The Supreme Court on Friday will resume hearing the case of alleged rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl belonging to Jammu and Kashmir`s Kathua area.

The case dates back to January when a minor girl belonging to the nomadic Bakerwal Tribe was allegedly abducted, drugged, gang-raped, tortured and killed.

On Thursday, the inquiry panel of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that is investigating the aforementioned case rejected claims that lawyers of the Jammu Bar had threatened the raped victim's lawyer Deepika Singh Rajawat.

The inquiry panel also rejected allegations that the police had been stopped from filing a charge-sheet in court.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of the Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association, told a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that no lawyer had threatened Rajawat or had stopped the police from filing a charge sheet against the accused."Nobody or no lawyer has threatened the victim`s lawyer, Deepika Singh Rajawat, and or stopped the police from filing the charge sheet against the accused persons in the alleged Kathua rape and murder case," Singh told the court.

The apex court observed, "We are only concerned with the victim's families getting justice expeditiously, or, about how the investigation and trial would go on. Let us be clear and focus on investigation and about the trial of the case."

Meanwhile, Chandan Sharma, the lawyer of two of the accused-Sanji Ram and Vishal Jangotra - told the court that the investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law.

On Thursday, the inquiry panel of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that is investigating the aforementioned case rejected claims that lawyers of the Jammu Bar had threatened the raped victim's lawyer Deepika Singh Rajawat

The Supreme Court on Friday will resume hearing the case of alleged rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl belonging to Jammu and Kashmir`s Kathua area. The case dates back to January when a minor girl belonging to the nomadic Bakerwal Tribe was allegedly abducted, drugged, gang-raped, tortured and killed. On Thursday, the inquiry panel of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that is investigating the aforementioned case rejected claims that lawyers of the Jammu Bar had threatened the raped victim's lawyer Deepika Singh Rajawat. The inquiry panel also rejected allegations that the police had been stopped from filing a charge-sheet in court. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of the Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association, told a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that no lawyer had threatened Rajawat or had stopped the police from filing a charge sheet against the accused."Nobody or no lawyer has threatened the victim`s lawyer, Deepika Singh Rajawat, and or stopped the police from filing the charge sheet against the accused persons in the alleged Kathua rape and murder case," Singh told the court. The apex court observed, "We are only concerned with the victim's families getting justice expeditiously, or, about how the investigation and trial would go on. Let us be clear and focus on investigation and about the trial of the case." Meanwhile, Chandan Sharma, the lawyer of two of the accused-Sanji Ram and Vishal Jangotra - told the court that the investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law.

Supreme Court to resume hearing Kathua rape case today

Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra will be sworn-in as a Supreme Court judge today. The swearing-in ceremony will be 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;

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

Malhotra becomes the first woman lawyer to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra will be sworn-in as a Supreme Court judge today. The swearing-in ceremony will be 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. (With inputs from ANI)

Indu Malhotra to be sworn in as Supreme Court judge

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it.

Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench.

Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15.&nbsp

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a 'property dispute' and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it. Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench. Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench. The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya case purely a 'property dispute': Hindu bodies to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has stayed the trial in the Kathua rape&nbsp;and murder case before the sessions judge till the next hearing, which is scheduled for May 7.

The case was transferred to the Crime Branch of the state police on January 23, which formed the Special Investigation Team. The SIT had then arrested eight people.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the case on April 13.

The apex court had also sent a notice to the Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir for hampering the filing of the charge sheet against the accused involved in the case.&nbsp;

The accused pleaded not guilty on the opening day of the trial in the principal&nbsp;district and sessions court on April 16.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kathua-rape-case-main-accused-sanji-ram-planned-girls-murder-to-save-son-say-investigators-133165">Kathua rape case: Main accused Sanji Ram planned girl's murder to save son, say </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kathua-rape-case-main-accused-sanji-ram-planned-girls-murder-to-save-son-say-investigators-133165">investigators</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kathua?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kathua</a> rape and murder case: Supreme Court stayed the trial in the case before Sessions judge till the next date of hearing May 7. <a href="https://t.co/DQ4lUBtVxJ">pic.twitter.com/DQ4lUBtVxJ</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/989770717301362688?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;

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for May 7

The Supreme Court has stayed the trial in the Kathua rape and murder case before the sessions judge till the next hearing, which is scheduled for May 7. The case was transferred to the Crime Branch of the state police on January 23, which formed the Special Investigation Team. The SIT had then arrested eight people. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the case on April 13. The apex court had also sent a notice to the Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir for hampering the filing of the charge sheet against the accused involved in the case. The accused pleaded not guilty on the opening day of the trial in the principal district and sessions court on April 16. Also read: Kathua rape case: Main accused Sanji Ram planned girl's murder to save son, say investigators #Kathua rape and murder case: Supreme Court stayed the trial in the case before Sessions judge till the next date of hearing May 7. pic.twitter.com/DQ4lUBtVxJ — ANI (@ANI) April 27, 2018 ×

Supreme court stays trial in Kathua rape-murder case till next hearing

Senior advocate<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958"> Indu Malhotra has been officially</a> appointed judge of the Supreme Court of India.

The government had earlier cleared the file of the judge to elevate her to the top court.

Justice KM Joseph, the current Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court was the other name recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium.

The government has asked the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider its recommendation for elevating Justice K M Joseph to the apex court which the Supreme Court Bar Association President termed as "disturbing"

Malhotra is the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge in India's highest court and the seventh woman judge since India's independence.

Joseph's elevation has gained political undertones with th Congress accusing PM Modi of indulging in "revenge politics" by "refusing" to clear the country's most senior chief justice, K M Joseph, to the Supreme Court.

On January 22, the apex court collegium's file had recommended the elevation of Justice Joseph and Malhotra to the Law Ministry.

After processing the file in the first week of February, the recommendations were kept in abeyance as the government wanted to elevate only Malhotra.

The government felt that while recommending the name of Justice Joseph, the collegium has "disregarded seniority and regional representation" since he is 42nd in the seniority list of 669 high court judges.

(With PTI inputs)

On January 22, the apex court collegium's file had recommended the elevation of Justice Joseph and Malhotra to the Law Ministry

Senior advocate Indu Malhotra has been officially appointed judge of the Supreme Court of India. The government had earlier cleared the file of the judge to elevate her to the top court. Justice KM Joseph, the current Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court was the other name recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium. The government has asked the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider its recommendation for elevating Justice K M Joseph to the apex court which the Supreme Court Bar Association President termed as "disturbing" Malhotra is the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge in India's highest court and the seventh woman judge since India's independence. Joseph's elevation has gained political undertones with th Congress accusing PM Modi of indulging in "revenge politics" by "refusing" to clear the country's most senior chief justice, K M Joseph, to the Supreme Court. On January 22, the apex court collegium's file had recommended the elevation of Justice Joseph and Malhotra to the Law Ministry. After processing the file in the first week of February, the recommendations were kept in abeyance as the government wanted to elevate only Malhotra. The government felt that while recommending the name of Justice Joseph, the collegium has "disregarded seniority and regional representation" since he is 42nd in the seniority list of 669 high court judges. (With PTI inputs)

Advocate Indu Malhotra officially appointed Supreme Court Judge

The Army did not establish Pakistan so it will not be ruled on the whims and wishes of anyone, the country's Supreme Court said today as it censured security agencies for their failure to submit a detailed report on a protest led by a hardline cleric last year that paralysed the capital, Islamabad.

Two-member bench comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Musheer Alam heard the suo motu case against the three-week long siege of the capital in November, 2017 by religious groups against so-called changes in the oath by parliamentarians.

Justice Isa used strong words to castigate a representative of the ministry of defence and deputy attorney general when he was informed that security agencies had not prepared any fresh report about the protest.

The judge said that since the previous report was rejected as unsatisfactory, it was the duty of intelligence agencies to come up with the new report, detailing who funded the protest.

"Who is paying you? Who is paying the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)? No one should consider themselves above the law," the judge said, addressing an army officer and deputy attorney general who present for hearing.

He said Pakistan was established through the efforts of a political leader (Jinnah) who was not surrounded by any army brigade.

The army did not establish this country and the state will not be ruled on the whims and wishes of anyone,? he said further.

Last month the court had thrown out a report by ISI by passing highly critical remarks.

This report is deeply unsettling: it has been prepared by one of the premier agencies of the country, yet a journalist could have given more details [about the protests] than this report," Justice Isa had said.

Separately, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) also criticised the military while hearing a petition demanding to make an inquiry report about the protest public.

No army in the world is involved in commercial activities but our's is selling even cement, meat and bread,&nbsphe said referring towards alleged commercial activities of armed forces.

He said that the court will summon the defence secretary over the issue.

Two-member bench comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Musheer Alam heard the suo motu case against the three-week long siege of the capital in November, 2017 by religious groups against so-called changes in the oath by parliamentarians.

The Army did not establish Pakistan so it will not be ruled on the whims and wishes of anyone, the country's Supreme Court said today as it censured security agencies for their failure to submit a detailed report on a protest led by a hardline cleric last year that paralysed the capital, Islamabad. Two-member bench comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Musheer Alam heard the suo motu case against the three-week long siege of the capital in November, 2017 by religious groups against so-called changes in the oath by parliamentarians. Justice Isa used strong words to castigate a representative of the ministry of defence and deputy attorney general when he was informed that security agencies had not prepared any fresh report about the protest. The judge said that since the previous report was rejected as unsatisfactory, it was the duty of intelligence agencies to come up with the new report, detailing who funded the protest. "Who is paying you? Who is paying the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)? No one should consider themselves above the law," the judge said, addressing an army officer and deputy attorney general who present for hearing. He said Pakistan was established through the efforts of a political leader (Jinnah) who was not surrounded by any army brigade. The army did not establish this country and the state will not be ruled on the whims and wishes of anyone,? he said further. Last month the court had thrown out a report by ISI by passing highly critical remarks. This report is deeply unsettling: it has been prepared by one of the premier agencies of the country, yet a journalist could have given more details [about the protests] than this report," Justice Isa had said. Separately, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) also criticised the military while hearing a petition demanding to make an inquiry report about the protest public. No army in the world is involved in commercial activities but our's is selling even cement, meat and bread,&nbsphe said referring towards alleged commercial activities of armed forces. He said that the court will summon the defence secretary over the issue.

