of steps taken to frame the scheme, which was ordered for the smooth release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.

"Mr Venugopal (Attorney General), the scheme has to be finalised by the Centre and it should have been finalised by now. The states have no role in it," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.&nbsp

Attorney General K K Venugopal said the hearing on setting up of the scheme, under which Cauvery Management Board (CMB) has be constituted, be deferred by ten days till the Karnataka polls are over as the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues are busy in campaigning.

Venugopal also said the draft scheme, which has to be approved by the Union Cabinet, could not be put for approval due to the ongoing campaign.

He also referred to the recent communication of the Karnataka Chief Minister that the Water Resources Ministers of all the four states be made members of the CMB, has created an issue which also needed to be resolved.&nbsp

The submission irked senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Tamil Nadu, who said "this is the end of cooperative federalism and the rule of law in the country. This is the partisan attitude of the union of India to favour Karnataka."

"I am saying this with full sense of responsibility that the Centre is playing politics and is more worried about its poll prospects in Karnataka than following the apex court order," Naphade said, adding that the judgement had said that the scheme had to be framed within four weeks and this was nothing but "dilly-dallying".

Besides the summer temperature, "the temperature over Cauvery water is rising in Tamil Nadu," he said, adding that the government was "clueless" as to what to say to people as no scheme has been framed even after two months of the judgment.

The apex court, meanwhile, warned Karnataka government and asked it to establish its bonafide by releasing water and said it may take suo motu cognisance of contempt and seek the presence of state's Chief Secretary before it.

"Let Chief Secretary appear before it. We take suo motu cognizance of the contempt," the bench said when senior lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka, said there was contempt plea against it. 
The court, in its order, however, did not refer to aspects relating to contempt and presence of Chief Secretary.&nbsp

During the hearing, the court first asked Karnataka to release 4 tmcft water by May 8, then asked it to release 2 tmcft water and at the end, ordered it to apprise the bench "as to how much water can be released".&nbsp

While posting the matter for hearing on May 8, the court assured Tamil Nadu that the Cauvery water would be released as per its verdict.&nbsp

On April 9, the court had asked the Centre to formulate and file the draft Cauvery management scheme before it by today and directed Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to ensure peace in the meantime. The bench had made it clear that the judgment has to comply with all the stakeholders.

The apex court had asked the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance with its 465-page judgement on the decades-old Cauvery dispute. It had modified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of 2007 and made it clear that it will not be extending the time for this on any ground.

The top court had on February 16 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".

With the apex court's verdict, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry would be annually entitled to 404.25 tmcft, 284.75 tmcft, 30 tmcft and 7 tmcft of Cauvery water respectively out of the total of 740 tmcft.&nbsp

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the Centre to file an affidavit by May 8 giving details of steps taken to frame the scheme.

The Supreme Court today took strong note of the Centre not yet framing the Cauvery management scheme to implement its verdict on river water sharing between four southern states, even as Tamil Nadu attacked the union government for its "partisan" attitude saying this was the "end of cooperative federalism". A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the Centre to file an affidavit by May 8 giving details of steps taken to frame the scheme, which was ordered for the smooth release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry. "Mr Venugopal (Attorney General), the scheme has to be finalised by the Centre and it should have been finalised by now. The states have no role in it," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said. Attorney General K K Venugopal said the hearing on setting up of the scheme, under which Cauvery Management Board (CMB) has be constituted, be deferred by ten days till the Karnataka polls are over as the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues are busy in campaigning. Venugopal also said the draft scheme, which has to be approved by the Union Cabinet, could not be put for approval due to the ongoing campaign. He also referred to the recent communication of the Karnataka Chief Minister that the Water Resources Ministers of all the four states be made members of the CMB, has created an issue which also needed to be resolved. The submission irked senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Tamil Nadu, who said "this is the end of cooperative federalism and the rule of law in the country. This is the partisan attitude of the union of India to favour Karnataka." "I am saying this with full sense of responsibility that the Centre is playing politics and is more worried about its poll prospects in Karnataka than following the apex court order," Naphade said, adding that the judgement had said that the scheme had to be framed within four weeks and this was nothing but "dilly-dallying". Besides the summer temperature, "the temperature over Cauvery water is rising in Tamil Nadu," he said, adding that the government was "clueless" as to what to say to people as no scheme has been framed even after two months of the judgment. The apex court, meanwhile, warned Karnataka government and asked it to establish its bonafide by releasing water and said it may take suo motu cognisance of contempt and seek the presence of state's Chief Secretary before it. "Let Chief Secretary appear before it. We take suo motu cognizance of the contempt," the bench said when senior lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka, said there was contempt plea against it. The court, in its order, however, did not refer to aspects relating to contempt and presence of Chief Secretary. During the hearing, the court first asked Karnataka to release 4 tmcft water by May 8, then asked it to release 2 tmcft water and at the end, ordered it to apprise the bench "as to how much water can be released". While posting the matter for hearing on May 8, the court assured Tamil Nadu that the Cauvery water would be released as per its verdict. On April 9, the court had asked the Centre to formulate and file the draft Cauvery management scheme before it by today and directed Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to ensure peace in the meantime. The bench had made it clear that the judgment has to comply with all the stakeholders. The apex court had asked the Centre to formulate a scheme to ensure compliance with its 465-page judgement on the decades-old Cauvery dispute. It had modified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of 2007 and made it clear that it will not be extending the time for this on any ground. The top court had on February 16 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". With the apex court's verdict, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry would be annually entitled to 404.25 tmcft, 284.75 tmcft, 30 tmcft and 7 tmcft of Cauvery water respectively out of the total of 740 tmcft.

