A senior lawyer today told the Supreme Court that he was not allowed to open a fixed deposit account without the Aadhaar number while challenging the UIDAI for maintaining that authentication of the 12 digit unique national identifier was not required for every transaction.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, who represents former HC judge Justice (retd) K.S. Puttaswamy who is opposed to Aadhaar, countered the submission of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), that Aadhaar authentication was not required for all transactions.

"I do not have Aadhaar. I went to UCO bank branch in the Supreme Court for opening a fixed deposit account. I referred to the Supreme Court order. Still, they refused to open the account and insisted for Aadhaar," Divan told a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

The apex court, in its interim order, had said Aadhaar will not be required for availing various services like mobile and banking till it decides the petitions challenging the scheme.

Earlier, Dwivedi was labouring on the point that Aadhaar authentication was not required for every transaction and the fear of aggregation and collation of metadata was unfounded.

"For example, in case of PAN cards, it is once in a lifetime. For the sims, it is done only at the time of obtaining it. So, where is this multiplication of authentication from morning till evening coming from," Dwivedi said, adding, "realistically speaking, there is no trail of authentication from morning to evening. No real-time tracking is done"

Divan, on his part, referred to the power point presentation of the UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to drive home his point that authentication was needed every time if Aadhaar was used to withdraw money.&nbsp

The apex court, in its interim order, had said Aadhaar will not be required for availing various services like mobile and banking till it decides the petitions challenging the scheme.

A senior lawyer today told the Supreme Court that he was not allowed to open a fixed deposit account without the Aadhaar number while challenging the UIDAI for maintaining that authentication of the 12 digit unique national identifier was not required for every transaction. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, who represents former HC judge Justice (retd) K.S. Puttaswamy who is opposed to Aadhaar, countered the submission of senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), that Aadhaar authentication was not required for all transactions. "I do not have Aadhaar. I went to UCO bank branch in the Supreme Court for opening a fixed deposit account. I referred to the Supreme Court order. Still, they refused to open the account and insisted for Aadhaar," Divan told a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The apex court, in its interim order, had said Aadhaar will not be required for availing various services like mobile and banking till it decides the petitions challenging the scheme. Earlier, Dwivedi was labouring on the point that Aadhaar authentication was not required for every transaction and the fear of aggregation and collation of metadata was unfounded. "For example, in case of PAN cards, it is once in a lifetime. For the sims, it is done only at the time of obtaining it. So, where is this multiplication of authentication from morning till evening coming from," Dwivedi said, adding, "realistically speaking, there is no trail of authentication from morning to evening. No real-time tracking is done" Divan, on his part, referred to the power point presentation of the UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to drive home his point that authentication was needed every time if Aadhaar was used to withdraw money.

Lawyer counters UIDAI, tells Supreme Court can't open account without Aadhaar

The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment on the appeal filed by cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict convicting and sentencing him to three years in jail in a 1988 road rage case.

A bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments.&nbsp

Senior advocate R S Cheema, appearing for Sidhu, said that the evidence brought on record regarding the cause of death of the victim were "indefinite and contradictory".

He also said that the medical opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased, Gurnam Singh, was "vague".

The bench also reserved its verdict on the appeal filed by Rupinder Singh Sandhu, who along with Sidhu was sentenced to three years in jail by the high court in the case.

Sidhu, who had quit the BJP and joined the Congress days before the Punjab Assembly election last year, had earlier told the bench that the findings of the high court were based on "opinion" and not on medical evidence.

However, the Amarinder Singh government had on April 12 favoured in the top court the high court verdict convicting and awarding the three-year jail term to Sidhu, who is now Punjab's tourism minister.

The former cricketer had argued that there was "ambiguity" regarding the actual cause of death of Patiala resident Singh.&nbsp

The counsel for the state had earlier told the apex court: "The trial court verdict was rightly set aside by the High Court. Accused A1 (Navjot Singh Sidhu) had given fist blow to deceased Gurnam Singh leading to his death through brain hemorrhage."

The state had argued that the trial court was wrong in its findings that the man had died of cardiac arrest and not brain hemorrhage.

The counsel for the complainant had argued that Sidhu's sentence should be enhanced as it was a case of murder and the cricketer-turned-politician had deliberately removed the keys of the deceased's car so that he does not get medical assistance.

Sidhu was acquitted of the murder charges by the trial court in September 1999.

However, the high court had reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and co-accused Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in December, 2006. It had sentenced them to three-year jail and imposed a fine of Rs one lakh each on the two.

In 2007, the apex court had stayed the conviction of Sidhu and Sandhu in the case, paving the way for him to contest the by-poll for the Amritsar Lok Sabha seat.

As per prosecution case, Sidhu and Sandhu were allegedly present in a Gypsy parked near Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala on December 27, 1988, when Gurnam Singh, Jaswinder Singh and another person were going to the bank to withdraw money for a marriage.

It was alleged that when they reached the crossing, Gurnam Singh, driving a maruti car, found the Gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants, Sidhu and Sandhu, to remove the vehicle for their passage. This led to heated exchanges.

The police had claimed that Singh was beaten up by Sidhu who later fled the crime scene. The injured was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead.

Senior advocate R S Cheema, appearing for Sidhu, said that the evidence brought on record regarding the cause of death of the victim were 'indefinite and contradictory'

The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment on the appeal filed by cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict convicting and sentencing him to three years in jail in a 1988 road rage case. A bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments. Senior advocate R S Cheema, appearing for Sidhu, said that the evidence brought on record regarding the cause of death of the victim were "indefinite and contradictory". He also said that the medical opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased, Gurnam Singh, was "vague". The bench also reserved its verdict on the appeal filed by Rupinder Singh Sandhu, who along with Sidhu was sentenced to three years in jail by the high court in the case. Sidhu, who had quit the BJP and joined the Congress days before the Punjab Assembly election last year, had earlier told the bench that the findings of the high court were based on "opinion" and not on medical evidence. However, the Amarinder Singh government had on April 12 favoured in the top court the high court verdict convicting and awarding the three-year jail term to Sidhu, who is now Punjab's tourism minister. The former cricketer had argued that there was "ambiguity" regarding the actual cause of death of Patiala resident Singh. The counsel for the state had earlier told the apex court: "The trial court verdict was rightly set aside by the High Court. Accused A1 (Navjot Singh Sidhu) had given fist blow to deceased Gurnam Singh leading to his death through brain hemorrhage." The state had argued that the trial court was wrong in its findings that the man had died of cardiac arrest and not brain hemorrhage. The counsel for the complainant had argued that Sidhu's sentence should be enhanced as it was a case of murder and the cricketer-turned-politician had deliberately removed the keys of the deceased's car so that he does not get medical assistance. Sidhu was acquitted of the murder charges by the trial court in September 1999. However, the high court had reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and co-accused Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in December, 2006. It had sentenced them to three-year jail and imposed a fine of Rs one lakh each on the two. In 2007, the apex court had stayed the conviction of Sidhu and Sandhu in the case, paving the way for him to contest the by-poll for the Amritsar Lok Sabha seat. As per prosecution case, Sidhu and Sandhu were allegedly present in a Gypsy parked near Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala on December 27, 1988, when Gurnam Singh, Jaswinder Singh and another person were going to the bank to withdraw money for a marriage. It was alleged that when they reached the crossing, Gurnam Singh, driving a maruti car, found the Gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants, Sidhu and Sandhu, to remove the vehicle for their passage. This led to heated exchanges. The police had claimed that Singh was beaten up by Sidhu who later fled the crime scene. The injured was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead.