Pak court criticises Army over its failure to submit report on last year's protest

The government has asked the collegium to reconsider the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court, PTI has reported government sources as saying.&nbsp;

Joseph is currently Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.&nbsp;

The Centre's decision to not clear Joseph's nomination as a Supreme Court judge is expected to set up a massive confrontation between the government and the judiciary.&nbsp;

The government had so far been sitting on Joseph's nomination along with that of Indu Malhotra's. Both names were recommended in January.&nbsp;

Malhotra's name however was cleared yesterday, making her the first woman to directly go from being a lawyer to a Supreme Court judge.&nbsp;

In a ruling in 2016, Justice Joseph had cancelled President's rule in Uttarakhand and brought back the Congress government of Harish Rawat to power. The judgement was seen as major set back to the BJP-ruled government at the Centre.

The government's decision of not approving Joseph's name has evoked sharp reactions with the Supreme Court Bar Association President terming it as "disturbing". 
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad wrote to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra this morning requesting the collegium, a group of five senior-most judges that selects judges for the apex court, to reconsider its decision on recommending Justice Joseph to be a judge of the top court.

Prasad also informed the CJI that senior advocate Malhotra has today been appointed a judge of the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

The Centre's decision to not clear Joseph's — he is currently Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court — nomination as a Supreme Court judge is expected to set up a massive confrontation between the government and the judiciary

The government has asked the collegium to reconsider the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court, PTI has reported government sources as saying. Joseph is currently Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The Centre's decision to not clear Joseph's nomination as a Supreme Court judge is expected to set up a massive confrontation between the government and the judiciary. The government had so far been sitting on Joseph's nomination along with that of Indu Malhotra's. Both names were recommended in January. Malhotra's name however was cleared yesterday, making her the first woman to directly go from being a lawyer to a Supreme Court judge. In a ruling in 2016, Justice Joseph had cancelled President's rule in Uttarakhand and brought back the Congress government of Harish Rawat to power. The judgement was seen as major set back to the BJP-ruled government at the Centre. The government's decision of not approving Joseph's name has evoked sharp reactions with the Supreme Court Bar Association President terming it as "disturbing". Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad wrote to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra this morning requesting the collegium, a group of five senior-most judges that selects judges for the apex court, to reconsider its decision on recommending Justice Joseph to be a judge of the top court. Prasad also informed the CJI that senior advocate Malhotra has today been appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. (With inputs from PTI)

Government asks collegium to reconsider elevation of Justice KM Joseph to Supreme Court: Sources

Hours after Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, the Congress on Monday decided to file a petition in the Supreme Court.

Speaking to media senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said, "We will certainly file a petition (in Supreme Court) against this and would want the CJI to not take any decision with respect to it, be it the listing or anything else, we'll accept whatever Supreme Court decides."

On April 20, the opposition parties led by Congress moved the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha, seeking the removal of CJI Misra under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India.

The motion was signed by 64 sitting members of the House.

However, Naidu rejected the impeachment motion saying that it lacked substantial facts to hold CJI Misra guilty of misbehaviour.

As per Article 124 (4), "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."

Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment motion saying that it lacked substantial facts to hold CJI Misra guilty of misbehaviour

Hours after Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, the Congress on Monday decided to file a petition in the Supreme Court. Speaking to media senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said, "We will certainly file a petition (in Supreme Court) against this and would want the CJI to not take any decision with respect to it, be it the listing or anything else, we'll accept whatever Supreme Court decides." On April 20, the opposition parties led by Congress moved the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha, seeking the removal of CJI Misra under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India. The motion was signed by 64 sitting members of the House. However, Naidu rejected the impeachment motion saying that it lacked substantial facts to hold CJI Misra guilty of misbehaviour. As per Article 124 (4), "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."

We will certainly file petition in Supreme Court: Kapil Sibal on CJI impeachment

In a huge relief to Salman Khan, the Supreme Court has stayed proceeding in six cases against the actor which are filed in different courts across the country. 
 
The cases were filed against Salman Khan for allegedly demeaning the Valmiki Samaj. The court, though, will not hear if the FIR will be quashed or not.&nbsp; 
 
The court has now given a new date for the hearing, i.e. April 23. The commission issued the notice after an ex-chairman of the Delhi Commission for Safai Karamcharis, Harnam Singh filed a complaint in this regard. 
 
Singh, in his complaint, said that the actor used the word "bhangi"&nbsp;during TV shows "which clearly insults the entire Valmiki community of the world."

Salman had used the word during the promotion of his film "Tiger Zinda Hai"&nbsp;at a reality dance show.

The cases were filed against Salman Khan for allegedly demeaning the Valmiki Samaj.

In a huge relief to Salman Khan, the Supreme Court has stayed proceeding in six cases against the actor which are filed in different courts across the country. The cases were filed against Salman Khan for allegedly demeaning the Valmiki Samaj. The court, though, will not hear if the FIR will be quashed or not. The court has now given a new date for the hearing, i.e. April 23. The commission issued the notice after an ex-chairman of the Delhi Commission for Safai Karamcharis, Harnam Singh filed a complaint in this regard. Singh, in his complaint, said that the actor used the word "bhangi" during TV shows "which clearly insults the entire Valmiki community of the world." Salman had used the word during the promotion of his film "Tiger Zinda Hai" at a reality dance show.

Supreme Court stays proceedings in six cases against Salman Khan

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre over its stand on Section 377.

The apex court was hearing a petition&nbsp;filed against the constitutional validity of Section 377, which criminalises gay sex.

The&nbsp;petition&nbsp;was filed by hotelier Keshav Suri.

Challenging the constitutional validity of the section, he said 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, reports said.

The petition was moved by his lawyer Mukul Rohatgi.

The Supreme Court has asked the&nbsp;Centre to respond on the matter within a week.

 
&nbsp;

The apex court while hearing a petition filed against the constitutional validity of Section 377 has asked the Centre to respond on the matter within a week

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre over its stand on Section 377. The apex court was hearing a petition filed against the constitutional validity of Section 377, which criminalises gay sex. The petition was filed by hotelier Keshav Suri. Challenging the constitutional validity of the section, he said 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, reports said. The petition was moved by his lawyer Mukul Rohatgi. The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond on the matter within a week.

Supreme Court asks Centre for response after plea seeking quashing of Section 377

A month after the Supreme Court sought a response from the Centre on its stand on&nbsp;polygamy and certain forms of marriages in the Muslim community, another petition was filed today in the apex court seeking a ban on Nikah Halala.

The Supreme Court has tagged the matter with the earlier four petitions.

The Supreme Court had on March 26, referred the case to a Constitution bench to examine and adjudicate&nbsp;the validity of polygamy and certain forms of marriages in the Muslim community.

The apex court's decision came in response to a batch of petitions challenging Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, for recognising and validating the practice of Nikah Halala, Nikah Mutah and Nikah Misyar as well as polygamy.

Calling the practices as unconstitutional, senior advocates also demanded that the prevailing practices should be declared illegal.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Another petition has been filed in Supreme Court seeking ban on Nikah Halala.The Supreme Court tagged this matter with the earlier four petitions. Earlier the Court had issued a notice to the Centre and had sought a response.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/988313234691239936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 23, 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 Supreme Court had on March 26, referred the case to a Constitution bench to examine and adjudicate the validity of polygamy and certain forms of marriages in the Muslim community

A month after the Supreme Court sought a response from the Centre on its stand on polygamy and certain forms of marriages in the Muslim community, another petition was filed today in the apex court seeking a ban on Nikah Halala. The Supreme Court has tagged the matter with the earlier four petitions. The Supreme Court had on March 26, referred the case to a Constitution bench to examine and adjudicate the validity of polygamy and certain forms of marriages in the Muslim community. The apex court's decision came in response to a batch of petitions challenging Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, for recognising and validating the practice of Nikah Halala, Nikah Mutah and Nikah Misyar as well as polygamy. Calling the practices as unconstitutional, senior advocates also demanded that the prevailing practices should be declared illegal. Another petition has been filed in Supreme Court seeking ban on Nikah Halala.The Supreme Court tagged this matter with the earlier four petitions. Earlier the Court had issued a notice to the Centre and had sought a response. — ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2018 ×

Another petition filed in Supreme Court seeking ban on nikah halala

As the Congress awaits the decision of Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on an impeachment notice moved by it and other parties against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, it is considering moving the Supreme Court if the petition is rejected, party leaders said.

They said if the Upper House chairman did not find merit in the notice for the impeachment, the decision could call for a judicial review.

"The chairman's decision is open to being challenged. It is bound to go for a judicial review," said a Congress leader.

The Congress was also trying to build up "moral pressure" on the Chief Justice of India in the hope that he would step aside from judicial duty if an impeachment motion was moved against him.

Judges who faced impeachment had earlier stepped aside from judicial work and the Chief Justice should do the same, a party leader said.

"It is only a convention, though there is no legal or constitutional bar (on this)," the leader said.

The Congress also hoped that the decision on the motion would be taken soon.&nbsp;

"He (the RS Chairman) cannot sit on it indefinitely, though there is no deadline laid out in the Constitution," a legal expert said, citing the case of an anti-defection law where the court had said it should be decided within a "reasonable" time-frame.

Meanwhile, an official in Parliament stressed that making public the contents of a notice before it was admitted violated Parliamentary rules.

This assumes significance in the wake of the seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, initiating an unprecedented step last week for the impeachment of CJI Misra by moving a notice levelling several charges against him.

According to the provisions in the handbook for Rajya Sabha members, no advance publicity should be given to any notice to be taken up in the House till it is admitted by the chairman.

"A notice for raising a matter in the House should not be given publicity by any member or other people until it has been admitted by the Chairman and circulated by members. A member should not raise the issue of a notice given by him and pending consideration of the Chairman," according to Rule 2.2 of Parliamentary Customs and Conventions in the handbook.

A retired Lok Sabha official said the same rule also applied to the Lower House as it was listed under rule 334A of the procedure and conduct of its business.

The notice has been referred by Naidu to Rajya Sabha Secretariat officials, who are preparing the file and identified this violation, the official said.

According to the senior official in Parliament, a bulletin issued by the Rajya Sabha on December 8, 2017, reiterates the rule under parliamentary customs and conventions.

Leaders of the opposition parties had met Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, who is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and handed over the notice of impeachment bearing the signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members, who had recently retired.&nbsp;

The Congress was also trying to build up "moral pressure" on the Chief Justice of India in the hope that he would step aside from judicial duty if an impeachment motion was moved against him.