Supreme Court takes note of non-framing of Cauvery scheme by Centre

The Himachal Pradesh Government has told the Supreme Court that it will provide Rs 5 lakh compensation to the family of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/himachal-pradesh-hotelier-kills-woman-officer-during-demolition-drive-134083">officer&nbsp;who was killed while conducting a demolition drive</a>&nbsp;in Himachal Pradesh's Kasauli.

The move came a day after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-woman-officers-murder-in-himachal-pradesh-134155">apex court took </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-woman-officers-murder-in-himachal-pradesh-134155">suo</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-woman-officers-murder-in-himachal-pradesh-134155">&nbsp;</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-woman-officers-murder-in-himachal-pradesh-134155">motu</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognisance-of-woman-officers-murder-in-himachal-pradesh-134155">&nbsp;cognisance of the matter </a>and also lashed out at the Himachal government for its inability in securing the life of the officer.

The court observed the seriousness of the case as the victim was shot dead in&nbsp;broad daylight and the police were not able to arrest the accused who managed to flee the spot.&nbsp;

The 51-year old lady assistant town and country planner Shailbala Sharma was shot dead while undertaking&nbsp;the demolition drive of the recent orders of the Supreme Court.

Shailbala Sharma&nbsp;along with four teams of the Town and Country Planning Department were razing unauthorised construction in the area when the incident took place.

When Sharma and her team reached Narayani Guest House, its owner, Vijay Singh asked them to keep off his property. He allegedly opened fire on Sharma when her team went ahead with the demolition and tried to evacuate him.&nbsp;

On April 17, the court had ordered the hotel owners&nbsp;to demolish unauthorised construction of several hotels and resorts in Himachal Pradesh within 15 days.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Officer Shail Bala Sharma heading SC-ordered demolition drive shot dead in Kasauli(HP) matter: Himachal Pradesh Govt tells Supreme Court that Rs 5 lakhs compensation will be given to Sharma's family
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/991941608257048576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 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;

The move came a day after the apex court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and also lashed out at the Himachal government for its inability in securing the life of the officer

The Himachal Pradesh Government has told the Supreme Court that it will provide Rs 5 lakh compensation to the family of the officer who was killed while conducting a demolition drive in Himachal Pradesh's Kasauli. The move came a day after the apex court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and also lashed out at the Himachal government for its inability in securing the life of the officer. The court observed the seriousness of the case as the victim was shot dead in broad daylight and the police were not able to arrest the accused who managed to flee the spot. The 51-year old lady assistant town and country planner Shailbala Sharma was shot dead while undertaking the demolition drive of the recent orders of the Supreme Court. Shailbala Sharma along with four teams of the Town and Country Planning Department were razing unauthorised construction in the area when the incident took place. When Sharma and her team reached Narayani Guest House, its owner, Vijay Singh asked them to keep off his property. He allegedly opened fire on Sharma when her team went ahead with the demolition and tried to evacuate him. On April 17, the court had ordered the hotel owners to demolish unauthorised construction of several hotels and resorts in Himachal Pradesh within 15 days. Officer Shail Bala Sharma heading SC-ordered demolition drive shot dead in Kasauli(HP) matter: Himachal Pradesh Govt tells Supreme Court that Rs 5 lakhs compensation will be given to Sharma's family — ANI (@ANI) May 3, 2018 ×

Will provide compensation to family of officer killed on demolition drive: Himachal Pradesh govt to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court collegium meeting is expected to take place today which may again recommend the name of the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

Last week, the Centre sent back Justice Joseph's name for reconsideration while approving senior Supreme Court&nbsp;lawyer Indu Malhotra's name for SC judge post.

In the meeting, the five most senior judges of the apex court, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, are likely to reiterate their earlier recommendation.

Justice Joseph's name was recommended along with senior advocate of the top court and now Supreme Court&nbsp;Judge, Justice Malhotra, in January.

Indu Malhotra was sworn in as the judge of the Supreme Court on April 27, becoming the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed from the Bar.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Last week, the Centre sent back Justice Joseph's name for reconsideration while approving senior Supreme Court lawyer Indu Malhotra's name for SC judge post

The Supreme Court collegium meeting is expected to take place today which may again recommend the name of the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation as a judge of the apex court. Last week, the Centre sent back Justice Joseph's name for reconsideration while approving senior Supreme Court lawyer Indu Malhotra's name for SC judge post. In the meeting, the five most senior judges of the apex court, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, are likely to reiterate their earlier recommendation. Justice Joseph's name was recommended along with senior advocate of the top court and now Supreme Court Judge, Justice Malhotra, in January. Indu Malhotra was sworn in as the judge of the Supreme Court on April 27, becoming the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed from the Bar.

Supreme Court Collegium likely to meet today to decide Justice Joseph's elevation

The collegium met Wednesday but deferred its decision on reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Justice Joseph's name had been recommended by the collegium in January.&nbsp;It was recently <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958">returned by the government</a> for reconsideration.&nbsp;

The government says Kerala, from where Justice Joseph hails, is already well-represented in the higher judiciary.