SC reserves verdict on Navjot Singh Sidhu's plea in 1988 road rage case

The Supreme Court on Friday took suo motu cognisance of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kathua-child-gang-rape-we-have-failed-her-as-humans-says-vk-singh-130083">Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua rape case</a>.

Taking notice&nbsp;of the lawyers who obstructed the counsel of eight-year-old rape victim, the apex court has sent a notice to the Bar Council of the Jammu and Kashmir for hampering the filing of the charge sheet against the accused involved in the case.

A group of Supreme Court lawyers had earlier requested a bench of judges to take suo&nbsp;motu&nbsp;cognisance of the brutal killing of the eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua. The bench included Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.

The apex court also sought a response from the bar association in connection with the obstruction of the judical proceedings in the rape case. The association has to submit the response by April 19.&nbsp;

On Monday a group of lawyers from one community prohibited the crime branch of the state police from registering a charge sheet against the accused in the rape and murder of the eight-year-old.

An eight-year-old child was allegedly&nbsp;gang-raped by six men who held her in captive in a small temple&nbsp;for several days in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua.The accused drugged her and repeatedly gang-raped&nbsp;her for days before finally killing&nbsp;her with a rock.

The apex court also sought a response from the bar association in connection with the obstruction of the judical proceedings in the rape case. The association has to submit the response by April 19

The Supreme Court on Friday took suo motu cognisance of the Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua rape case. Taking notice of the lawyers who obstructed the counsel of eight-year-old rape victim, the apex court has sent a notice to the Bar Council of the Jammu and Kashmir for hampering the filing of the charge sheet against the accused involved in the case. A group of Supreme Court lawyers had earlier requested a bench of judges to take suo motu cognisance of the brutal killing of the eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua. The bench included Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud. The apex court also sought a response from the bar association in connection with the obstruction of the judical proceedings in the rape case. The association has to submit the response by April 19. On Monday a group of lawyers from one community prohibited the crime branch of the state police from registering a charge sheet against the accused in the rape and murder of the eight-year-old. An eight-year-old child was allegedly gang-raped by six men who held her in captive in a small temple for several days in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua.The accused drugged her and repeatedly gang-raped her for days before finally killing her with a rock.

Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of Kathua rape case

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India.

A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in dealing with the PIL stating that the CJI cannot exercise arbitrary power in allocation of cases.

The petition was mentioned by Shanti Bhishan's son, advocate Prashant Bhushan, before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelaneswar, on Thursday but he had refused to hear the petition.

The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it.

"I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar had told Prashant Bhushan.

He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter.

"Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India. A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in dealing with the PIL stating that the CJI cannot exercise arbitrary power in allocation of cases. The petition was mentioned by Shanti Bhishan's son, advocate Prashant Bhushan, before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelaneswar, on Thursday but he had refused to hear the petition. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it. "I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar had told Prashant Bhushan. He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter. "Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea challenging allocation of cases by CJI

Supreme Court's senior-most judge, Justice J Chelameswar, on Thursday refused to hear a plea seeking to form guidelines on allocation of cases.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea filed by his father and former Union law minister Shanti Bhushan before Justice Chelameswar saying this was an emergency situation. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it.

"I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar said.

He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter.

"Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

The bench headed by CJI said, "We will look into it."

Justice Chelameswar's remarks came in the backdrop of two recent letters written by him and Justice Kurian Joseph over the affairs of the Supreme Court and alleged interference by the executive into judicial matters.

He said today that he had written a letter a few days ago to highlight affairs in the Supreme Court and in the country.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

Supreme Court's senior-most judge, Justice J Chelameswar, on Thursday refused to hear a plea seeking to form guidelines on allocation of cases. Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea filed by his father and former Union law minister Shanti Bhushan before Justice Chelameswar saying this was an emergency situation. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it. "I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar said. He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter. "Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously. The bench headed by CJI said, "We will look into it." Justice Chelameswar's remarks came in the backdrop of two recent letters written by him and Justice Kurian Joseph over the affairs of the Supreme Court and alleged interference by the executive into judicial matters. He said today that he had written a letter a few days ago to highlight affairs in the Supreme Court and in the country.

Justice Chelameswar refuses to hear plea against CJI's power as 'master of roster'

In a blow to Congress leader and Punjab minister&nbsp;Navjot Singh Sidhu, the Punjab government has sought his conviction in the 1988 road rage case.

The lawyer appearing for the Punjab government told the apex court that Sidhu's denial of his involvement in the case was false.&nbsp;

The state government has appealed the Supreme Court to uphold the earlier 3-year imprisonment given to him by Punjab and the Haryana High Court.&nbsp;

While the victim's family has appealed to the Supreme Court to enhance the three years of imprisonment.

The case dates back to a road rage case of December 27, 1988 when Sidhu's vehicle had allegedly hit a 65-year-old&nbsp;person.

Sidhu and his co-accused&nbsp;were initially tried for murder but a trial court later acquitted Sidhu in September 1999.

Sidhu was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2007.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
1988 road rage case involving Punjab Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu: Victim family has appealed to the Supreme Court that earlier imprisonment sentence of 3 years given by Punjab & Haryana HC should be enhanced. Punjab government has appealed to the SC to uphold 3-year imprisonment.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/984392642980143104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 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">
Punjab government seeks conviction of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Punjab?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Punjab</a> Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu in a road rage case. Lawyer appearing for the Punjab government told Supreme Court that the statement given by Sidhu denying his involvement in the case was false. (File pic) <a href="https://t.co/ELRMpwsZkA">pic.twitter.com/ELRMpwsZkA</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/984385459861237760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 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 lawyer appearing for the Punjab government told the apex court that Sidhu's denial of his involvement in the case was false

In a blow to Congress leader and Punjab minister Navjot Singh Sidhu, the Punjab government has sought his conviction in the 1988 road rage case. The lawyer appearing for the Punjab government told the apex court that Sidhu's denial of his involvement in the case was false. The state government has appealed the Supreme Court to uphold the earlier 3-year imprisonment given to him by Punjab and the Haryana High Court. While the victim's family has appealed to the Supreme Court to enhance the three years of imprisonment. The case dates back to a road rage case of December 27, 1988 when Sidhu's vehicle had allegedly hit a 65-year-old person. Sidhu and his co-accused were initially tried for murder but a trial court later acquitted Sidhu in September 1999. Sidhu was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1988 road rage case involving Punjab Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu: Victim family has appealed to the Supreme Court that earlier imprisonment sentence of 3 years given by Punjab & Haryana HC should be enhanced. Punjab government has appealed to the SC to uphold 3-year imprisonment. — ANI (@ANI) April 12, 2018 × Punjab government seeks conviction of #Punjab Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu in a road rage case. Lawyer appearing for the Punjab government told Supreme Court that the statement given by Sidhu denying his involvement in the case was false. (File pic) pic.twitter.com/ELRMpwsZkA — ANI (@ANI) April 12, 2018 ×

Punjab government seeks Navjot Singh Sidhu's conviction in 30-year-old road rage case

The government told the Supreme Court that verdict on SC/ST Act dealt with very sensitive issue causing anger, unease and sense of disharmony in the country.