As the Congress awaits the decision of Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on an impeachment notice moved by it and other parties against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, it is considering moving the Supreme Court if the petition is rejected, party leaders said. They said if the Upper House chairman did not find merit in the notice for the impeachment, the decision could call for a judicial review. "The chairman's decision is open to being challenged. It is bound to go for a judicial review," said a Congress leader. The Congress was also trying to build up "moral pressure" on the Chief Justice of India in the hope that he would step aside from judicial duty if an impeachment motion was moved against him. Judges who faced impeachment had earlier stepped aside from judicial work and the Chief Justice should do the same, a party leader said. "It is only a convention, though there is no legal or constitutional bar (on this)," the leader said. The Congress also hoped that the decision on the motion would be taken soon. "He (the RS Chairman) cannot sit on it indefinitely, though there is no deadline laid out in the Constitution," a legal expert said, citing the case of an anti-defection law where the court had said it should be decided within a "reasonable" time-frame. Meanwhile, an official in Parliament stressed that making public the contents of a notice before it was admitted violated Parliamentary rules. This assumes significance in the wake of the seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, initiating an unprecedented step last week for the impeachment of CJI Misra by moving a notice levelling several charges against him. According to the provisions in the handbook for Rajya Sabha members, no advance publicity should be given to any notice to be taken up in the House till it is admitted by the chairman. "A notice for raising a matter in the House should not be given publicity by any member or other people until it has been admitted by the Chairman and circulated by members. A member should not raise the issue of a notice given by him and pending consideration of the Chairman," according to Rule 2.2 of Parliamentary Customs and Conventions in the handbook. A retired Lok Sabha official said the same rule also applied to the Lower House as it was listed under rule 334A of the procedure and conduct of its business. The notice has been referred by Naidu to Rajya Sabha Secretariat officials, who are preparing the file and identified this violation, the official said. According to the senior official in Parliament, a bulletin issued by the Rajya Sabha on December 8, 2017, reiterates the rule under parliamentary customs and conventions. Leaders of the opposition parties had met Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, who is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and handed over the notice of impeachment bearing the signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members, who had recently retired.

Congress may move court if CJI impeachment notice rejected

The first big showdown at the US&nbsp;Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's immigration policies is set for Wednesday when the justices hear a challenge to the lawfulness of his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

The case represents a test of the limits of presidential power. Trump's policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad previously was on the list but Trump lifted those restrictions on April 10.

The high court has never decided the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children. It has previously acted on Trump requests to undo lower court orders blocking those two policies, siding with him on the travel ban and opposing him on the Dreamers.

Trump's immigration policies - also including actions taken against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, intensified deportation efforts and limits on legal immigration - have been among his most contentious.

The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to hear arguments on Wednesday on the third version of a travel ban policy Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and issue a ruling by the end of June.

The lead challenger is the state of Hawaii, which argues the ban violates federal immigration law and the US&nbsp;Constitution's prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another.

"Right now, the travel ban is keeping families apart. It is degrading our values by subjecting a specific set of people to be denigrated and marginalized," Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin said in an interview.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 signaled it may lean toward backing Trump when it granted the administration's request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out.

In another immigration-related case, the justices on April 17 invalidated a provision in a US&nbsp;law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of certain crimes of violence. Trump's administration and the prior Obama administration had defended the provision.

'Politically correct'

Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. Just before the latest ban was announced, Trump wrote on Twitter that the restrictions "should be far larger, tougher and more specific - but stupidly that would not be politically correct!"

The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a candidate, Trump promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

The Justice Department argues Trump's statements as a candidate carry no weight because he was not yet president. The policy's challengers also point to views he has expressed as president, including his retweets in November of anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure.

In a court filing last week, US&nbsp;Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing Trump in court, said those retweets "do not address the meaning" of the travel ban policy.

Francisco cited Trump statements complimentary toward Muslims and Islam, including in a May 2017 speech in Saudi Arabia.

In defending the ban, the administration has pointed to a waiver provision allowing people from targeted countries to seek entry if they meet certain criteria. The State Department said that as of last month 375 waivers to the travel ban had been granted since the policy went into effect on Dec 8.

Some former Republican senators and officials who served in Republican former President George W. Bush's administration have signed onto legal briefs asking the high court to invalidate the ban.

"I think the travel ban is a terribly misguided policy that appeared to be motivated more by a political intention of the president than by any real national security need," John Bellinger, the State Department's top legal advisor during the Bush administration, said in an interview.

The arguments in the case follow US&nbsp;missile strikes this month in one of the targeted countries, Syria, after Trump's administration blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a chemical weapons attack on Syrian people near Damascus.

"Lots of people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the president, on the one hand, being willing to bomb Syria and on the other hand being unwilling to accept refugees and immigrants from that country who are trying to escape," lawyer Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the travel ban in a separate case in Maryland, said in an interview.

Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the travel ban but those restrictions were not challenged in court.

Trump's policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

The first big showdown at the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's immigration policies is set for Wednesday when the justices hear a challenge to the lawfulness of his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. The case represents a test of the limits of presidential power. Trump's policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad previously was on the list but Trump lifted those restrictions on April 10. The high court has never decided the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children. It has previously acted on Trump requests to undo lower court orders blocking those two policies, siding with him on the travel ban and opposing him on the Dreamers. Trump's immigration policies - also including actions taken against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, intensified deportation efforts and limits on legal immigration - have been among his most contentious. The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to hear arguments on Wednesday on the third version of a travel ban policy Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and issue a ruling by the end of June. The lead challenger is the state of Hawaii, which argues the ban violates federal immigration law and the US Constitution's prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another. "Right now, the travel ban is keeping families apart. It is degrading our values by subjecting a specific set of people to be denigrated and marginalized," Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin said in an interview. The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 signaled it may lean toward backing Trump when it granted the administration's request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out. In another immigration-related case, the justices on April 17 invalidated a provision in a US law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of certain crimes of violence. Trump's administration and the prior Obama administration had defended the provision. 'Politically correct' Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. Just before the latest ban was announced, Trump wrote on Twitter that the restrictions "should be far larger, tougher and more specific - but stupidly that would not be politically correct!" The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a candidate, Trump promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." The Justice Department argues Trump's statements as a candidate carry no weight because he was not yet president. The policy's challengers also point to views he has expressed as president, including his retweets in November of anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure. In a court filing last week, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing Trump in court, said those retweets "do not address the meaning" of the travel ban policy. Francisco cited Trump statements complimentary toward Muslims and Islam, including in a May 2017 speech in Saudi Arabia. In defending the ban, the administration has pointed to a waiver provision allowing people from targeted countries to seek entry if they meet certain criteria. The State Department said that as of last month 375 waivers to the travel ban had been granted since the policy went into effect on Dec 8. Some former Republican senators and officials who served in Republican former President George W. Bush's administration have signed onto legal briefs asking the high court to invalidate the ban. "I think the travel ban is a terribly misguided policy that appeared to be motivated more by a political intention of the president than by any real national security need," John Bellinger, the State Department's top legal advisor during the Bush administration, said in an interview. The arguments in the case follow US missile strikes this month in one of the targeted countries, Syria, after Trump's administration blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a chemical weapons attack on Syrian people near Damascus. "Lots of people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the president, on the one hand, being willing to bomb Syria and on the other hand being unwilling to accept refugees and immigrants from that country who are trying to escape," lawyer Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the travel ban in a separate case in Maryland, said in an interview. Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the travel ban but those restrictions were not challenged in court.

Trump's travel ban faces US Supreme Court showdown

A Mumbai court on Saturday cancelled a bailable arrest warrant against Bollywood star Salman Khan in the 2002 hit and run case. Maharashtra government's appeal against his acquittal in the case is pending before the Supreme Court.

The court had issued the warrant against the actor for not furnishing the surety as per the directions of the apex court earlier this month.

Khan, 52, today appeared before Additional Sessions Judge M G Deshpande and completed all the formalities of furnishing the surety, after which the court cancelled the warrant.

In February this year, he had approached the apex court seeking discharge of his surety given by his former publicist Reshma Shetty, stating that he wanted to replace it with the surety of his bodyguard Shera alias Gurmeet Singh Jolly.

The top court, which is hearing the appeal filed against his acquittal in the case by the state government, had allowed his plea on February 23. He was asked to comply with the process.

The sessions court had issued two notices to Khan this year - once on March 5, which was received by his father, and another one on March 16.

In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges for lack of substantial evidence. He was acquitted seven months after the sessions court held him guilty.

The actor was accused of running his car over some persons sleeping on the pavement in suburban Bandra in 2002. One person died in the mishap. The trial court had awarded him a five-year jail term.

A court in Jodhpur had on April 5 sentenced the actor to five years in jail for killing a black buck in 1998.&nbsp

On April 7, Khan walked out of the Jodhpur jail, where he spent two nights, after a sessions court here granted him bail in the case.&nbsp

Earlier this month, the court had issued the warrant against the actor for not furnishing the surety as per the directions of the apex court.

A Mumbai court on Saturday cancelled a bailable arrest warrant against Bollywood star Salman Khan in the 2002 hit and run case. Maharashtra government's appeal against his acquittal in the case is pending before the Supreme Court. The court had issued the warrant against the actor for not furnishing the surety as per the directions of the apex court earlier this month. Khan, 52, today appeared before Additional Sessions Judge M G Deshpande and completed all the formalities of furnishing the surety, after which the court cancelled the warrant. In February this year, he had approached the apex court seeking discharge of his surety given by his former publicist Reshma Shetty, stating that he wanted to replace it with the surety of his bodyguard Shera alias Gurmeet Singh Jolly. The top court, which is hearing the appeal filed against his acquittal in the case by the state government, had allowed his plea on February 23. He was asked to comply with the process. The sessions court had issued two notices to Khan this year - once on March 5, which was received by his father, and another one on March 16. In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges for lack of substantial evidence. He was acquitted seven months after the sessions court held him guilty. The actor was accused of running his car over some persons sleeping on the pavement in suburban Bandra in 2002. One person died in the mishap. The trial court had awarded him a five-year jail term. A court in Jodhpur had on April 5 sentenced the actor to five years in jail for killing a black buck in 1998. On April 7, Khan walked out of the Jodhpur jail, where he spent two nights, after a sessions court here granted him bail in the case.