The government has also pointed to Joseph's lack of seniority. There are 44 high court judges more senior than him.&nbsp;

Commentators however have pointed out that Joseph had headed the Uttarakhand high court bench that had in 2016 overturned the Modi government's decision to impose President's rule in Uttarakhand, allowing the state's Congress government to return to power.

&nbsp;All five judges of the collegium — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — were at Wednesday's meeting.

The justices reportedly discussed threadbare Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad's letter saying the government would like the collegium to reconsider its recommendation of Justice Joseph.&nbsp;

Most commentators have said the collegium will in all likelihood send its recommendation of Justice Joseph's name for promotion to the Supreme Court back to the government. And in which case, the government will have no choice but to accept the recommendation.&nbsp;

CJI Dipak Misra however had last week said the government was well within its rights to send back Justice Joseph's name for reconsideration.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On Wednesday, news reports quoted Law Minister Prasad as rejecting suggestions that the government was obstructing Justice Joseph's appointment as an SC judge because he had overturned the imposition of President's rule in Uttarakhand.

"It has nothing to do with that at all," the reports quoted Prasad as saying.

He also accused the Congress of levelling "sponsored allegations" against the NDA government.&nbsp;

Justice Joseph's name had been recommended by the collegium in January. It was recently returned by the government for reconsideration

The collegium met Wednesday but deferred its decision on reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court. Justice Joseph's name had been recommended by the collegium in January. It was recently returned by the government for reconsideration. The government says Kerala, from where Justice Joseph hails, is already well-represented in the higher judiciary. The government has also pointed to Joseph's lack of seniority. There are 44 high court judges more senior than him. Commentators however have pointed out that Joseph had headed the Uttarakhand high court bench that had in 2016 overturned the Modi government's decision to impose President's rule in Uttarakhand, allowing the state's Congress government to return to power. All five judges of the collegium — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — were at Wednesday's meeting. The justices reportedly discussed threadbare Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad's letter saying the government would like the collegium to reconsider its recommendation of Justice Joseph. Most commentators have said the collegium will in all likelihood send its recommendation of Justice Joseph's name for promotion to the Supreme Court back to the government. And in which case, the government will have no choice but to accept the recommendation. CJI Dipak Misra however had last week said the government was well within its rights to send back Justice Joseph's name for reconsideration. On Wednesday, news reports quoted Law Minister Prasad as rejecting suggestions that the government was obstructing Justice Joseph's appointment as an SC judge because he had overturned the imposition of President's rule in Uttarakhand. "It has nothing to do with that at all," the reports quoted Prasad as saying. He also accused the Congress of levelling "sponsored allegations" against the NDA government.

Collegium meets, but defers decision on Justice Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has taken a suo motu&nbsp;cognisance of the murder of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/himachal-pradesh-hotelier-kills-woman-officer-during-demolition-drive-134083">lady assistant who was killed while carrying out a demolition drive</a> in Himachal Pradesh's Kasauli on Tuesday.

<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/IHHId9fQXMw" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The apex court&nbsp;lashed out at the state government for not providing adequate security to the woman official.

The court observed the seriousness of the case as the victim was shot dead in&nbsp;broad daylight and the police were not able to arrest the accused and&nbsp;he managed to flee the spot.&nbsp;

"We might stop passing any orders if you are going to kill people," the bench said. The bench also said that the matter will be placed before Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra for assigning it before an appropriate bench. It also questioned as to what the police team, which had accompanied government officials during the sealing drive was doing when the hotel owner allegedly shot at the woman, PTI reported.

The 51-year old lady assistant town and country planner Shailbala Sharma was shot dead while undertaking&nbsp;the demolition drive of the recent orders of the Supreme Court.

Shailbala Sharma&nbsp;along with four teams of the Town and Country Planning Department were razing unauthorised construction in the area when the incident took place.

When Sharma and her team reached Narayani Guest House, its owner, Vijay Singh asked them to keep off his property. He allegedly opened fire on Sharma when her team went ahead with the demolition and tried to evacuate him.&nbsp;

On April 17, the court had ordered the hotel owners&nbsp;to demolish unauthorised construction of several hotels and resorts in Himachal Pradesh within 15 days.

The court had also asked the owners to deposit a fine of up to Rs 15 lakh each.

The apex court's order came after it had observed that the illegal constructions had put the entire city in danger, causing landslides.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Assistant Town Planner Shail Bala Sharma heading SC-ordered demolition drive shot dead in Kasauli matter: Supreme Court also observed that it is very serious issue as the accused had allegedly killed the woman official in broad daylight and the police could not arrest him.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/991550755281752065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 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;

&nbsp;

The apex court also lashed out at the State government for not providing adequate security to the woman official