"There is separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary and it is inviolable," the government told the top court.

The verdict, instead of filling gaps in the SC/ST Act, resorted to "judicial legislation", the&nbsp;Centre told the Supreme Court.

&nbsp;India's Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi filed written submission over the issue in India's highest court.

"It is submitted that the confusion created by this judgment may have to be corrected by reviewing the judgment and recalling the directions issued by this Honorable Court," the Centre told the Supreme Court.

"Bland statement that 'power to declare law carries with it, within the limits of duty, to make law when none exists' is wholly fallacious because we live under a written Constitution of which separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is the very basic structure and is inviolable," the government said.

Last month, the Supreme Court had said banning immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member was meant to protect innocents from arbitrary arrest and not an affront to Dalit rights.

"An innocent should not be punished. There should not be terror in society... We do not want any member of the SC/ST to be deprived of his rights. We only want an innocent not to be punished,” Justice Goel had said.

Justice Goel said the verdict had "fortified" the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989.

The judgement has done great damage to the country, the government told the court.

The judgement had directed authorities to conduct a "preliminary enquiry" and to file an FIR only after a Deputy Superintendent of Police verifies the report.

The Centre's submission came in the backdrop of several states being rocked by violence and clashes on April 2 following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's March 20 order, which claimed at least eight lives and injured hundreds.

India's Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi filed written submission over the issue in India's top court.

The government told the Supreme Court that verdict on SC/ST Act dealt with very sensitive issue causing anger, unease and sense of disharmony in the country. "There is separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary and it is inviolable," the government told the top court. The verdict, instead of filling gaps in the SC/ST Act, resorted to "judicial legislation", the Centre told the Supreme Court. India's Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi filed written submission over the issue in India's highest court. "It is submitted that the confusion created by this judgment may have to be corrected by reviewing the judgment and recalling the directions issued by this Honorable Court," the Centre told the Supreme Court. "Bland statement that 'power to declare law carries with it, within the limits of duty, to make law when none exists' is wholly fallacious because we live under a written Constitution of which separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is the very basic structure and is inviolable," the government said. Last month, the Supreme Court had said banning immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member was meant to protect innocents from arbitrary arrest and not an affront to Dalit rights. "An innocent should not be punished. There should not be terror in society... We do not want any member of the SC/ST to be deprived of his rights. We only want an innocent not to be punished,” Justice Goel had said. Justice Goel said the verdict had "fortified" the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989. The judgement has done great damage to the country, the government told the court. The judgement had directed authorities to conduct a "preliminary enquiry" and to file an FIR only after a Deputy Superintendent of Police verifies the report. The Centre's submission came in the backdrop of several states being rocked by violence and clashes on April 2 following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's March 20 order, which claimed at least eight lives and injured hundreds.

SC/SC Act verdict instead of filling gaps resorted to 'judicial legislation': Centre to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said today that the post of Chief Justice of India(CJI) is the top institution and he is the first to decide on matters related to allocation of cases and setting up of benches.

Responding to a petition, the apex court said that that CJI&nbsp;is the "first among equals".

Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgment for the bench, referred to constitutional schemes and said: "the Chief Justice of India is first among equals and has the authority to decide allocation of cases and setting up of benches".

The apex court's judgement came in response to a petition filed by a lawyer of the Allahabad High Court, Ashok Pande.

A bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud dismissed a PIL seeking framing of guidelines for rational and transparent allocation of cases and constitution of benches to hear them.

Since the CJI is a high constitutional functionary, there cannot be "any distrust about the responsibilities he discharges" to ensure that the Supreme Court to carries out the work required under the Constitution, the order stated.

The petition was filed following the January 12th press conference held by the four Supreme Court judges - &nbsp;Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph.&nbsp;The judges had alleged improper allocation of cases by the CJI.

The judges had held that rules should be framed for constituting benches and allocating jurisdiction to different bench&nbsp;in the Supreme Court and the High Court.

During the controversial press conference in January, Justice Chelameshwar had said democracy in this country would not survive without an institution as important as the Supreme Court, and a free judiciary.&nbsp;

"We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution," the judges had said.

The Supreme Court of India has directed that the Chief Justice of India is at the top of the institution and is the first to decide on matters related to allocation of cases and setting up of benches

The Supreme Court said today that the post of Chief Justice of India(CJI) is the top institution and he is the first to decide on matters related to allocation of cases and setting up of benches. Responding to a petition, the apex court said that that CJI is the "first among equals". Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgment for the bench, referred to constitutional schemes and said: "the Chief Justice of India is first among equals and has the authority to decide allocation of cases and setting up of benches". The apex court's judgement came in response to a petition filed by a lawyer of the Allahabad High Court, Ashok Pande. A bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud dismissed a PIL seeking framing of guidelines for rational and transparent allocation of cases and constitution of benches to hear them. Since the CJI is a high constitutional functionary, there cannot be "any distrust about the responsibilities he discharges" to ensure that the Supreme Court to carries out the work required under the Constitution, the order stated. The petition was filed following the January 12th press conference held by the four Supreme Court judges - Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph. The judges had alleged improper allocation of cases by the CJI. The judges had held that rules should be framed for constituting benches and allocating jurisdiction to different bench in the Supreme Court and the High Court. During the controversial press conference in January, Justice Chelameshwar had said democracy in this country would not survive without an institution as important as the Supreme Court, and a free judiciary. "We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution," the judges had said.

Chief Justice of India is first among equals: Supreme Court

Supreme Court today acted on a plea filed by a 26-year-old woman that sought to make consent of a couple mandatory before the marriage takes place under the Hindu Marriage Act.&nbsp;

The plea noted that both the boy as well as the girl should willfully agree to proceed with the marriage before the ceremony.&nbsp;

The apex court today issued a notice to the Karnataka government and the Central government after hearing the plea.&nbsp;The Court added that it won't interfere to issue a declaration separately.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court today issued notice to Karnataka and Union of India after hearing a 26 year-old woman's plea seeking protection and direction for making prior consent of a boy & girl mandatory before marriage under Hindu Marriage Act
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/983996716285382656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The plea was filed by the daughter of a Karnataka politician. She fled after her wedding ceremony as she did not approve of the marriage.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court also asked the police to give protection to the woman.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court also asked the police to give protection to the woman, the daughter of a Karnataka politician, who fled after her wedding ceremony as she did not approve of the marriage
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/983996718864912385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said that it would treat the petition as a habeas corpus plea.&nbsp;

The constitutionality of certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act will not be dealt with.&nbsp;

The plea was filed by the daughter of a Karnataka politician. She fled after her wedding ceremony as she did not approve of the marriage

Supreme Court today acted on a plea filed by a 26-year-old woman that sought to make consent of a couple mandatory before the marriage takes place under the Hindu Marriage Act. The plea noted that both the boy as well as the girl should willfully agree to proceed with the marriage before the ceremony. The apex court today issued a notice to the Karnataka government and the Central government after hearing the plea. The Court added that it won't interfere to issue a declaration separately. Supreme Court today issued notice to Karnataka and Union of India after hearing a 26 year-old woman's plea seeking protection and direction for making prior consent of a boy & girl mandatory before marriage under Hindu Marriage Act — ANI (@ANI) April 11, 2018 × The plea was filed by the daughter of a Karnataka politician. She fled after her wedding ceremony as she did not approve of the marriage. The Supreme Court also asked the police to give protection to the woman. Supreme Court also asked the police to give protection to the woman, the daughter of a Karnataka politician, who fled after her wedding ceremony as she did not approve of the marriage — ANI (@ANI) April 11, 2018 × A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said that it would treat the petition as a habeas corpus plea. The constitutionality of certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act will not be dealt with.