Hit-and-run case: Court cancels arrest warrant against Salman Khan

Opposition parties led by the Congress will meet today to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and are likely to submit it to Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu.

According to sources, opposition parties including the Congress, the NCP, the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and some others will meet in Parliament to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion.

Thereafter, the opposition parties will meet the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and are likely to submit the same today itself, the sources said.

A time has already been sought from the Chairman, they said.

“We will meet today to give final shape to the impeachment motion to be moved against the Chief Justice of India,” an opposition leader said.

Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it.

The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

The SC judgement was delivered by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.

An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by a total of at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100.

Once the notice of an impeachment motion is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion.

In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it.

If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country's history that an impeachment would be moved against the Chief Justice of India.

Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it.

Opposition parties led by the Congress will meet today to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and are likely to submit it to Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu. According to sources, opposition parties including the Congress, the NCP, the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and some others will meet in Parliament to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion. Thereafter, the opposition parties will meet the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and are likely to submit the same today itself, the sources said. A time has already been sought from the Chairman, they said. “We will meet today to give final shape to the impeachment motion to be moved against the Chief Justice of India,” an opposition leader said. Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it. The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. The SC judgement was delivered by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by a total of at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100. Once the notice of an impeachment motion is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion. In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it. If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country's history that an impeachment would be moved against the Chief Justice of India.

Opposition parties to meet to give shape to proposed CJI impeachment motion 

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Central government to seize the properties of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim in Mumbai.&nbsp

The apex court bench, headed by Justice R K Agrawal, rejected the petition filed by Ibrahim’s family against the attachment of the underworld don’s properties in the Maharashtra capital.&nbsp

In November 2017, three south Mumbai properties belonging to the fugitive don were auctioned for Rs 11.58 crore. The properties were put on auction by the ministry of finance, under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act. The three properties were the Hotel Raunaq Afroz, also known as Delhi Zaika, Shabnam Guest House and six rooms in Damarwala building.

Dawood Ibrahim is the mastermind of the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. He is listed as a global terrorist by the UN Security Council's IS and al-Qaida Sanctions Committee.

India's assertion that he has been sheltered by Pakistan was confirmed recently when the latest list of terror organisations and terrorists released by the UN Security Council included Dawood Ibrahim and his Karachi address.

(With inputs from Agencies)

The prime properties in Mumbai's Nagpada belonged to Dawood but his mother and sister, both dead, had taken possession of them.

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Central government to seize the properties of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim in Mumbai. The apex court bench, headed by Justice R K Agrawal, rejected the petition filed by Ibrahim’s family against the attachment of the underworld don’s properties in the Maharashtra capital. In November 2017, three south Mumbai properties belonging to the fugitive don were auctioned for Rs 11.58 crore. The properties were put on auction by the ministry of finance, under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act. The three properties were the Hotel Raunaq Afroz, also known as Delhi Zaika, Shabnam Guest House and six rooms in Damarwala building. Dawood Ibrahim is the mastermind of the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. He is listed as a global terrorist by the UN Security Council's IS and al-Qaida Sanctions Committee. India's assertion that he has been sheltered by Pakistan was confirmed recently when the latest list of terror organisations and terrorists released by the UN Security Council included Dawood Ibrahim and his Karachi address. (With inputs from Agencies)

Seize Dawood Ibrahim’s Mumbai properties: Supreme Court directs Centre

The Opposition is likely to hold a meeting in the Parliament today. The meeting will&nbsp;discuss the political situation prevailing in the&nbsp;country and is expected to be held in the chamber of Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad.&nbsp;

The leaders may discuss the recent <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-loya-death-case-supreme-court-dismisses-plea-for-sit-probe-131322">Supreme Court verdict on the death of judge BH Loya</a>. The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya.The court said attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court.&nbsp;

The leaders may also take up the issue of moving an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The opposition party leaders may also discuss the collective measures that to take in order to defeat the BJP in the upcoming assembly polls.

The meeting is expected to be held in the chamber of Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad

The Opposition is likely to hold a meeting in the Parliament today. The meeting will discuss the political situation prevailing in the country and is expected to be held in the chamber of Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad. The leaders may discuss the recent Supreme Court verdict on the death of judge BH Loya. The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya.The court said attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court. The leaders may also take up the issue of moving an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The opposition party leaders may also discuss the collective measures that to take in order to defeat the BJP in the upcoming assembly polls.

Opposition party leaders likely to meet today

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall of its controversial verdict on the SC/ST Act alleging that the judgement was delivered on the basis of a "forged FIR" which was placed on record before it.

The fresh plea, moved by the original complainant on whose FIR the case had commenced and finally reached the apex court, has claimed that full text of the FIR which was originally in Marathi language was not made available to the top court "deliberately".

In its March 20 verdict, the apex court had allegedly diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Act relating to arrest and certain safeguards were put in place for lodging of FIR under the law.&nbsp

After the verdict, several states were rocked by violence and clashes on April 2 following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's order, which had claimed at least eight lives and injured hundreds.

The Centre and some states have also sought review of the judgement.&nbsp

The Centre had on April 12 told the apex court that its judgement has "diluted" the provisions of the law, resulting in "great damage" to the country, and steps may be taken to correct it.

The apex court, which has agreed to hear Centre's review petition, had earlier said it would not hear any plea filed by those who were not a party in the case.

In the fresh plea seeking recall of the verdict, the original complainant B K Gaikwad, has claimed that the petitioners before the apex court had filed a "truncated and forged FIR deliberately" and hence, committed a "fraud".

"The said forgery is in relation to the material fact, particulars namely being the allegation of mala fide which would have substantially affected the outcome of the said SLP (special leave petition)," the plea claimed.

"The full text of the FIR was not made available to this Court by the Respondent number one herein/petitioner with the mala fide intention to get the particular outcome of the case, thereby misleading this Court to quash the FIR registered against him," it alleged.

On April 3, the apex court had refused to keep in abeyance its verdict, saying those agitating against its order putting in place certain safeguards on arrests under the Act may not have read the judgement or could have been misled by "vested interests".

The top court had also asserted that "no provisions of SC/ST Act have been diluted" while clarifying that additional safeguards had been put in place "to protect the fundamental rights" of innocents.&nbsp

In its March 20 verdict, the apex court had allegedly diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Act relating to arrest and certain safeguards were put in place for lodging of FIR under the law.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking recall of its controversial verdict on the SC/ST Act alleging that the judgement was delivered on the basis of a "forged FIR" which was placed on record before it. The fresh plea, moved by the original complainant on whose FIR the case had commenced and finally reached the apex court, has claimed that full text of the FIR which was originally in Marathi language was not made available to the top court "deliberately". In its March 20 verdict, the apex court had allegedly diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Act relating to arrest and certain safeguards were put in place for lodging of FIR under the law. After the verdict, several states were rocked by violence and clashes on April 2 following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's order, which had claimed at least eight lives and injured hundreds. The Centre and some states have also sought review of the judgement. The Centre had on April 12 told the apex court that its judgement has "diluted" the provisions of the law, resulting in "great damage" to the country, and steps may be taken to correct it. The apex court, which has agreed to hear Centre's review petition, had earlier said it would not hear any plea filed by those who were not a party in the case. In the fresh plea seeking recall of the verdict, the original complainant B K Gaikwad, has claimed that the petitioners before the apex court had filed a "truncated and forged FIR deliberately" and hence, committed a "fraud". "The said forgery is in relation to the material fact, particulars namely being the allegation of mala fide which would have substantially affected the outcome of the said SLP (special leave petition)," the plea claimed. "The full text of the FIR was not made available to this Court by the Respondent number one herein/petitioner with the mala fide intention to get the particular outcome of the case, thereby misleading this Court to quash the FIR registered against him," it alleged. On April 3, the apex court had refused to keep in abeyance its verdict, saying those agitating against its order putting in place certain safeguards on arrests under the Act may not have read the judgement or could have been misled by "vested interests". The top court had also asserted that "no provisions of SC/ST Act have been diluted" while clarifying that additional safeguards had been put in place "to protect the fundamental rights" of innocents.

Fresh plea in SC for review of controversial SC/ST Act verdict

The Supreme Court yesterday said it was not sure whether bringing people "face to face" with authorities through Aadhaar was the best model as the State should reach them to accord the benefits of the welfare schemes.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, was told by the counsel for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that the 12 digit national identifier brought the citizens face to face with the service providers for getting the benefits.

"We are not sure if that is the best model. The individual should not be a supplicant. The State should go to him and give him benefits," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.&nbsp

The bench observed that the UIDAI says Aadhaar is a means for identification, but the "only caveat to that is that there should be no exclusion".

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for UIDAI and the Gujarat government, said the development was necessary to ensure that people are freed from poverty.

Liberating people from poverty is at one end of the spectrum and the right to privacy is on the other, the bench observed.

The UIDAI referred to social ills like manual scavenging and prostitution and said that despite laws, these evils were rampant in the society and the apex court should strike a balance while dealing with the competing fundamental rights of citizens.

Referring to apex court judgements, the senior lawyer said it has been held that to save the freedom of speech and expression, the right to reputation of a citizen under Article 21 cannot be crucified.

The apex court, besides being the protector of fundamental rights, is also a "balancing wheel" to ensure that competing fundamentals co-exist.

Mr Dwivedi then referred to a verdict by which an HIV positive rape victim was denied the permission to abort the foetus after a doctors' panel gave the report that it could be fatal for the woman.

"The court balanced the rights in the case where fundamental right to life was involved," he said, adding that in the present matter, the issue merely pertained to identification.

"What is being done under section 7 of the Aadhaar Act covers human rights of a lot of people of our country. This court should act as a sentinel to ensure that right to privacy is balanced with all the other rights under Article 21 that Aadhaar covers," Mr Dwivedi said.

The counsel for Mr Dwivedi would resume his submissions on April 24.&nbsp

Earlier, the bench had said that if biometric authentication is attached to every transaction entered into by a person, it would "form a wealth of information" necessitating the need for data protection.

The bench observed that the UIDAI says Aadhaar is a means for identification, but the "only caveat to that is that there should be no exclusion".