The Supreme Court has taken a suo motu cognisance of the murder of the lady assistant who was killed while carrying out a demolition drive in Himachal Pradesh's Kasauli on Tuesday. × The apex court lashed out at the state government for not providing adequate security to the woman official. The court observed the seriousness of the case as the victim was shot dead in broad daylight and the police were not able to arrest the accused and he managed to flee the spot. "We might stop passing any orders if you are going to kill people," the bench said. The bench also said that the matter will be placed before Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra for assigning it before an appropriate bench. It also questioned as to what the police team, which had accompanied government officials during the sealing drive was doing when the hotel owner allegedly shot at the woman, PTI reported. The 51-year old lady assistant town and country planner Shailbala Sharma was shot dead while undertaking the demolition drive of the recent orders of the Supreme Court. Shailbala Sharma along with four teams of the Town and Country Planning Department were razing unauthorised construction in the area when the incident took place. When Sharma and her team reached Narayani Guest House, its owner, Vijay Singh asked them to keep off his property. He allegedly opened fire on Sharma when her team went ahead with the demolition and tried to evacuate him. On April 17, the court had ordered the hotel owners to demolish unauthorised construction of several hotels and resorts in Himachal Pradesh within 15 days. The court had also asked the owners to deposit a fine of up to Rs 15 lakh each. The apex court's order came after it had observed that the illegal constructions had put the entire city in danger, causing landslides. Assistant Town Planner Shail Bala Sharma heading SC-ordered demolition drive shot dead in Kasauli matter: Supreme Court also observed that it is very serious issue as the accused had allegedly killed the woman official in broad daylight and the police could not arrest him. — ANI (@ANI) May 2, 2018 ×

Demolition row: Supreme Court raps Himachal Pradesh government after woman officer's murder

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the change of colour of the iconic Taj Mahal at Agra and said the monument had become yellowish earlier and was now turning brownish and greenish.

The apex court suggested that the Centre take the assistance of experts from India and abroad to first assess the damage and then take steps to restore the historic monument.

"We don't know whether you have or perhaps don't have the expertise. Even if you have the expertise, you are not utilising it. Or perhaps you don't care," a bench comprising Justices M B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said.

"Perhaps we need some expert organisation from outside India unless there is a decision that the Taj has to go," the bench said sarcastically, adding, "you can get experts from India as well as from outside."

The apex court perused the photographs placed before it by petitioner MC Mehta and asked Additional Solicitor General A N S Nadkarni, who was representing the government, as to why the colour of Taj Mahal has changed.

"First it was yellow and now it is becoming brown and green," the bench observed.

Nadkarni told the bench that the management of Taj Mahal has to be done by the Archaeological Survey of India.

The apex court fixed the matter for further hearing on May 9.

Environmentalist Mehta has filed the plea seeking protection of the Taj from the ill-effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area.

The top court has been monitoring developments in the area to protect the historic monument, built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal in 1631. The mausoleum is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.&nbsp;

The apex court suggested that the Centre take the assistance of experts from India and abroad to first assess the damage and then take steps to restore the historic monument

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the change of colour of the iconic Taj Mahal at Agra and said the monument had become yellowish earlier and was now turning brownish and greenish. The apex court suggested that the Centre take the assistance of experts from India and abroad to first assess the damage and then take steps to restore the historic monument. "We don't know whether you have or perhaps don't have the expertise. Even if you have the expertise, you are not utilising it. Or perhaps you don't care," a bench comprising Justices M B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said. "Perhaps we need some expert organisation from outside India unless there is a decision that the Taj has to go," the bench said sarcastically, adding, "you can get experts from India as well as from outside." The apex court perused the photographs placed before it by petitioner MC Mehta and asked Additional Solicitor General A N S Nadkarni, who was representing the government, as to why the colour of Taj Mahal has changed. "First it was yellow and now it is becoming brown and green," the bench observed. Nadkarni told the bench that the management of Taj Mahal has to be done by the Archaeological Survey of India. The apex court fixed the matter for further hearing on May 9. Environmentalist Mehta has filed the plea seeking protection of the Taj from the ill-effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area. The top court has been monitoring developments in the area to protect the historic monument, built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal in 1631. The mausoleum is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

First yellow... now brown and green: Supreme Court expresses concern over change in Taj Mahal's colour

Centre must explain its stand on consensual sexual relations between same-sex adults, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, setting a July deadline for a response.

The court had heard petitions demanding the abolition of Section 377 – a colonial-era law that prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” – widely interpreted to refer to homosexual sex.

The court’s notice to the government “is a watershed in the whole fight against Section 377,” said petitioner Ashok Row Kavi, chairperson of Humsafar Trust, a charity that works with India’s LGBT community.

“The government will have to decide whether this colonial law should still stand relevant in a country that has its own constitution that protects fundamental rights of its citizens,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The Supreme Court had in a surprise ruling in 2013 reinstated a ban on gay sex after a four-year period of decriminalisation, but it announced in January this year that it would reconsider the 2013 decision.

Those who submitted petitions to the court in the past couple months said they were living in constant fear of police due to their sexual orientations, and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Among the petitions, the judges considered on Tuesday was that of Arif Jafar, who was arrested under Section 377 in 2001 and was released after 49 days. His case is still pending.

Although the law banning homosexuality is rarely enforced in India, it is used to intimidate, harass, blackmail and extort money from gay people, activists say.

All forms of non-penile vaginal sex are also criminalised under Section 377. Gay sex is punishable by up to 10 years jail under the law.

There is no official data on the LGBT population in India, but the government estimates there are 2.5 million gay people, reflecting those who have declared their sexuality to the health ministry.

Campaigners say real numbers are far higher, as many conceal their identities fearing discrimination in a country where most marriages still take place within the boundaries of caste and religion.