Make consent of boy and girl mandatory before marriage: Plea in Supreme Court

"We are being befooled by the executive", was how a "frustrated" Supreme Court said on Tuesday while ruing the fact that around Rs one lakh crore worth of funds meant to protect the environment and benefit the people, was being diverted for other purposes.

Severely criticising the government, the apex court observed that it had "trusted" the executive, but the authorities do not work. And when the court says something, it is said that there is "judicial overreach and activism".

A bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, made it clear that this huge amount of money, collected under various funds created on the apex court's orders for the protection of the environment, was to be used only for environmental purposes and benefit of the people.

"It is very clear that the amount was used for purposes, other than what it was entrusted. How far you want the court to go? We trusted the executive but they say they will do whatever they want," the bench said.

"First, we have to catch them that you have diverted the money and betrayed the trust. Are we policemen or investigating officers? We are not talking about a small amount," the bench said, adding, "It is very, very frustrating".

It said around Rs 11,700 crore was there in the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), which was created under the top court's order, and the total amount lying in all such funds would come to around Rs one lakh crore.

However, one of the lawyers told the court that around Rs 11,000 crore from CAMPA was already spent and the total amount in it would be around Rs 50,000 crore.

"What we are supposed to do? You people do not work. It is completely beyond imagination," the bench observed, adding, "when we say, it is said there is judicial overreach and judicial activism. We are being befooled by the executive".

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ANS Nadkarni, appearing for ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF&CC), said the court should tell the Union of India as to where and how these funds should be used and where it cannot be used.

"It (money) cannot be used for civic or municipal purposes," he said.

The bench noted that there was around Rs 90,000 to Rs one lakh crore money which was lying with the Centre and the states under various heads consequent to the court orders and directed the secretary of MoEF&CC to make a compilation of all the funds, amounts lying in it as on March 31 this year.

"Secretary of the MoEF&CC is further directed to give us some indication as to how the amount of Rs one lakh crore is intended to be utilised and areas where it should not be utilised," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on May 9.

The issue of usage of these funds for other purposes cropped up when the apex court perused an affidavit filed by the chief secretary of Odisha and observed that the money was being used for the construction of roads, renovation of bus stands and science laboratory in colleges.

"This money is meant for the benefit of the people. It is to be utilised for that only and not as a part of your governance," the court told the counsel representing Odisha.

"It is part of your job as a state. Construction of roads and installing streetlight is your job as a state. People's funds cannot be used for it. Your total expenditure for social cause is not even five per cent," the bench said, adding, "we cannot permit you to do this. This money is for benefit of people and not for benefit of the government".

An advocate, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter, said the money collected under these funds were to be used for welfare of tribals in Odisha.

The court allowed the request of Odisha's counsel for three weeks time to file further details and asked its chief secretary to remain present before it on the next date of hearing.

The bench also perused the affidavit filed by Meghalaya and pulled up the state for keeping the funds meant for the welfare of the people only in the bank.

It also took exception to the fact that Meghalaya's affidavit did not even clearly mention how much amount collected under these funds was lying in the banks and observed, "it is too much".

"This is turning out to be a joke," the bench said and termed it a "very badly drafted" affidavit.&nbsp

It granted four weeks to Meghalaya to file a better affidavit and asked the chief secretary of the state to remain present before it on the next date of hearing.&nbsp

The court was also informed that Rs 1,301 crore amount has been collected in Delhi under the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC), which the apex court had earlier imposed on commercial vehicles entering Delhi in addition to the toll tax, and another Rs 70.5 crore was collected and lying with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the cent cess levied on the vehicles having engine capacity of more than 2,000 cc.&nbsp

The bench asked the Delhi government and MoEF&CC to apprise it as to how this money would be utilised.

The court was hearing a PIL filed in 1985 by environmentalist M C Mehta who had raised the issue of air pollution in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR).&nbsp

Severely criticising the government, the apex court observed that it had "trusted" the executive, but the authorities do not work.

"We are being befooled by the executive", was how a "frustrated" Supreme Court said on Tuesday while ruing the fact that around Rs one lakh crore worth of funds meant to protect the environment and benefit the people, was being diverted for other purposes. Severely criticising the government, the apex court observed that it had "trusted" the executive, but the authorities do not work. And when the court says something, it is said that there is "judicial overreach and activism". A bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, made it clear that this huge amount of money, collected under various funds created on the apex court's orders for the protection of the environment, was to be used only for environmental purposes and benefit of the people. "It is very clear that the amount was used for purposes, other than what it was entrusted. How far you want the court to go? We trusted the executive but they say they will do whatever they want," the bench said. "First, we have to catch them that you have diverted the money and betrayed the trust. Are we policemen or investigating officers? We are not talking about a small amount," the bench said, adding, "It is very, very frustrating". It said around Rs 11,700 crore was there in the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), which was created under the top court's order, and the total amount lying in all such funds would come to around Rs one lakh crore. However, one of the lawyers told the court that around Rs 11,000 crore from CAMPA was already spent and the total amount in it would be around Rs 50,000 crore. "What we are supposed to do? You people do not work. It is completely beyond imagination," the bench observed, adding, "when we say, it is said there is judicial overreach and judicial activism. We are being befooled by the executive". Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ANS Nadkarni, appearing for ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF&CC), said the court should tell the Union of India as to where and how these funds should be used and where it cannot be used. "It (money) cannot be used for civic or municipal purposes," he said. The bench noted that there was around Rs 90,000 to Rs one lakh crore money which was lying with the Centre and the states under various heads consequent to the court orders and directed the secretary of MoEF&CC to make a compilation of all the funds, amounts lying in it as on March 31 this year. "Secretary of the MoEF&CC is further directed to give us some indication as to how the amount of Rs one lakh crore is intended to be utilised and areas where it should not be utilised," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on May 9. The issue of usage of these funds for other purposes cropped up when the apex court perused an affidavit filed by the chief secretary of Odisha and observed that the money was being used for the construction of roads, renovation of bus stands and science laboratory in colleges. "This money is meant for the benefit of the people. It is to be utilised for that only and not as a part of your governance," the court told the counsel representing Odisha. "It is part of your job as a state. Construction of roads and installing streetlight is your job as a state. People's funds cannot be used for it. Your total expenditure for social cause is not even five per cent," the bench said, adding, "we cannot permit you to do this. This money is for benefit of people and not for benefit of the government". An advocate, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter, said the money collected under these funds were to be used for welfare of tribals in Odisha. The court allowed the request of Odisha's counsel for three weeks time to file further details and asked its chief secretary to remain present before it on the next date of hearing. The bench also perused the affidavit filed by Meghalaya and pulled up the state for keeping the funds meant for the welfare of the people only in the bank. It also took exception to the fact that Meghalaya's affidavit did not even clearly mention how much amount collected under these funds was lying in the banks and observed, "it is too much". "This is turning out to be a joke," the bench said and termed it a "very badly drafted" affidavit. It granted four weeks to Meghalaya to file a better affidavit and asked the chief secretary of the state to remain present before it on the next date of hearing. The court was also informed that Rs 1,301 crore amount has been collected in Delhi under the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC), which the apex court had earlier imposed on commercial vehicles entering Delhi in addition to the toll tax, and another Rs 70.5 crore was collected and lying with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the cent cess levied on the vehicles having engine capacity of more than 2,000 cc. The bench asked the Delhi government and MoEF&CC to apprise it as to how this money would be utilised. The court was hearing a PIL filed in 1985 by environmentalist M C Mehta who had raised the issue of air pollution in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR).