The Supreme Court yesterday said it was not sure whether bringing people "face to face" with authorities through Aadhaar was the best model as the State should reach them to accord the benefits of the welfare schemes. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, was told by the counsel for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that the 12 digit national identifier brought the citizens face to face with the service providers for getting the benefits. "We are not sure if that is the best model. The individual should not be a supplicant. The State should go to him and give him benefits," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said. The bench observed that the UIDAI says Aadhaar is a means for identification, but the "only caveat to that is that there should be no exclusion". Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for UIDAI and the Gujarat government, said the development was necessary to ensure that people are freed from poverty. Liberating people from poverty is at one end of the spectrum and the right to privacy is on the other, the bench observed. The UIDAI referred to social ills like manual scavenging and prostitution and said that despite laws, these evils were rampant in the society and the apex court should strike a balance while dealing with the competing fundamental rights of citizens. Referring to apex court judgements, the senior lawyer said it has been held that to save the freedom of speech and expression, the right to reputation of a citizen under Article 21 cannot be crucified. The apex court, besides being the protector of fundamental rights, is also a "balancing wheel" to ensure that competing fundamentals co-exist. Mr Dwivedi then referred to a verdict by which an HIV positive rape victim was denied the permission to abort the foetus after a doctors' panel gave the report that it could be fatal for the woman. "The court balanced the rights in the case where fundamental right to life was involved," he said, adding that in the present matter, the issue merely pertained to identification. "What is being done under section 7 of the Aadhaar Act covers human rights of a lot of people of our country. This court should act as a sentinel to ensure that right to privacy is balanced with all the other rights under Article 21 that Aadhaar covers," Mr Dwivedi said. The counsel for Mr Dwivedi would resume his submissions on April 24. Earlier, the bench had said that if biometric authentication is attached to every transaction entered into by a person, it would "form a wealth of information" necessitating the need for data protection.

Not sure if Aadhaar is best model to accord benefits: Supreme Court

"Do you have any relative who has been raped", an annoyed Supreme Court asked a lawyer on Friday.

The apex court bench was annoyed as it asked the advocate, who had alleged that FIRs were not lodged by the police in rape cases involving powerful people like ministers, MPs or MLAs, what his locus standi was vis-a-vis the Unnao rape case, news agency PTI reported.

It questioned the locus of the advocate in filing the PIL, wondering how public interest litigation can be filed in criminal cases.

A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao asked advocate ML Sharma how he was aggrieved with the Unnao rape case and how was he connected to the case.

"The Allahabad High Court has already passed some orders in the case. Mr Sharma you are not an aggrieved person in the case. There cannot be a PIL in a criminal case," the bench observed.

Sharma reportedly alleged that in several rape cases involving former ministers or MLAs, no FIR was&nbsplodged by the police, wherever powerful people were involved.

"Who are you in these rapes cases? Don't be generic. Is any relative of a victim of rape before us for a&nbspremedy? Do you have any relative who has been raped," Justice Bobde asked the lawyer.

An uneasy calm prevailed among the lawyers in the courtroom after the bench's remarks.

When Sharma persisted with his arguments, the bench dismissed his petition saying it cannot be entertained.&nbsp

The apex court had on April 11 agreed to hear a plea for a CBI probe into the Unnao gangrape case allegedly involving a BJP lawmaker from Uttar Pradesh.

Sharma's plea has also alleged that the rape victim's father was tortured and killed in the police custody at the behest of the "ruling party" in the state. He also sought the court's direction for a CBI probe into a case of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl last July allegedly involving a BJP legislator.

Alleging that the complaint had not named the legislator "under political pressure" and the state police would not carry out a "fair investigation under compulsion", it said the matter should be handed over to the CBI for independent investigation.

The public interest petition had also sought protection and compensation to the victims' kin, as was provided in the Nirbhaya gangrape case.&nbsp

The apex court bench was annoyed as it asked the advocate, who had alleged that FIRs were not lodged by the police in rape cases involving powerful people like ministers, MPs or MLAs, what his locus standi was vis-a-vis the Unnao rape case

"Do you have any relative who has been raped", an annoyed Supreme Court asked a lawyer on Friday. The apex court bench was annoyed as it asked the advocate, who had alleged that FIRs were not lodged by the police in rape cases involving powerful people like ministers, MPs or MLAs, what his locus standi was vis-a-vis the Unnao rape case, news agency PTI reported. It questioned the locus of the advocate in filing the PIL, wondering how public interest litigation can be filed in criminal cases. A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao asked advocate ML Sharma how he was aggrieved with the Unnao rape case and how was he connected to the case. "The Allahabad High Court has already passed some orders in the case. Mr Sharma you are not an aggrieved person in the case. There cannot be a PIL in a criminal case," the bench observed. Sharma reportedly alleged that in several rape cases involving former ministers or MLAs, no FIR was&nbsplodged by the police, wherever powerful people were involved. "Who are you in these rapes cases? Don't be generic. Is any relative of a victim of rape before us for a&nbspremedy? Do you have any relative who has been raped," Justice Bobde asked the lawyer. An uneasy calm prevailed among the lawyers in the courtroom after the bench's remarks. When Sharma persisted with his arguments, the bench dismissed his petition saying it cannot be entertained. The apex court had on April 11 agreed to hear a plea for a CBI probe into the Unnao gangrape case allegedly involving a BJP lawmaker from Uttar Pradesh. Sharma's plea has also alleged that the rape victim's father was tortured and killed in the police custody at the behest of the "ruling party" in the state. He also sought the court's direction for a CBI probe into a case of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl last July allegedly involving a BJP legislator. Alleging that the complaint had not named the legislator "under political pressure" and the state police would not carry out a "fair investigation under compulsion", it said the matter should be handed over to the CBI for independent investigation. The public interest petition had also sought protection and compensation to the victims' kin, as was provided in the Nirbhaya gangrape case.

Do you have any relative who has been raped, SC asks lawyer

Opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.

The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment.

After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI.

Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
INC COMMUNIQUE 
 
Statement issued by seven Opposition Parties led by LoP Rajya Sabha <a href="https://twitter.com/ghulamnazad?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ghulamnazad</a> on impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India. <a href="https://t.co/BQfoBARog1">pic.twitter.com/BQfoBARog1</a>
— INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/INCSandesh/status/987241058730852352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 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>

Chief Justice has not asserted the independence of the judiciary: Kapil Sibal

Kapil Sibal said that the Opposition parties did not have any option apart from filing an impeachment notice. He said that the Chief Justice had not asserted the independence of the judiciary.

"We only wish to state that anyone occupying the office of Chief Justice of India must be judged on the basis of highest standards of integrity. The first charge relates to the conspiracy to pay illegal gratifications," Sibal said.

Ghulam Nabi Azad, in a press conference, said that Opposition parties had moved impeachment motion under five grounds of misbehaviour.

SC terms public statements on the impeachment of judges 'unfortunate'

The Supreme Court termed as very unfortunate the public statements, including those made by lawmakers, on the impeachment of judges.

"We are all very disturbed about it," a bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said after the counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the issue of politicians making public statements on the impeachment of judges.

The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to assist it to deal with the plea, which has also sought a gag on the media from reporting such statements.

(With inputs from Agencies)

According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.

Opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI. The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP. The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment. After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI. Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan. INC COMMUNIQUE Statement issued by seven Opposition Parties led by LoP Rajya Sabha @ghulamnazad on impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India. pic.twitter.com/BQfoBARog1 — INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) April 20, 2018 × Chief Justice has not asserted the independence of the judiciary: Kapil Sibal Kapil Sibal said that the Opposition parties did not have any option apart from filing an impeachment notice. He said that the Chief Justice had not asserted the independence of the judiciary. "We only wish to state that anyone occupying the office of Chief Justice of India must be judged on the basis of highest standards of integrity. The first charge relates to the conspiracy to pay illegal gratifications," Sibal said. Ghulam Nabi Azad, in a press conference, said that Opposition parties had moved impeachment motion under five grounds of misbehaviour. SC terms public statements on the impeachment of judges 'unfortunate' The Supreme Court termed as very unfortunate the public statements, including those made by lawmakers, on the impeachment of judges. "We are all very disturbed about it," a bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said after the counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the issue of politicians making public statements on the impeachment of judges. The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to assist it to deal with the plea, which has also sought a gag on the media from reporting such statements. (With inputs from Agencies)

CJI impeachment row: Seven parties move motion to sack Dipak Misra

Opposition parties led by the Congress today met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to sources, over 60 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.

The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment.

After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI.

Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan.

Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it.

The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

The SC judgement was delivered by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.

An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100.

Once the notice of impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion.

In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it.

If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country's history that an impeachment would be moved against the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

Opposition parties led by the Congress today met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. According to sources, over 60 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI. The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP. The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment. After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI. Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan. Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it. The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. The SC judgement was delivered by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100. Once the notice of impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion. In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it. If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country's history that an impeachment would be moved against the Chief Justice of India.

Opposition parties meet vice president, give notice for impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra

Hours after Supreme Court ruled out an SIT probe into&nbsp;circumstances surrounding special CBI judge BH Loya's death in 2014, the Congress president Rahul Gandhi tweeted the truth has its own way of catching up with people like Amit Shah.

''Indians are deeply intelligent. Most Indians, including those in the BJP, instinctively understand the truth about Mr Amit Shah. The truth has its own way of catching up with people like him,'' Rahul Gandhi said in a tweet without referring&nbsp;to the case.

Rahul's statement was in reaction to the apex court's dismissal of a batch of PILs demanding a probe into the circumstances surrounding special CBI judge BH Loya's death in 2014.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud held that there was absolutely no merit in the petitions and said Loya died of natural causes.

Loya had been hearing the politically sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which then Gujarat home minister Amit Shah was an accused. After Loya's death, Shah was discharged and the CBI refused to file an appeal against the verdict.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Indians are deeply intelligent. Most Indians, including those in the BJP, instinctively understand the truth about Mr Amit Shah. The truth has its own way of catching up with people like him.
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi/status/986968232857882624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 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>

Immediately after the verdict was pronounced both BJP and Congress indulged in a political mudslinging. The BJP alleged the "invisible hand" behind the pleas was of Rahul Gandhi as part of "a conspiracy to finish the political career" of the ruling party chief Amit Shah. The party also demanded an apology from the Congress president.&nbsp;

The Congress, on the other hand, described the verdict as a ''sad letter day'' in India's history.&nbsp;

Attacking the BJP for accusing Congress president Rahul Gandhi's as being the invisible hand behind the petitions seeking the probe, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the allegations as a malicious attempt which showed the ruling party's jitteriness

''Indians are deeply intelligent. Most Indians, including those in the BJP, instinctively understand the truth about Mr Amit Shah. The truth has its own way of catching up with people like him,'' Rahul Gandhi said in a tweet.