The Supreme Court had in a surprise ruling in 2013 reinstated a ban on gay sex after a four-year period of decriminalisation, but it announced in January this year that it would reconsider the 2013 decision.

Centre must explain its stand on consensual sexual relations between same-sex adults, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, setting a July deadline for a response. The court had heard petitions demanding the abolition of Section 377 – a colonial-era law that prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” – widely interpreted to refer to homosexual sex. The court’s notice to the government “is a watershed in the whole fight against Section 377,” said petitioner Ashok Row Kavi, chairperson of Humsafar Trust, a charity that works with India’s LGBT community. “The government will have to decide whether this colonial law should still stand relevant in a country that has its own constitution that protects fundamental rights of its citizens,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. The Supreme Court had in a surprise ruling in 2013 reinstated a ban on gay sex after a four-year period of decriminalisation, but it announced in January this year that it would reconsider the 2013 decision. Those who submitted petitions to the court in the past couple months said they were living in constant fear of police due to their sexual orientations, and argued that the ban was unconstitutional. Among the petitions, the judges considered on Tuesday was that of Arif Jafar, who was arrested under Section 377 in 2001 and was released after 49 days. His case is still pending. Although the law banning homosexuality is rarely enforced in India, it is used to intimidate, harass, blackmail and extort money from gay people, activists say. All forms of non-penile vaginal sex are also criminalised under Section 377. Gay sex is punishable by up to 10 years jail under the law. There is no official data on the LGBT population in India, but the government estimates there are 2.5 million gay people, reflecting those who have declared their sexuality to the health ministry. Campaigners say real numbers are far higher, as many conceal their identities fearing discrimination in a country where most marriages still take place within the boundaries of caste and religion.

Explain stand on gay sex: Supreme Court issues notice to Central government

The recent rejection of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI), which was a misadventure at the behest of Congress in conjunction with other opposition parties, did bring back the unsavoury flavour of 1970s and rekindled the debate of the political class trying to tame the judiciary for its own vested interests.

In the hindsight, it was in 1973, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI while superseding three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This appointment was against all established traditions of the Supreme Court. It caused widespread opposition and compelled the superseded judges to resign but to no avail. Again, in 1977, it was Justice M H Beg who was appointed as the CJI instead of one of the most illustrious judges of India, Justice H R Khanna. Letting his actions resonate with his conscience, Justice Khanna also resigned on the same day. A deeper analysis of these two incidents brings to the fore a disturbing revelation. As per the records, while Justice Ray and Justice Beg were rewarded for their pro-government stance, Justice Khanna paid the price for upholding the majesty of law against the interests of the government. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, Justice Khanna was the only judge who gave the judgment against the government while Justice Beg, who was a part of the same bench, ruled in favour.

And now, the impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move, whether justified or not. The details which are available in the public domain make it abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a malicious step taken for the vested interests and exert undue pressure on the judiciary. The impeachment proceedings against a constitutional functionary, holding an office as high as the CJI, ought to be supported by sound facts and rationale and cannot be a mere roving inquiry into the conduct.

Not only the opposition, even the government of the day cannot escape the blame. While it is criticising the impeachment motion wholeheartedly, its own disregard of the judiciary is noticeable. The latest in the series of various clashes between the judiciary and executive is the issue of elevation of Justice K M Joseph, who is currently the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand, to the Supreme Court. The Centre has raised various objections to the elevation. While these may, prima facie, not seem to be worthy of a doubt, at the root of it, however, is the fact that it was Justice K M Joseph who set aside President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Similarly, in 2014, similar circumstances prevailed when Gopal Subramaniam's name was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court. Although Subramniam himself withdrew his candidature to save himself that unfounded humiliation, it would not go unnoticed that it was him who, acting as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, convinced the Supreme Court to order CBI probe in the case.

Seniority is not a precondition for appointment or elevation in almost all the jurisdictions in the world. Even in India, the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice M C Chagla, was recommended to be directly appointed as the Chief Justice of India. It is only resorted to as a practice by the apex court but the way it is being misused by the executive makes its political motives abundantly clear. We have to realise that, while everyone has a right to disagree with the judicial verdicts - and we do see healthy criticisms of the same on a regular basis - the courts are the final interpreter of the laws and we, as citizens, are bound to accept them gracefully.

Ironically, when the President of Maldives tried to gag the judiciary, India urged the Maldivian government to abide by the apex court verdict, whereas, back home, our government is trying the same, albeit in a 'democratic' manner.

With due regards, this state of affairs has, in part, to do with judiciary refraining from coming down hard on the political class. As has been observed by various legal stalwarts, it is high time that the judiciary starts invoking the contempt provisions against such malicious actions, irrespective of the position and stature of the individual. It is only then that we can hope to reinstate the majesty of courts.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move.