We are being ‘befooled’ by executive: ‘Frustrated’ SC on diversion of funds meant for protecting environment

Stressing on the need to bring more transparency in the appointment process of Supreme Court judges, Justice J Chelameswar on Monday said the elevation of the High Court judge to the apex court is done on their impression rather than on their performance.

Speaking during a panel discussion titled 'The Indian Higher Judiciary: Issues and Prospects', the apex court judge said the one responsible for the selection process must put "assessment on record", which would "eliminate most of the problems".

"An assessment of the performance of a high court judge, I am talking about elevation to the Supreme Court, is hardly done. Generally, the assessment goes by impression," Justice Chelameswar said.

During the discussion, Justice Chelameswar, while speaking on reforms required in the apex court, said if it happens then as the sanctioned strength of the top court is 31 judges, each state will stake its claim for a seat.

"The SC today has a sanctioned strength of 31. The moment Supreme Court with 31 judges is created, the first thing that happens in this country is every state believes it is entitled to a seat in the top court," he said.

Stressing on the need to bring more transparency in the appointment process of Supreme Court judges, Justice J Chelameswar on Monday said the elevation of the High Court judge to the apex court is done on their impression rather than on their performance

Stressing on the need to bring more transparency in the appointment process of Supreme Court judges, Justice J Chelameswar on Monday said the elevation of the High Court judge to the apex court is done on their impression rather than on their performance. Speaking during a panel discussion titled 'The Indian Higher Judiciary: Issues and Prospects', the apex court judge said the one responsible for the selection process must put "assessment on record", which would "eliminate most of the problems". "An assessment of the performance of a high court judge, I am talking about elevation to the Supreme Court, is hardly done. Generally, the assessment goes by impression," Justice Chelameswar said. During the discussion, Justice Chelameswar, while speaking on reforms required in the apex court, said if it happens then as the sanctioned strength of the top court is 31 judges, each state will stake its claim for a seat. "The SC today has a sanctioned strength of 31. The moment Supreme Court with 31 judges is created, the first thing that happens in this country is every state believes it is entitled to a seat in the top court," he said.

SC judges appointed on impression, not performance: Justice Chelameswar

The Supreme Court on made it clear that it cannot monitor the ongoing probe into the over Rs 11,000 crore Punjab National Bank fraud case and said it would first decide whether a PIL seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into the scam was maintainable or not.

The Centre, on its part, sought dismissal of the PIL from the top court by submitting that agencies such as the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and Income Tax (IT) department were conducting the probe independently.

“We cannot monitor. They (Centre) say that so many steps have been taken,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

“We will hear the petition on maintainability first,” the bench said when J H Dhanda, counsel for PIL petitioner Vineet Dhanda, sought issuance of notice to the Centre and others. Dhanda claimed that accused like billionaire jewellers Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi had committed fraud and fled and “the whole country was watching that the government had not done anything” in the past in a similar case relating to Vijay Mallya.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, representing the Centre, said agencies have been carrying out probe “independently” and taking steps like conducting raids and confiscating properties of accused and there was no need for judicial intervention.

Venugopal submitted that the prayers made in the petition were impractical and hence, not manageable by “judicially standards”. Moreover, there were laws to deal with such cases. The court considered Venugopal’s submissions and fixed the PIL on April 23 to decide whether it was maintainable or not.

Earlier, the apex court had said the government must get a free hand to probe the PNB fraud case, allegedly involving Nirav Modi and others. It had said the court would step in only when agencies fail to carry out the probe properly. The PIL has made Punjab National Bank, Reserve Bank of India and the Ministries of Finance and Law and Justice as parties. It has sought a direction for initiation of deportation proceedings against Nirav Modi and others allegedly involved in the banking fraud, preferably within two months.

It has sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the banking fraud, besides a probe into the role of the top management of the Punjab National Bank (PNB).

The CBI has already registered two FIRs — one on January 31 and another in March against Nirav Modi, his relative Mehul Choksi of Gitanjali Gems and others for allegedly defrauding the PNB of about Rs 11,400 crore. The plea has sought a direction to the Finance Ministry to frame guidelines on the grant and disbursal of loans involving big amounts, besides ensuring safety and recovery of such loans.

It has also sought the setting up of an experts’ body to deal with cases of bad bank debts in the country, besides framing of rules for recovery of loans from the defaulters within a stipulated period, even by attaching their properties and auctioning them in the open market.

In his PIL, Dhanda has asked for a direction to fasten liabilities on the employees of a bank for sanctioning loans on the basis of deficient documents and said loans should also be recovered by attaching the properties of such bank officials even after their retirement.

Another plea filed by advocate M L Sharma on a similar issue would be taken up on April 27. Sharma, in his plea, has contended that the SIT should consist of retired judges of the apex court and said the banking fraud had caused serious injury to the public and the state’s treasury. It should be investigated not by an agency “being controlled by the political leaders/authorities”, he has said. His plea has alleged that loans were issued in the case without following RBI’s financial rules and regular systems.

"We cannot monitor. They (Centre) say that so many steps have been taken," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