Hours after Supreme Court ruled out an SIT probe into circumstances surrounding special CBI judge BH Loya's death in 2014, the Congress president Rahul Gandhi tweeted the truth has its own way of catching up with people like Amit Shah. ''Indians are deeply intelligent. Most Indians, including those in the BJP, instinctively understand the truth about Mr Amit Shah. The truth has its own way of catching up with people like him,'' Rahul Gandhi said in a tweet without referring to the case. Rahul's statement was in reaction to the apex court's dismissal of a batch of PILs demanding a probe into the circumstances surrounding special CBI judge BH Loya's death in 2014. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud held that there was absolutely no merit in the petitions and said Loya died of natural causes. Loya had been hearing the politically sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which then Gujarat home minister Amit Shah was an accused. After Loya's death, Shah was discharged and the CBI refused to file an appeal against the verdict. Indians are deeply intelligent. Most Indians, including those in the BJP, instinctively understand the truth about Mr Amit Shah. The truth has its own way of catching up with people like him. — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) April 19, 2018 × Immediately after the verdict was pronounced both BJP and Congress indulged in a political mudslinging. The BJP alleged the "invisible hand" behind the pleas was of Rahul Gandhi as part of "a conspiracy to finish the political career" of the ruling party chief Amit Shah. The party also demanded an apology from the Congress president. The Congress, on the other hand, described the verdict as a ''sad letter day'' in India's history. Attacking the BJP for accusing Congress president Rahul Gandhi's as being the invisible hand behind the petitions seeking the probe, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the allegations as a malicious attempt which showed the ruling party's jitteriness

Truth has its own way of catching up with people like Amit Shah: Tweets Rahul Gandhi

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on Thursday on a batch of pleas seeking an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

Loya had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud had on March 16 reserved the judgment on the pleas.

The Maharashtra government had argued in the apex court that all pleas seeking an independent probe into Loya's death were motivated and aimed at targeting "one individual" in the guise of upholding the rule of law.

It had come down heavily on alleged accusations, bullying and browbeating of judges in the top court by some activist lawyers in the Loya case and said that the judiciary and judicial officers need to be saved from such averments.

Meanwhile, those seeking an independent probe into the matter had referred to the sequence of events to highlight that a fair investigation was needed to rule out any foul play in the death.

The issue of Loya's death had come under spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister had fuelled suspicion about the circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. But Loya's son had on January 14 said in Mumbai that his father had died of natural causes.&nbsp

In the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, BJP president Amit Shah along with Rajasthan home minister Gulabchand Kataria, Rajasthan-based businessman Vimal Patni, former Gujarat police chief P C Pande, additional director general of police Geeta Johri and Gujarat police officers Abhay Chudasama and N K Amin have already been discharged.

Several accused, including police personnel, are currently facing trial for their involvement in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and their associate Tulsiram Prajapati in Gujarat in November 2005. The case was later transferred to CBI and the trial shifted to Mumbai.

A batch of pleas, including those filed by Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala and Maharashtra-based B S Lone, was filed in the top court seeking an independent probe into Loya's death in 2014.

Four senior-most apex court judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- at their January 12 press conference had questioned the manner in which sensitive cases were being allocated and Loya's case was one of them.

Loya, who had been hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had died in mysterious circumstances in December 2014

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on Thursday on a batch of pleas seeking an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. Loya had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud had on March 16 reserved the judgment on the pleas. The Maharashtra government had argued in the apex court that all pleas seeking an independent probe into Loya's death were motivated and aimed at targeting "one individual" in the guise of upholding the rule of law. It had come down heavily on alleged accusations, bullying and browbeating of judges in the top court by some activist lawyers in the Loya case and said that the judiciary and judicial officers need to be saved from such averments. Meanwhile, those seeking an independent probe into the matter had referred to the sequence of events to highlight that a fair investigation was needed to rule out any foul play in the death. The issue of Loya's death had come under spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister had fuelled suspicion about the circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. But Loya's son had on January 14 said in Mumbai that his father had died of natural causes. In the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, BJP president Amit Shah along with Rajasthan home minister Gulabchand Kataria, Rajasthan-based businessman Vimal Patni, former Gujarat police chief P C Pande, additional director general of police Geeta Johri and Gujarat police officers Abhay Chudasama and N K Amin have already been discharged. Several accused, including police personnel, are currently facing trial for their involvement in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and their associate Tulsiram Prajapati in Gujarat in November 2005. The case was later transferred to CBI and the trial shifted to Mumbai. A batch of pleas, including those filed by Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala and Maharashtra-based B S Lone, was filed in the top court seeking an independent probe into Loya's death in 2014. Four senior-most apex court judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- at their January 12 press conference had questioned the manner in which sensitive cases were being allocated and Loya's case was one of them.

Judge Loya death case: SC likely to decide today on independent probe

The Congress on Thursday raised questions over the Supreme Court verdict rejecting a batch of pleas seeking a probe into the alleged mysterious death of judge B H Loya, saying it was a sad letter day&nbspin the country's history and pitched for a fair probe into the matter.

Attacking the BJP for accusing Congress president Rahul Gandhi's as being the invisible hand behind the petitions seeking the probe, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the allegations as a malicious attempt which showed the ruling party's jitteriness.&nbsp

It is a sad letter day in India's history. The suspicious circumstances in which Loya died, was a matter of deep concern for those who have faith in the judiciary. The copy of the entire judgment is not yet available. But there are still questions before those who believe in the judiciary, Surjewala told reporters in Delhi.

He raised 10 questions relating to the case as he criticised the verdict and noted that issue of criminality can be decided only through a probe, contending that no investigation was done into the death of Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.&nbsp

In this background, the BJP's attempt to make false capital out of the Supreme Court judgment must be condemned with strongest possible words, he added.

Surjewala also stressed that the Congress was not among the petitioners seeking a probe into the judge's death and recalled that the party had instead approached the people's court and approached President Ram Nath Kovind along with 14 other opposition parties.&nbsp

The BJP's attempt to misinterpret the Supreme Court judgement reflects their jitteriness and frustration. We reject and condemn the malicious attempts of the BJP to misinterpret the judgement for finger pointing, he said.

Earlier in the day, Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the apex court's verdict dismissing the pleas seeking an independent probe into Loya's death will raise more questions and leave many of them unanswered unless logical reasons were found in it.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said there was no reason to doubt the statements of four judges on the circumstances leading to the judge's death and the documents placed on record and their scrutiny established that the death was due to natural cause.

Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.&nbsp

Immediately after the court gave its verdict, the BJP mounted an attack on the Congress, alleging that the "invisible" hand behind the petitions was that of Gandhi who tried to use the judiciary for "character assassination" of its chief Amit Shah.

Attacking the BJP for accusing Congress president Rahul Gandhi's as being the invisible hand behind the petitions seeking the probe, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the allegations as a malicious attempt

The Congress on Thursday raised questions over the Supreme Court verdict rejecting a batch of pleas seeking a probe into the alleged mysterious death of judge B H Loya, saying it was a sad letter day&nbspin the country's history and pitched for a fair probe into the matter. Attacking the BJP for accusing Congress president Rahul Gandhi's as being the invisible hand behind the petitions seeking the probe, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala termed the allegations as a malicious attempt which showed the ruling party's jitteriness. It is a sad letter day in India's history. The suspicious circumstances in which Loya died, was a matter of deep concern for those who have faith in the judiciary. The copy of the entire judgment is not yet available. But there are still questions before those who believe in the judiciary, Surjewala told reporters in Delhi. He raised 10 questions relating to the case as he criticised the verdict and noted that issue of criminality can be decided only through a probe, contending that no investigation was done into the death of Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. In this background, the BJP's attempt to make false capital out of the Supreme Court judgment must be condemned with strongest possible words, he added. Surjewala also stressed that the Congress was not among the petitioners seeking a probe into the judge's death and recalled that the party had instead approached the people's court and approached President Ram Nath Kovind along with 14 other opposition parties. The BJP's attempt to misinterpret the Supreme Court judgement reflects their jitteriness and frustration. We reject and condemn the malicious attempts of the BJP to misinterpret the judgement for finger pointing, he said. Earlier in the day, Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the apex court's verdict dismissing the pleas seeking an independent probe into Loya's death will raise more questions and leave many of them unanswered unless logical reasons were found in it. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said there was no reason to doubt the statements of four judges on the circumstances leading to the judge's death and the documents placed on record and their scrutiny established that the death was due to natural cause. Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. Immediately after the court gave its verdict, the BJP mounted an attack on the Congress, alleging that the "invisible" hand behind the petitions was that of Gandhi who tried to use the judiciary for "character assassination" of its chief Amit Shah.

Sad letter day in India's history, fair probe needed into judge Loya's death: Congress on SC verdict

The BJP on Thursday&nbsplaunched a fierce attack on the Congress after the Supreme Court rejected petitions seeking probe into Judge B H Loya's death, and alleged the "invisible hand" behind the pleas was of Rahul Gandhi as part of "a conspiracy to finish the political career" of the ruling party chief Amit Shah.

Soon after the Supreme Court passed its order rejecting a batch of petitions in the Loya case, a number of senior BJP leaders blasted the Congress and Gandhi and sought his apology for what they described as an attempt to use the judiciary for a political battle aimed at "character assassination" of Shah.

The apex court said the judge died of natural causes while rejecting petitions that cast a cloud over reasons of his demise and sought an independent probe. Before his death in December 2014, Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case in which Shah was an accused. The BJP president was discharged later.

Addressing a press conference after the SC verdict, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the Congress and its chief Rahul Gandhi conspired to target BJP President Amit Shah as it believes that only one family had a right to rule the country"It was a conspiracy by the Congress and its chief Gandhi to finish the political career of BJP President Amit Shah, as part of which wrong accusations were made and an over 100-strong delegation was taken to the President," Prasad said.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh took to Twitter to say that the judiciary has sent a message that it cannot be misled by allegations based on political vendetta and claimed that several attempts have been made to target top BJP leaders through 'fake news'.

"The Supreme Court has also cautioned against the misuse of courts in political tug of war," Singh tweeted.

While Singh did not specifically name Congress or its chief, Prasad was unsparing in his attack on Gandhi and wondered if he wanted to enhance his party's political standing by seeking recourse to the corridors of courts by making them "a political battleground with politically-vested litigations".