The recent rejection of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI), which was a misadventure at the behest of Congress in conjunction with other opposition parties, did bring back the unsavoury flavour of 1970s and rekindled the debate of the political class trying to tame the judiciary for its own vested interests. In the hindsight, it was in 1973, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI while superseding three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This appointment was against all established traditions of the Supreme Court. It caused widespread opposition and compelled the superseded judges to resign but to no avail. Again, in 1977, it was Justice M H Beg who was appointed as the CJI instead of one of the most illustrious judges of India, Justice H R Khanna. Letting his actions resonate with his conscience, Justice Khanna also resigned on the same day. A deeper analysis of these two incidents brings to the fore a disturbing revelation. As per the records, while Justice Ray and Justice Beg were rewarded for their pro-government stance, Justice Khanna paid the price for upholding the majesty of law against the interests of the government. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, Justice Khanna was the only judge who gave the judgment against the government while Justice Beg, who was a part of the same bench, ruled in favour. And now, the impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move, whether justified or not. The details which are available in the public domain make it abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a malicious step taken for the vested interests and exert undue pressure on the judiciary. The impeachment proceedings against a constitutional functionary, holding an office as high as the CJI, ought to be supported by sound facts and rationale and cannot be a mere roving inquiry into the conduct. Not only the opposition, even the government of the day cannot escape the blame. While it is criticising the impeachment motion wholeheartedly, its own disregard of the judiciary is noticeable. The latest in the series of various clashes between the judiciary and executive is the issue of elevation of Justice K M Joseph, who is currently the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand, to the Supreme Court. The Centre has raised various objections to the elevation. While these may, prima facie, not seem to be worthy of a doubt, at the root of it, however, is the fact that it was Justice K M Joseph who set aside President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Similarly, in 2014, similar circumstances prevailed when Gopal Subramaniam's name was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court. Although Subramniam himself withdrew his candidature to save himself that unfounded humiliation, it would not go unnoticed that it was him who, acting as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, convinced the Supreme Court to order CBI probe in the case. Seniority is not a precondition for appointment or elevation in almost all the jurisdictions in the world. Even in India, the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice M C Chagla, was recommended to be directly appointed as the Chief Justice of India. It is only resorted to as a practice by the apex court but the way it is being misused by the executive makes its political motives abundantly clear. We have to realise that, while everyone has a right to disagree with the judicial verdicts - and we do see healthy criticisms of the same on a regular basis - the courts are the final interpreter of the laws and we, as citizens, are bound to accept them gracefully. Ironically, when the President of Maldives tried to gag the judiciary, India urged the Maldivian government to abide by the apex court verdict, whereas, back home, our government is trying the same, albeit in a 'democratic' manner. With due regards, this state of affairs has, in part, to do with judiciary refraining from coming down hard on the political class. As has been observed by various legal stalwarts, it is high time that the judiciary starts invoking the contempt provisions against such malicious actions, irrespective of the position and stature of the individual. It is only then that we can hope to reinstate the majesty of courts. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Politicising the judiciary - a disturbing trend

According to reports, Collegium may resend its recommendation for Justice KM Joseph's elevation back to government.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra is understood to have decided to urgently convene a meeting of the Collegium to reconsider the name of the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court official said it is but natural to hold the meeting of the Collegium and it will be convened as soon as possible. If the quorum is complete, the Collegium meeting will be convened immediately, the official said.

Meanwhile, Justice Joseph recently noted that Supreme Court judges cannot be selected on the basis of regional representation or the level of their seniority.

Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph was not considered to be elevated as a Supreme Court judge by the Centre on Friday.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-returns-recommendation-to-collegium-on-elevation-of-justice-k-m-joseph-133109">government returned the Collegium's recommendation</a> to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was an adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails.&nbsp;

59-year-old Justice Joseph headed the bench that had quashed the Narendra Modi government's decision to impose President's rule in the Congress-ruled hill state in 2016.

Justice Joseph has been the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court since July 2014. He was appointed a permanent judge of the Kerala High Court on October 14, 2004, and had assumed charge of the Uttarakhand HC on July 31, 2014.

Meanwhile,&nbsp;Senior Advocate <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/indu-malhotra-takes-over-as-supreme-court-judge-133160">Indu Malhotra was sworn-in as a Supreme Court judge on Friday</a>.

Malhotra becomes the first woman lawyer to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Collegium in January had recommended her name for the role which was later approved by the Centre on Wednesday.

&nbsp;

Justice Joseph has been the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court since July 2014

According to reports, Collegium may resend its recommendation for Justice KM Joseph's elevation back to government. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra is understood to have decided to urgently convene a meeting of the Collegium to reconsider the name of the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court official said it is but natural to hold the meeting of the Collegium and it will be convened as soon as possible. If the quorum is complete, the Collegium meeting will be convened immediately, the official said. Meanwhile, Justice Joseph recently noted that Supreme Court judges cannot be selected on the basis of regional representation or the level of their seniority. Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph was not considered to be elevated as a Supreme Court judge by the Centre on Friday. The government 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 an adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. 59-year-old Justice Joseph headed the bench that had quashed the Narendra Modi government's decision to impose President's rule in the Congress-ruled hill state in 2016. Justice Joseph has been the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court since July 2014. He was appointed a permanent judge of the Kerala High Court on October 14, 2004, and had assumed charge of the Uttarakhand HC on July 31, 2014. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra was sworn-in as a Supreme Court judge on Friday. Malhotra becomes the first woman lawyer to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court's Collegium in January had recommended her name for the role which was later approved by the Centre on Wednesday.

Supreme Court Collegium likely meet soon, may resend Justice Joseph's name back to government

Days after a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-centre-for-response-after-plea-seeking-quashing-of-section-377-132252">hotelier Keshav Suri filed a petition in the Supreme Court </a>for the quashing of Section 377, which criminalises gay sex in India, another petition against the section was filed in the apex court on Friday.