The Supreme Court on made it clear that it cannot monitor the ongoing probe into the over Rs 11,000 crore Punjab National Bank fraud case and said it would first decide whether a PIL seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into the scam was maintainable or not. The Centre, on its part, sought dismissal of the PIL from the top court by submitting that agencies such as the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and Income Tax (IT) department were conducting the probe independently. “We cannot monitor. They (Centre) say that so many steps have been taken,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said. “We will hear the petition on maintainability first,” the bench said when J H Dhanda, counsel for PIL petitioner Vineet Dhanda, sought issuance of notice to the Centre and others. Dhanda claimed that accused like billionaire jewellers Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi had committed fraud and fled and “the whole country was watching that the government had not done anything” in the past in a similar case relating to Vijay Mallya. Attorney General K K Venugopal, representing the Centre, said agencies have been carrying out probe “independently” and taking steps like conducting raids and confiscating properties of accused and there was no need for judicial intervention. Venugopal submitted that the prayers made in the petition were impractical and hence, not manageable by “judicially standards”. Moreover, there were laws to deal with such cases. The court considered Venugopal’s submissions and fixed the PIL on April 23 to decide whether it was maintainable or not. Earlier, the apex court had said the government must get a free hand to probe the PNB fraud case, allegedly involving Nirav Modi and others. It had said the court would step in only when agencies fail to carry out the probe properly. The PIL has made Punjab National Bank, Reserve Bank of India and the Ministries of Finance and Law and Justice as parties. It has sought a direction for initiation of deportation proceedings against Nirav Modi and others allegedly involved in the banking fraud, preferably within two months. It has sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the banking fraud, besides a probe into the role of the top management of the Punjab National Bank (PNB). The CBI has already registered two FIRs — one on January 31 and another in March against Nirav Modi, his relative Mehul Choksi of Gitanjali Gems and others for allegedly defrauding the PNB of about Rs 11,400 crore. The plea has sought a direction to the Finance Ministry to frame guidelines on the grant and disbursal of loans involving big amounts, besides ensuring safety and recovery of such loans. It has also sought the setting up of an experts’ body to deal with cases of bad bank debts in the country, besides framing of rules for recovery of loans from the defaulters within a stipulated period, even by attaching their properties and auctioning them in the open market. In his PIL, Dhanda has asked for a direction to fasten liabilities on the employees of a bank for sanctioning loans on the basis of deficient documents and said loans should also be recovered by attaching the properties of such bank officials even after their retirement. Another plea filed by advocate M L Sharma on a similar issue would be taken up on April 27. Sharma, in his plea, has contended that the SIT should consist of retired judges of the apex court and said the banking fraud had caused serious injury to the public and the state’s treasury. It should be investigated not by an agency “being controlled by the political leaders/authorities”, he has said. His plea has alleged that loans were issued in the case without following RBI’s financial rules and regular systems.

Can’t monitor PNB fraud probe; will decide on PIL’s maintainability: Supreme Court

Rohingya refugees living in India are waiting in hope of positive verdict as Supreme Court will take up the Deportation of Rohingya case for final disposal.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the case.

Last year in August, Central government announced to deport Rohingya refugees who migrated to India after escaping from Myanmar following the&nbsp;violence and discrimination against the community.

According to reports over 40,000 refugees have moved to India and got settled in areas of Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.

The center stated that refugees moving to India would create a threat to the country's security as seeing the rise of terrorism in last&nbsp;decade, illegal migrants living in the country are more prone to recruitment by terrorist organisation.&nbsp;

After the center's case, a batch of petitions was filed by several Rohingya migrants challenging&nbsp;center.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-not-ready-for-return-of-rohingya-refugees-un-official-129093">Also read: Myanmar not ready for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-not-ready-for-return-of-rohingya-refugees-un-official-129093">return</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-not-ready-for-return-of-rohingya-refugees-un-official-129093"> of Rohingya refugees says UN official</a>

Advocate Prashant Bhushan is fighting Rohingya case in the court who has argued that Rohingya migrants should also be allowed to stay in India on the same terms as Sri Lankan refugees live in the country.

There were also reports alleging that Rohingya migrants are being denied services like healthcare and education. 
&nbsp; 
Advocate Tushar Mehta is representing center against the petitioners.

Meanwhile, the Centre has also questioned the credentials of the petitioners seeking to block the deportation saying that the genesis of the PILs threatens to change the country's demography and destabilise it.

More than 600,000 refugees are languishing in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing a brutal Myanmar army campaign launched in August last year.

The United Nations had said the scorched-earth operation, which has left hundreds of villages burned to ash in Rakhine state, amounts to 'ethnic cleansing'.&nbsp;

Also read: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/rohingya-crisis-un-security-council-to-visit-myanmar-bangladesh-this-month--127974">UN Security Council to visit Myanmar, Bangladesh this month</a>

(With inputs from ANI)

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the case

Rohingya refugees living in India are waiting in hope of positive verdict as Supreme Court will take up the Deportation of Rohingya case for final disposal. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the case. Last year in August, Central government announced to deport Rohingya refugees who migrated to India after escaping from Myanmar following the violence and discrimination against the community. According to reports over 40,000 refugees have moved to India and got settled in areas of Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. The center stated that refugees moving to India would create a threat to the country's security as seeing the rise of terrorism in last decade, illegal migrants living in the country are more prone to recruitment by terrorist organisation. After the center's case, a batch of petitions was filed by several Rohingya migrants challenging center. Also read: Myanmar not ready for return of Rohingya refugees says UN official Advocate Prashant Bhushan is fighting Rohingya case in the court who has argued that Rohingya migrants should also be allowed to stay in India on the same terms as Sri Lankan refugees live in the country. There were also reports alleging that Rohingya migrants are being denied services like healthcare and education. Advocate Tushar Mehta is representing center against the petitioners. Meanwhile, the Centre has also questioned the credentials of the petitioners seeking to block the deportation saying that the genesis of the PILs threatens to change the country's demography and destabilise it. More than 600,000 refugees are languishing in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing a brutal Myanmar army campaign launched in August last year. The United Nations had said the scorched-earth operation, which has left hundreds of villages burned to ash in Rakhine state, amounts to 'ethnic cleansing'. Also read: UN Security Council to visit Myanmar, Bangladesh this month (With inputs from ANI)

Supreme Court verdict on Rohingya case likely today

The Supreme Court today extended the interim protection from arrest and transit anticipatory bail granted to activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband by the Bombay High Court from May 2 to May 31 in the fund embezzlement case lodged by the Gujarat police.

The top court, however, asked Teesta and her husband, Javed Anand, to seek anticipatory bail from the competent forum in Gujarat. A bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph said if a remedy is sought by Teesta and her husband then the concerned court should decide the matter on merit.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, said the Bombay High Court had passed a blatantly illegal order and transit anticipatory bail should not have been granted. Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for Teesta and her husband, said the HC was right in granting transit bail as the alleged offence pertains to an educational project in Maharashtra.

He said in this case, the HC had jurisdiction to issue the transitory bail. The bench, which also comprised Justices Navin Sinha and M M Shantanagoudar, however, observed it is a settled law that where the FIR is lodged, the jurisdiction lies with the concerned court of that state. On April 5, the Bombay High Court had ordered social activists Teesta Setalvad and her associate Javed Anand should not be arrested till May 2 in a criminal case lodged against them by the Gujarat police for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The case was registered by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch on a complaint accusing Setalvad and Anand of “fraudulently” securing grants of Rs 1.4 crore from the union government through their NGO Sabrang Trust between 2008 and 2013.

As per the Gujarat police, the funds had been ostensibly obtained to help the victims of the 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots but were misappropriated or used for other purposes. The complaint was registered under sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was registered by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch on a complaint accusing Teesta Setalvad and her husband Anand of "fraudulently" securing grants of Rs 1.4 crore from the union government through their NGO Sabrang Trust between 2008 and 2013.