Earlier in the day, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra told reporters that the public interest litigations (PILs) seeking a probe into Loya's death were like "political interest litigations".

Alleging that the "invisible hand" behind these petitions was of Gandhi and the Congress, Patra said the Congress chief should be "ashamed" for what he described as a conspiracy to target Shah, the Indian judiciary and the country's democracy.

"The Congress engages in all sorts of conspiracies after its ruling family loses power," Patra alleged and added that the attempt to use judiciary for political purposes was a "new low" in Indian politics.

The BJP leader further alleged that the pleas were filed to settle political scores as Congress was incapable of taking on Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the electoral field.&nbsp

The Union Minister said Gandhi should apologise as he had led a delegation of opposition MPs to the President and his party had held press conferences seeking a probe into the special CBI judge's death.

Loya had died of cardiac arrest, according to police investigation reports, in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

The issue of Loya's death came in spotlight in November last year after some media reports quoting his sister fuelled suspicion about circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case.

Quoting from the apex court's order, Prasad said the verdict answers all questions raised by the Congress as well as by the petitioners who acted as a "front" or were in close cooperation with the main opposition party.

He said the the plea was not in public interest but in the interest of the Congress and to damage the BJP and its chief.

Prasad said the party had kept quiet so far on the issue was it "wanted the law to take its own course".

"The Congress has been unmasked today," he said.

To a query about questions raised by the Congress following the order, he said some people accept the court's verdict only when it suits them but the decision of the Supreme Court is final.

Patra said it is a new low in the Indian politics as the Congress tried to politicise the judiciary.

Joining the attack on the Congress, Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said the party failed to ?destroy? the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and Shah, when it was in power at the Centre.

"Now in opposition, Congress was conspiring to defame the BJP's top leadership," he said.

"Today's judgement has demolished the Congress' attempts of hatching criminal conspiracy to destroy and defame our top leadership. The Congress, its president Shri Rahul Gandhi and Smt Sonia Gandhi should apologise for this sin," Naqvi told reporters.

In its order, the Supreme Court said the petitions seeking a probe into Judge Loya's death were a serious attempt to scandalise and obstruct the course of justice.

The top court dubbed the PILs into the death of judge Loya as frivolous and motivated litigations to settle political scores and rivalry were behind the "facade of the PIL" to malign the dignity of judicial officers and Bombay High Court judges.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh took to Twitter to say that the judiciary has sent a message that it cannot be misled by allegations based on political vendetta and claimed that several attempts have been made to target top BJP leaders through 'fake news'.

The BJP on Thursday&nbsplaunched a fierce attack on the Congress after the Supreme Court rejected petitions seeking probe into Judge B H Loya's death, and alleged the "invisible hand" behind the pleas was of Rahul Gandhi as part of "a conspiracy to finish the political career" of the ruling party chief Amit Shah. Soon after the Supreme Court passed its order rejecting a batch of petitions in the Loya case, a number of senior BJP leaders blasted the Congress and Gandhi and sought his apology for what they described as an attempt to use the judiciary for a political battle aimed at "character assassination" of Shah. The apex court said the judge died of natural causes while rejecting petitions that cast a cloud over reasons of his demise and sought an independent probe. Before his death in December 2014, Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case in which Shah was an accused. The BJP president was discharged later. Addressing a press conference after the SC verdict, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the Congress and its chief Rahul Gandhi conspired to target BJP President Amit Shah as it believes that only one family had a right to rule the country"It was a conspiracy by the Congress and its chief Gandhi to finish the political career of BJP President Amit Shah, as part of which wrong accusations were made and an over 100-strong delegation was taken to the President," Prasad said. Home Minister Rajnath Singh took to Twitter to say that the judiciary has sent a message that it cannot be misled by allegations based on political vendetta and claimed that several attempts have been made to target top BJP leaders through 'fake news'. "The Supreme Court has also cautioned against the misuse of courts in political tug of war," Singh tweeted. While Singh did not specifically name Congress or its chief, Prasad was unsparing in his attack on Gandhi and wondered if he wanted to enhance his party's political standing by seeking recourse to the corridors of courts by making them "a political battleground with politically-vested litigations". Earlier in the day, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra told reporters that the public interest litigations (PILs) seeking a probe into Loya's death were like "political interest litigations". Alleging that the "invisible hand" behind these petitions was of Gandhi and the Congress, Patra said the Congress chief should be "ashamed" for what he described as a conspiracy to target Shah, the Indian judiciary and the country's democracy. "The Congress engages in all sorts of conspiracies after its ruling family loses power," Patra alleged and added that the attempt to use judiciary for political purposes was a "new low" in Indian politics. The BJP leader further alleged that the pleas were filed to settle political scores as Congress was incapable of taking on Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the electoral field. The Union Minister said Gandhi should apologise as he had led a delegation of opposition MPs to the President and his party had held press conferences seeking a probe into the special CBI judge's death. Loya had died of cardiac arrest, according to police investigation reports, in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. The issue of Loya's death came in spotlight in November last year after some media reports quoting his sister fuelled suspicion about circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. Quoting from the apex court's order, Prasad said the verdict answers all questions raised by the Congress as well as by the petitioners who acted as a "front" or were in close cooperation with the main opposition party. He said the the plea was not in public interest but in the interest of the Congress and to damage the BJP and its chief. Prasad said the party had kept quiet so far on the issue was it "wanted the law to take its own course". "The Congress has been unmasked today," he said. To a query about questions raised by the Congress following the order, he said some people accept the court's verdict only when it suits them but the decision of the Supreme Court is final. Patra said it is a new low in the Indian politics as the Congress tried to politicise the judiciary. Joining the attack on the Congress, Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said the party failed to ?destroy? the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and Shah, when it was in power at the Centre. "Now in opposition, Congress was conspiring to defame the BJP's top leadership," he said. "Today's judgement has demolished the Congress' attempts of hatching criminal conspiracy to destroy and defame our top leadership. The Congress, its president Shri Rahul Gandhi and Smt Sonia Gandhi should apologise for this sin," Naqvi told reporters. In its order, the Supreme Court said the petitions seeking a probe into Judge Loya's death were a serious attempt to scandalise and obstruct the course of justice. The top court dubbed the PILs into the death of judge Loya as frivolous and motivated litigations to settle political scores and rivalry were behind the "facade of the PIL" to malign the dignity of judicial officers and Bombay High Court judges.

BJP sees Rahul's 'invisible hand' behind Loya death probe pleas, demands apology for 'conspiracy'

The brother of Justice BH Loya on Thursday said&nbsp;he was resigned to his fate after the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a SIT probe into the death of the judge.

"We have nothing to say... Whatever has happened, has happened. What can we do now?" said Srinivas Loya, who lives in Latur.

He said when the Supreme Court had not heeded noted lawyers like Prashant Bhushan, "then what is our standing? We are very small people.

"The best is we will not say anything on the matter now. How will it help? We can do nothing further... It`s futile," the anguished brother said.

Earlier in the day, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud said there was absolutely no merit in the petition and Judge Loya had met a natural death.

Judge Loya was conducting a trial in a case related to the killing of criminal Sohrabuddin Sheikh in which one of the accused was now BJP president Amit Shah, who was then Home Minister in Gujarat.

"We have nothing to say... Whatever has happened, has happened. What can we do now?" said Srinivas Loya, who lives in Latur.

The brother of Justice BH Loya on Thursday said he was resigned to his fate after the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a SIT probe into the death of the judge. "We have nothing to say... Whatever has happened, has happened. What can we do now?" said Srinivas Loya, who lives in Latur. He said when the Supreme Court had not heeded noted lawyers like Prashant Bhushan, "then what is our standing? We are very small people. "The best is we will not say anything on the matter now. How will it help? We can do nothing further... It`s futile," the anguished brother said. Earlier in the day, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud said there was absolutely no merit in the petition and Judge Loya had met a natural death. Judge Loya was conducting a trial in a case related to the killing of criminal Sohrabuddin Sheikh in which one of the accused was now BJP president Amit Shah, who was then Home Minister in Gujarat.

'We are very small people': Justice Loya's brother after SC rejects petitions for probe

Supreme Court on Thursday said that the sale of Sahara property has to be completed on or before May 15 and proceeds deposited in SEBI-Sahara refund account. &nbsp;

&nbsp;The court also allowed Sahara Group to sell properties in any parcel of its choice at the Aamby Valley City Project in Maharashtra.&nbsp;

The court further added that if Sahara Group fails to sell the Aamby Valley property, then Bombay HC official liquidator will proceed with the proposed auction.&nbsp;

Earlier the SC allowed the Official Liquidator of the Bombay High Court permission to split the Sahara group's prized Aamby Valley property into “saleable parcels” and put it up for sale.

SC&nbsp; also took strong objection to Sahara Group allegedly obstructing the auction of Aamby Valley and warned that anybody trying to impede it in future would be held guilty of contempt and sent to jail.

Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had moved a contempt plea against Sahara, claiming that the group obstructed the auction by writing a letter to Pune’s SP (Rural) raising the issue of law and order at the prime property.

On August 10, 2017, the apex court had rejected Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s plea to put on hold the auction process.

The court also allowed Sahara Group to sell properties in any parcel of its choice at the Aamby Valley City Project in Maharashtra.

Supreme Court on Thursday said that the sale of Sahara property has to be completed on or before May 15 and proceeds deposited in SEBI-Sahara refund account. The court also allowed Sahara Group to sell properties in any parcel of its choice at the Aamby Valley City Project in Maharashtra. The court further added that if Sahara Group fails to sell the Aamby Valley property, then Bombay HC official liquidator will proceed with the proposed auction. Earlier the SC allowed the Official Liquidator of the Bombay High Court permission to split the Sahara group's prized Aamby Valley property into “saleable parcels” and put it up for sale. SC also took strong objection to Sahara Group allegedly obstructing the auction of Aamby Valley and warned that anybody trying to impede it in future would be held guilty of contempt and sent to jail. Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had moved a contempt plea against Sahara, claiming that the group obstructed the auction by writing a letter to Pune’s SP (Rural) raising the issue of law and order at the prime property. On August 10, 2017, the apex court had rejected Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s plea to put on hold the auction process.

Sale of Sahara property has to be completed on or before May 15: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking an independent probe into the mysterious death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge B H Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case involving Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Amit Shah.&nbsp;

Loya had on December 1, 2014 died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur, where he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

Further, the apex court said that the submissions of the petitioners prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of court but that it was not initiating contempt proceedings.