The top court has scheduled the hearing in the matter 1 May.

In the previous hearing, held on Monday, the&nbsp;apex court had sought a response from the Centre within a week over its stand on Section 377.

Reports suggested that the petition filed by hotelier Keshav Suri said that&nbsp;he was living under constant pressure and was not able to live a life of dignity. He also said that he could not exercise his choice to live and have sexual relations with his partner,

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Fresh petitions filed in the Supreme Court against Section 377 of the IPC (criminalising homosexuality).
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/989747130171441152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Days after a hotelier Keshav Suri filed a petition in the Supreme Court for the quashing of Section 377, which criminalises gay sex in India, another petition was filed in the court on Friday

Days after a hotelier Keshav Suri filed a petition in the Supreme Court for the quashing of Section 377, which criminalises gay sex in India, another petition against the section was filed in the apex court on Friday. The top court has scheduled the hearing in the matter 1 May. In the previous hearing, held on Monday, the apex court had sought a response from the Centre within a week over its stand on Section 377. Reports suggested that the petition filed by hotelier Keshav Suri said that he was living under constant pressure and was not able to live a life of dignity. He also said that he could not exercise his choice to live and have sexual relations with his partner, Fresh petitions filed in the Supreme Court against Section 377 of the IPC (criminalising homosexuality). — ANI (@ANI) April 27, 2018 ×

Another petition filed in Supreme court against Section 377, court to hear matter on May 1

Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra was sworn-in as a Supreme Court judge today. The swearing-in ceremony was held at the Supreme Court.

Malhotra becomes the first woman lawyer to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Collegium in January had recommended her name for the role which was later approved by the Centre this week on Wednesday.

Apart from Malhotra, Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph was also named for the elevation, the Centre had asked the collegium to reconsider his recommendation.&nbsp;

The government 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 an adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court's Collegium in January had recommended her name for the role

Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra was sworn-in as a Supreme Court judge today. The swearing-in ceremony was held at the Supreme Court. Malhotra becomes the first woman lawyer to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's Collegium in January had recommended her name for the role which was later approved by the Centre this week on Wednesday. Apart from Malhotra, Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph was also named for the elevation, the Centre had asked the collegium to reconsider his recommendation. The government 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 an adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. (With inputs from ANI)

Indu Malhotra sworn in as Supreme Court judge

The Congress on Thursday accused the government of seeking to appoint its "own people" in higher judiciary and claimed that the independence of the judiciary was in "danger" after the Centre turned down a Supreme Court collegium proposal to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the top court.

The government returned the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium, saying Justice Joseph's promotion may not be "appropriate" and needs to be reconsidered. The government decision evoked sharp reactions from the legal fraternity and opposition parties.

The Congress urged the judiciary to speak in one voice to state "enough is enough".

The CPI(M) sought President Ram Nath Kovind's intervention in the matter to ensure that the laid-out procedure in the selection of judges is followed and the collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph to the Supreme Court is cleared.

"Indian judiciary is in danger. And if our judiciary is not united to protect its independence, then democracy is in danger," senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal told reporters.

"This is a huge loss for the litigant. We want to know as to who will stand up for judicial independence. Will the judiciary speak in one voice that enough is enough," he said.

Sibal said if the Supreme Court thinks no one is more competent than Justice Joseph, then how can the government raise a finger.

"They (the government) want to pack High Courts with their own people," he alleged, adding that it seems the government does not want to appoint Justice Joseph to the Supreme Court.

He said that there are 410 vacancies of judges across the country, out of the total approved strength of 1079 judges.

The Congress leader also read out the Supreme Court collegium decision of January 10 which said, "The collegium considers that at present Justice K M Joseph is more deserving and suitable than other judges of High courts to be appointed as SC judge."

Wondering what was holding up Justice Joseph's appointment, Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram asked whether it was his state, religion or the judgement that he delivered in the Uttarakhand case.

He also asked whether the Modi government was above the law as the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium was binding on the appointment of judges.

Congress's communications in-charge Randeep Surjewala accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of indulging in "revenge politics" by "refusing" to clear Justice Joseph's elevation.

The judiciary is under the ?most vicious attack ever" and "totalitarianism will stump democracy" if the nation does not rise now, Surjewala alleged.

"PM Modi's 'revenge politics' qua judiciary and 'conspiratorial suffocation' of Supreme Court exposed again," he said on Twitter.

Asserting that Justice Joseph was the senior most chief justice in the country, Surjewala said, "Yet Modi Government refuses to clear his elevation to SC as retribution for quashing presidential rule in Uttarakhand".

Asked about Law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad citing problems in the past on appointment of SC/ST judges, Sibal said, "They are very concerned about SC/STs now, is it because Karnataka election is on. Why did they not think of SC/STs for the last four years? In last 4 years, which SC/ST Judge they have recommended."

"Even now, why are they worried. Why give spurious, illogical, ill-thought reasons. If you do not want to appoint somebody, have the courage to say I will not appoint him. Why sort of try to make a fool of the public," he said.

On the BJP charge that judges were superceded by former prime minister Indira Gandhi, Sibal said, "I want to ask Ravi Shankar Prasad, will you do the same. Are your intentions the same? If you have to move forward, then you must look forward."