The Supreme Court today extended the interim protection from arrest and transit anticipatory bail granted to activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband by the Bombay High Court from May 2 to May 31 in the fund embezzlement case lodged by the Gujarat police. The top court, however, asked Teesta and her husband, Javed Anand, to seek anticipatory bail from the competent forum in Gujarat. A bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph said if a remedy is sought by Teesta and her husband then the concerned court should decide the matter on merit. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, said the Bombay High Court had passed a blatantly illegal order and transit anticipatory bail should not have been granted. Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for Teesta and her husband, said the HC was right in granting transit bail as the alleged offence pertains to an educational project in Maharashtra. He said in this case, the HC had jurisdiction to issue the transitory bail. The bench, which also comprised Justices Navin Sinha and M M Shantanagoudar, however, observed it is a settled law that where the FIR is lodged, the jurisdiction lies with the concerned court of that state. On April 5, the Bombay High Court had ordered social activists Teesta Setalvad and her associate Javed Anand should not be arrested till May 2 in a criminal case lodged against them by the Gujarat police for alleged misappropriation of funds. The case was registered by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch on a complaint accusing Setalvad and Anand of “fraudulently” securing grants of Rs 1.4 crore from the union government through their NGO Sabrang Trust between 2008 and 2013. As per the Gujarat police, the funds had been ostensibly obtained to help the victims of the 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots but were misappropriated or used for other purposes. The complaint was registered under sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) of the Indian Penal Code.

No arrest of Teesta Setalvad in fund embezzlement case till May 31: Supreme Court

Dalit organisations staging fresh protests and called for a strike in Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, on Monday over alleged&nbsp;dilusion of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.&nbsp;

The strike call&nbsp;was called by 30 Dalit organisations, reports said. It was also reported that the protestors blocked vehicles and shutdown shops, Dalit activists are laying siege on road at Thiruvananthapuram.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Police arrested Dalit activist and Aadivasi Gothra Mahasabha leader Geethanandan and held 15 others as well for allegedly blocking vehicles at Kochi.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/scheduled-caste-and-scheduled-tribe-act-why-the-dalits-are-protesting-127874">Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act: Why the Dalits are protesting</a>

Police have beefed up security across the state with reports of violence expected as&nbsp;a result of the strike-call. Kerala Vypari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samiti refused to support the strike&nbsp;and announced shops will be open on Monday, reports said.

<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/Kerala?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kerala</a>: Members of Dalit community organisations stage protest in Thiruvananthapuram over SC/ST Act issue. <a href="https://t.co/WstiaLqCmA">pic.twitter.com/WstiaLqCmA</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/983181439738015744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/-dalit-community-being-tortured-during-bharat-bandh-bjp-lawmaker-udit-raj-129068">Dalit community being 'tortured' after Bharat Bandh: BJP lawmaker Udit Raj</a>

As the Dalit agitation continued on Sunday, Congress leader Nitin Raut said Dalits, who are "angry" with the NDA government, will play a key role in deciding the country's next prime minister a year down the line.

Newly-appointed chairman of the Congress' SC department Raut said Dalit youth will get attracted to Gandhi's leadership for a positive future than other non-BJP/NDA leaders, including those representing the community.

Prime Minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/modi-reaches-out-to-dalit-community-says-no-one-respected-ambedkar-the-way-our-govt-has-128296">Narendra Modi </a>on April 4 had said no regime had honoured B R Ambedkar as his government had.

Modi's remarks come soon after widespread protests, some turning violent, in different parts of the country over a Supreme Court verdict putting in place safeguards to prevent misuse of a law to prevent atrocities of SCs and STs.

The violence swept across north India, with Dalits protesting against a recent Supreme Court order on the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Supreme Court order bans the automatic arrest and filing of cases against people accused under the act.

Dalits have been protesting against a recent Supreme Court order on the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Dalit organisations staging fresh protests and called for a strike in Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, on Monday over alleged dilusion of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The strike call was called by 30 Dalit organisations, reports said. It was also reported that the protestors blocked vehicles and shutdown shops, Dalit activists are laying siege on road at Thiruvananthapuram. Meanwhile, Police arrested Dalit activist and Aadivasi Gothra Mahasabha leader Geethanandan and held 15 others as well for allegedly blocking vehicles at Kochi. Also read: Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act: Why the Dalits are protesting Police have beefed up security across the state with reports of violence expected as a result of the strike-call. Kerala Vypari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samiti refused to support the strike and announced shops will be open on Monday, reports said. #Kerala: Members of Dalit community organisations stage protest in Thiruvananthapuram over SC/ST Act issue. pic.twitter.com/WstiaLqCmA — ANI (@ANI) April 9, 2018 × Also read: Dalit community being 'tortured' after Bharat Bandh: BJP lawmaker Udit Raj As the Dalit agitation continued on Sunday, Congress leader Nitin Raut said Dalits, who are "angry" with the NDA government, will play a key role in deciding the country's next prime minister a year down the line. Newly-appointed chairman of the Congress' SC department Raut said Dalit youth will get attracted to Gandhi's leadership for a positive future than other non-BJP/NDA leaders, including those representing the community. Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 4 had said no regime had honoured B R Ambedkar as his government had. Modi's remarks come soon after widespread protests, some turning violent, in different parts of the country over a Supreme Court verdict putting in place safeguards to prevent misuse of a law to prevent atrocities of SCs and STs. The violence swept across north India, with Dalits protesting against a recent Supreme Court order on the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Supreme Court order bans the automatic arrest and filing of cases against people accused under the act.

SC/ST Act: Dalit organisations call for shutdown in Kerala

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre for a comprehensive data on the number of Rohingya refugees staying in Haryana's Mewat and Faridabad camps. The apex court also demanded information on the amenities being provided to the refugees.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the central government to file the status report on the three camps, located at Mewat, Faridabad and Delhi.

The central government is required to submit a comprehensive report on the same within four weeks. The case will be heard again on May 9.

Rohingya refugees in India had alleged that they were not provided with some of the basic amenities like clean toilets, safe drinking water. among others. Many living in the camps were reported to have suffered from diarrhoea.

In its March 19 directive, the apex court had declined to grant any interim relief to Rohingya refugees and noted that no interim order, with regard to ensuring the health and educational facilities for Rohingya refugee camps, will be passed unless materials contradicting the Centre's claims are produced.

Rohingyas in India, who fled after violence in the Western Rakhine state of Myanmar, are settled across states like Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

The central government is required to submit a comprehensive report on the same within four weeks

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre for a comprehensive data on the number of Rohingya refugees staying in Haryana's Mewat and Faridabad camps. The apex court also demanded information on the amenities being provided to the refugees. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the central government to file the status report on the three camps, located at Mewat, Faridabad and Delhi. The central government is required to submit a comprehensive report on the same within four weeks. The case will be heard again on May 9. Rohingya refugees in India had alleged that they were not provided with some of the basic amenities like clean toilets, safe drinking water. among others. Many living in the camps were reported to have suffered from diarrhoea. In its March 19 directive, the apex court had declined to grant any interim relief to Rohingya refugees and noted that no interim order, with regard to ensuring the health and educational facilities for Rohingya refugee camps, will be passed unless materials contradicting the Centre's claims are produced. Rohingyas in India, who fled after violence in the Western Rakhine state of Myanmar, are settled across states like Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. (With inputs from ANI)

Rohingya case: Supreme Court demands details of refugee camps in Delhi, Haryana

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system.

Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court.

The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'.

"The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said.

He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily.

Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?"

"The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order."

"Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said.

His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country.

On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true".

"I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said.

Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye.

"None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said.

In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government".

"I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said.

Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure.

When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media.

"Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements.

"I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said.

Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government?

"I am not answering this question," he replied.

He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired.