Here’s what the Supreme Court said:

The Supreme Court said that attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court.

There is no reason to doubt statements of four judges on circumstances leading to the death of Loya and the documents placed on record and their scrutiny establishes that Loya’s death was due to natural cause, the bench said.

The apex court said frivolous and motivated litigation has been filed to settle political rivalry. The judges also discussed the increasing instances of misuse of public interest litigations and said the present petitions seemed to be a case in point.

The judgment said even two judges of the SC bench which heard the petitions were not spared by the petitioners. Serious attacks were also made on the credibility of two Bombay High Court judges.

The issue of Judge Loya’s death had come under the spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister had fuelled suspicion about circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. However, Loya’s son had on January 14 said in Mumbai that his father had died of natural causes.

SC dismisses PIL seeking an independent probe into the death of judge B H Loya in December 2014.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking an independent probe into the mysterious death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge B H Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case involving Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Amit Shah. Loya had on December 1, 2014 died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur, where he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. Further, the apex court said that the submissions of the petitioners prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of court but that it was not initiating contempt proceedings. Here’s what the Supreme Court said: The Supreme Court said that attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court. There is no reason to doubt statements of four judges on circumstances leading to the death of Loya and the documents placed on record and their scrutiny establishes that Loya’s death was due to natural cause, the bench said. The apex court said frivolous and motivated litigation has been filed to settle political rivalry. The judges also discussed the increasing instances of misuse of public interest litigations and said the present petitions seemed to be a case in point. The judgment said even two judges of the SC bench which heard the petitions were not spared by the petitioners. Serious attacks were also made on the credibility of two Bombay High Court judges. The issue of Judge Loya’s death had come under the spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister had fuelled suspicion about circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. However, Loya’s son had on January 14 said in Mumbai that his father had died of natural causes.

Supreme Court rules out probe into Judge Loya’s death: Key highlights of judgement

The Supreme Court website has reportedly been hacked. The reported hack&nbsp

The website, supremecourtofindia.nic.in, would not load Thursday.&nbsp

Instead, users who tried to access the website, said it showed up an image of a marijuana plant leaf.&nbsp

A caption on top of the leaf said "hackeado por HighTech Brazil HacTeam" which translates to "hacked by a high-tech Brazil hack team.&nbsp

A little later, the website would not load and instead said "This page isn’t working".&nbsp

The website is currently down.&nbsp

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Is it me or are others facing the same issue while accessing the Supreme Court website? <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@barandbench</a> <a href="https://t.co/MkfxzK7Fvo">pic.twitter.com/MkfxzK7Fvo</a>
— Chandan Goswami (@goswami_shiva) <a href="https://twitter.com/goswami_shiva/status/986865108994293760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 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

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Don't want to say justice is broken and all that after Loya, but this *is* what the Supreme Court website looks like right now <a href="https://t.co/rJfgzoLgnh">pic.twitter.com/rJfgzoLgnh</a>
— Rohan Venkataramakrishnan (@RohanV) <a href="https://twitter.com/RohanV/status/986854473866805248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court website hacked!! My god!! If institutional and ministerial websites cannot be protected by Modi Sarkar. 
How can they protect women and children?!!
— Brijesh Kalappa (@brijeshkalappa) <a href="https://twitter.com/brijeshkalappa/status/986854888779993089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 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 website, supremecourtofindia.nic.in, would not load Thursday. Instead, users who tried to access the website, said it showed up an image of a marijuana plant leaf.

The Supreme Court website has reportedly been hacked. The reported hack The website, supremecourtofindia.nic.in, would not load Thursday. Instead, users who tried to access the website, said it showed up an image of a marijuana plant leaf. A caption on top of the leaf said "hackeado por HighTech Brazil HacTeam" which translates to "hacked by a high-tech Brazil hack team. A little later, the website would not load and instead said "This page isn’t working". The website is currently down. Is it me or are others facing the same issue while accessing the Supreme Court website? @barandbench pic.twitter.com/MkfxzK7Fvo — Chandan Goswami (@goswami_shiva) April 19, 2018 × Don't want to say justice is broken and all that after Loya, but this *is* what the Supreme Court website looks like right now pic.twitter.com/rJfgzoLgnh — Rohan Venkataramakrishnan (@RohanV) April 19, 2018 × Supreme Court website hacked!! My god!! If institutional and ministerial websites cannot be protected by Modi Sarkar. How can they protect women and children?!! — Brijesh Kalappa (@brijeshkalappa) April 19, 2018 ×

Little after order on Judge Loya's death, Supreme Court website reportedly hacked

The Unique Identification Authority of India has made the startling claim that Google and smart card companies do not want the Aadhaar programme to succeed.&nbsp

The claim was made before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.&nbsp

News reports quoted Rakesh Dwivedi, the counsel appearing for the UIDAI, as saying that a campaign had been unelashed against Aadhaar.

Dwivedi told the Supreme Court that if the Aadhaar programme were to succeed —&nbsp should it turn into a foolproof way to authenticate someone's identity — the smart card companies&nbspwould go out of business. "Google does not want it. Smart card lobby does not want Aadhaar to succeed," he said.&nbsp

The Cambridge Analytica data leak controversy also found mention on Tuesday in the court, which red-flagged the threat of probable misuse of citizens' information by entities which were getting Aadhaar details authenticated by the UIDAI.&nbsp

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and enabling 2016 law, referred to the Cambridge Analytica controversy and said these are not "imaginary apprehensions" and, in the absence of robust data protection law, the issue of misuse of information becomes relevant.

"The real apprehension is that elections are swayed using data analytics. These problems are symptomatic of the world we live in," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.

"Please do not bring Cambridge Analytica into this. The UIDAI simply does not have the learning algorithms like Facebook, Google to analyse details of users," senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the Gujarat government, said.&nbsp

Besides the Aadhaar Act does not authorise any kind of data analysis, he said, adding the UIDAI has "simple matching algorithms" which give answers like 'yes' or 'no' after it receives a request for Aadhaar authentication from a requesting entity.

The bench, which posed several searching questions, asked the lawyer why the authorities were allowing private entities to use the Aadhaar platform for various purposes and referred to the legal provision to this effect.

"Why are words 'body corporate or any person' used in section 57 of the Act. It breaks the nexus of the Act with the Consolidated Fund of India... What is the point of involving private parties in the Aadhaar infrastructure," the bench asked.

Dwivedi responded by saying that "it does not allow any 'chaiwala' or a 'panwala' to become a requesting entity under the Act. It is a limited exercise. The UIDAI will not approve anyone to become an requesting entity (RE) unless it is satisfied that the particular entity needs to use facility of authentication."&nbsp

He also referred to private companies like Reliance venturing into the defence sector and said at some point in time, the court will have to decide the aspect where private firms were dealing with public functions of the state, which are currently being carried out by public sector companies.

Dwivedi also dealt with the persistent allegation that the people were being given a number identity as was done by dictator Adolf Hitler in Germany.&nbsp

"Hitler counted citizens to identify Jews, Christians etc. Here, we do not seek details like caste, creed and religion from the citizens," he said, adding that the history of numbers began in India and "numbers are beautiful and fascinating".

He also urged the bench not to give in to the "hyper phobia" against the Aadhaar created by the petitioners opposed to the "inclusive scheme" of the government based on a law and the proper infrastructure.&nbsp

(With inputs from PTI)

The counsel for the UIDAI told the court that should the Aadhaar programme succeed — should it turn into a foolproof way to authenticate someone's identity — the smart card companies would go out of business

The Unique Identification Authority of India has made the startling claim that Google and smart card companies do not want the Aadhaar programme to succeed. The claim was made before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. News reports quoted Rakesh Dwivedi, the counsel appearing for the UIDAI, as saying that a campaign had been unelashed against Aadhaar. Dwivedi told the Supreme Court that if the Aadhaar programme were to succeed — should it turn into a foolproof way to authenticate someone's identity — the smart card companies&nbspwould go out of business. "Google does not want it. Smart card lobby does not want Aadhaar to succeed," he said. The Cambridge Analytica data leak controversy also found mention on Tuesday in the court, which red-flagged the threat of probable misuse of citizens' information by entities which were getting Aadhaar details authenticated by the UIDAI. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and enabling 2016 law, referred to the Cambridge Analytica controversy and said these are not "imaginary apprehensions" and, in the absence of robust data protection law, the issue of misuse of information becomes relevant. "The real apprehension is that elections are swayed using data analytics. These problems are symptomatic of the world we live in," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said. "Please do not bring Cambridge Analytica into this. The UIDAI simply does not have the learning algorithms like Facebook, Google to analyse details of users," senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the Gujarat government, said. Besides the Aadhaar Act does not authorise any kind of data analysis, he said, adding the UIDAI has "simple matching algorithms" which give answers like 'yes' or 'no' after it receives a request for Aadhaar authentication from a requesting entity. The bench, which posed several searching questions, asked the lawyer why the authorities were allowing private entities to use the Aadhaar platform for various purposes and referred to the legal provision to this effect. "Why are words 'body corporate or any person' used in section 57 of the Act. It breaks the nexus of the Act with the Consolidated Fund of India... What is the point of involving private parties in the Aadhaar infrastructure," the bench asked. Dwivedi responded by saying that "it does not allow any 'chaiwala' or a 'panwala' to become a requesting entity under the Act. It is a limited exercise. The UIDAI will not approve anyone to become an requesting entity (RE) unless it is satisfied that the particular entity needs to use facility of authentication." He also referred to private companies like Reliance venturing into the defence sector and said at some point in time, the court will have to decide the aspect where private firms were dealing with public functions of the state, which are currently being carried out by public sector companies. Dwivedi also dealt with the persistent allegation that the people were being given a number identity as was done by dictator Adolf Hitler in Germany. "Hitler counted citizens to identify Jews, Christians etc. Here, we do not seek details like caste, creed and religion from the citizens," he said, adding that the history of numbers began in India and "numbers are beautiful and fascinating". He also urged the bench not to give in to the "hyper phobia" against the Aadhaar created by the petitioners opposed to the "inclusive scheme" of the government based on a law and the proper infrastructure. (With inputs from PTI)

Google, smart card companies do not want Aadhaar to succeed: UIDAI to Supreme Court

supreme-court

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

supreme court