Dealing a major blow to the Modi government, a bench headed by Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice Joseph in 2016 had quashed the imposition of President's rule in the state and had revived the Congress government headed by Harish Rawat.

Modiji shredded Parliamentary privileges and supremacy. He road-rolled independent media. Democracy's last refuge ie Judiciary is now under most vicious attack ever. If the nation doesn't rise in unison now, totalitarianism will stump democracy"&nbsp;Surjewala tweeted.

He accused the government of being a "habitual offender" of trashing "judicial integrity" and the "constitutional supremacy" of institutions.

In June 2014, the government refused to clear noted jurist Gopal Subramaniam's name for elevation to the Supreme Court as he was a lawyer against Amit Shah and Co, the Congress leader alleged.

The Congress on Thursday accused the government of seeking to appoint its "own people" in higher judiciary and claimed that the independence of the judiciary was in "danger" after the Centre turned down a Supreme Court collegium proposal to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the top court

The Congress on Thursday accused the government of seeking to appoint its "own people" in higher judiciary and claimed that the independence of the judiciary was in "danger" after the Centre turned down a Supreme Court collegium proposal to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the top court. The government returned the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium, saying Justice Joseph's promotion may not be "appropriate" and needs to be reconsidered. The government decision evoked sharp reactions from the legal fraternity and opposition parties. The Congress urged the judiciary to speak in one voice to state "enough is enough". The CPI(M) sought President Ram Nath Kovind's intervention in the matter to ensure that the laid-out procedure in the selection of judges is followed and the collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph to the Supreme Court is cleared. "Indian judiciary is in danger. And if our judiciary is not united to protect its independence, then democracy is in danger," senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal told reporters. "This is a huge loss for the litigant. We want to know as to who will stand up for judicial independence. Will the judiciary speak in one voice that enough is enough," he said. Sibal said if the Supreme Court thinks no one is more competent than Justice Joseph, then how can the government raise a finger. "They (the government) want to pack High Courts with their own people," he alleged, adding that it seems the government does not want to appoint Justice Joseph to the Supreme Court. He said that there are 410 vacancies of judges across the country, out of the total approved strength of 1079 judges. The Congress leader also read out the Supreme Court collegium decision of January 10 which said, "The collegium considers that at present Justice K M Joseph is more deserving and suitable than other judges of High courts to be appointed as SC judge." Wondering what was holding up Justice Joseph's appointment, Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram asked whether it was his state, religion or the judgement that he delivered in the Uttarakhand case. He also asked whether the Modi government was above the law as the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium was binding on the appointment of judges. Congress's communications in-charge Randeep Surjewala accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of indulging in "revenge politics" by "refusing" to clear Justice Joseph's elevation. The judiciary is under the ?most vicious attack ever" and "totalitarianism will stump democracy" if the nation does not rise now, Surjewala alleged. "PM Modi's 'revenge politics' qua judiciary and 'conspiratorial suffocation' of Supreme Court exposed again," he said on Twitter. Asserting that Justice Joseph was the senior most chief justice in the country, Surjewala said, "Yet Modi Government refuses to clear his elevation to SC as retribution for quashing presidential rule in Uttarakhand". Asked about Law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad citing problems in the past on appointment of SC/ST judges, Sibal said, "They are very concerned about SC/STs now, is it because Karnataka election is on. Why did they not think of SC/STs for the last four years? In last 4 years, which SC/ST Judge they have recommended." "Even now, why are they worried. Why give spurious, illogical, ill-thought reasons. If you do not want to appoint somebody, have the courage to say I will not appoint him. Why sort of try to make a fool of the public," he said. On the BJP charge that judges were superceded by former prime minister Indira Gandhi, Sibal said, "I want to ask Ravi Shankar Prasad, will you do the same. Are your intentions the same? If you have to move forward, then you must look forward." Dealing a major blow to the Modi government, a bench headed by Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice Joseph in 2016 had quashed the imposition of President's rule in the state and had revived the Congress government headed by Harish Rawat. Modiji shredded Parliamentary privileges and supremacy. He road-rolled independent media. Democracy's last refuge ie Judiciary is now under most vicious attack ever. If the nation doesn't rise in unison now, totalitarianism will stump democracy" Surjewala tweeted. He accused the government of being a "habitual offender" of trashing "judicial integrity" and the "constitutional supremacy" of institutions. In June 2014, the government refused to clear noted jurist Gopal Subramaniam's name for elevation to the Supreme Court as he was a lawyer against Amit Shah and Co, the Congress leader alleged.

Government wants to appoint 'own people' in higher judiciary: Congress

The Supreme Court on Friday is slated to resume hearing the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

The apex court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that mandated a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya.

The top court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, and Teesta Setalvad, in the case.

During the previous hearing, a bench, comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The top court also rejected the intervention plea of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy in the matter.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was, on December 6, 1992, demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood there. (ANI)

The top court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, and Teesta Setalvad, in the case

The Supreme Court on Friday is slated to resume hearing the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute case. The apex court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that mandated a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya. The top court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, and Teesta Setalvad, in the case. During the previous hearing, a bench, comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The top court also rejected the intervention plea of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy in the matter. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was, on December 6, 1992, demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood there. (ANI)

Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court to resume hearing today

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