When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".&nbsp

Gogoi was one of the four Supreme Court judges who held the January 12 press conference. The conference was seen as being an indictment of CJI Dipak Misra

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system. Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court. The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'. "The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said. He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily. Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?" "The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order." "Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said. His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country. On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true". "I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said. Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye. "None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said. In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government". "I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said. Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure. When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media. "Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements. "I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said. Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government? "I am not answering this question," he replied. He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired. When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".

If Ranjan Gogoi not made next CJI, will prove what we said was true: Chelameswar

The Supreme Court has come to the rescue of a Haryana-based widow who is running from pillar to post to know the status and whereabouts of her 20-year-old daughter, an MBBS aspirant who was allegedly kidnapped from a coaching centre at Kota in Rajasthan in July 2016. 
 
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud sought responses and status reports from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Haryana and Rajasthan police on the plea of the woman who submitted that she had moved to a Rajasthan trial court, the high court and police of both states without any success. 
 
Omi Hooda, in her habeas corpus (requiring authorities to bring the person) petition filed through lawyer Pardeep Gupta, sought a direction to the MHA, the CBI, and Haryana and Rajasthan police to find out her daughter, missing from the evening of July 16, 2016. 
 
Fearing the worst, the widow, alternatively demanded that if her daughter is no more then her body be searched and given to her for the last rites. 
 
The woman has also named a man Himanshu and his parents Ritesh Birla and Bala, residents of Rohtak in Haryana, as parties to the petition alleging that it was they who kidnapped her daughter.

She said that two FIRs for offence of kidnapping were lodged by her at Kota and Rohtak respectively, but no concrete probe has been conducted so far. 
 
Later, the habeas corpus petition was filed in the Rajasthan High Court which asked the mother to move the lower court with the grievance, the plea in the top court said. 
 
So far no effective probe has been conducted despite a case being pending in the lower court, the petition said, adding that representations were also made to the prime minister and the chief ministers of Haryana and Rajashtan.

Seeking enforcement of fundamental right to life, the woman said that left with no choice, she moved the top court.

Omi Hooda, in her habeas corpus petition filed through lawyer Pardeep Gupta, sought a direction to the MHA, the CBI, and Haryana and Rajasthan police to find out her daughter, missing from the evening of July 16, 2016

The Supreme Court has come to the rescue of a Haryana-based widow who is running from pillar to post to know the status and whereabouts of her 20-year-old daughter, an MBBS aspirant who was allegedly kidnapped from a coaching centre at Kota in Rajasthan in July 2016. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud sought responses and status reports from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Haryana and Rajasthan police on the plea of the woman who submitted that she had moved to a Rajasthan trial court, the high court and police of both states without any success. Omi Hooda, in her habeas corpus (requiring authorities to bring the person) petition filed through lawyer Pardeep Gupta, sought a direction to the MHA, the CBI, and Haryana and Rajasthan police to find out her daughter, missing from the evening of July 16, 2016. Fearing the worst, the widow, alternatively demanded that if her daughter is no more then her body be searched and given to her for the last rites. The woman has also named a man Himanshu and his parents Ritesh Birla and Bala, residents of Rohtak in Haryana, as parties to the petition alleging that it was they who kidnapped her daughter. She said that two FIRs for offence of kidnapping were lodged by her at Kota and Rohtak respectively, but no concrete probe has been conducted so far. Later, the habeas corpus petition was filed in the Rajasthan High Court which asked the mother to move the lower court with the grievance, the plea in the top court said. So far no effective probe has been conducted despite a case being pending in the lower court, the petition said, adding that representations were also made to the prime minister and the chief ministers of Haryana and Rajashtan. Seeking enforcement of fundamental right to life, the woman said that left with no choice, she moved the top court.

Supreme Court comes to aid of widow searching for kidnapped daughter

Brazil's former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defied a judge's order to turn himself into police on Friday and start serving a 12-year prison sentence for bribery that would likely end his hopes of regaining the presidency.

Lula remained holed up inside the headquarters of a steelworkers union in metropolitan Sao Paulo, surrounded by hundreds of fervent supporters, creating a standoff expected to stretch into the weekend.

Talks between Lula's aides and federal police to arrange his surrender were ongoing on Friday evening, according to two people familiar with the matter. One of the sources, who requested anonymity, said he would not be taken into custody before Saturday.

Workers Party leader Gleisi Hoffmann said Lula would take part in a Saturday morning mass at the union headquarters to commemorate the birthday of his late wife Marisa. Hoffmann denied reports that he was negotiating his surrender.

Federal police in Sao Paulo declined to say if they would attempt to forcibly take the former president into custody, a move that could trigger intense clashes with his supporters.

Lula's legal team filed a late Friday petition with the Supreme Court to quash the prison order, after losing a last-minute plea to an appeals court. The lawyers argued they had not exhausted procedural appeals and painted the case as an effort to remove Lula from the presidential race he is leading.

Hundreds of supporters, including workers, students, and land rights activists, filled the street outside the union headquarters, cheering defiant speeches calling the case a political witch hunt. A banner hung from the building showed Lula's smiling face on an electronic voting machine.

"We are here to show that the workers will resist this attack against democracy," said union leader Jorge Nazareno.

Lula himself had not addressed the crowd nearly 24 hours after arriving at the building but briefly appeared at a window to wave.

The same steelworkers union in Sao Paulo's industrial suburbs where 72-year-old Lula sought refuge served as the launch pad for his political career nearly four decades ago, when he led nationwide strikes that helped to end Brazil's 1964-85 military government.

Lula's everyman style and unvarnished speeches electrified masses long governed by the elite and eventually won him two terms as president, from 2003 to 2011, when he oversaw robust economic growth and falling inequality amid a commodities boom.

He left office with the sky-high approval of 83 percent and was called "the most popular politician on Earth" by former US&nbspPresident Barack Obama.

Lula's downfall has been as stunning as the unprecedented corruption probes that have convulsed Brazil for the last four years, jailing dozens of politicians and business leaders long considered above the law.

The fall

Federal Judge Sergio Moro, who has handled the bulk of cases in Brazil's biggest-ever graft investigation and issued Lula's prison order, wrote that he should not be handcuffed and would have a special cell in Curitiba, where he stood trial.

Lula was convicted last year for taking bribes from an engineering firm in return for help landing contracts with state-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA.

Brazil's Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Lula's plea to remain free until he exhausts all his appeals, clearing the way for his imprisonment.

The ruling likely ends his political career and blows October's election wide open, leaving Brazil's left without an obvious candidate to regain power following the unpopular current president, Michel Temer.

Under Brazilian electoral law, a candidate is forbidden from running for office for eight years after being found guilty of a crime. Rare exceptions have been made in the past, and the final decision would be made by the top electoral court if and when Lula officially files to be a candidate.

With Lula out the race, the chances would increase of a market-friendly candidate winning the election, according to analysts and political foes.

But Cassio Goncalves, a labour safety specialist at the union headquarters, said he and fellow members of the Workers Party had not considered alternatives in the presidential race.

"We have no other plan," he said. "Plan A, B, and C is Lula, because he is innocent. He will be our president."

Brazil's former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defied a judge's order to turn himself into police on Friday and start serving a 12-year prison sentence for bribery that would likely end his hopes of regaining the presidency

Brazil's former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defied a judge's order to turn himself into police on Friday and start serving a 12-year prison sentence for bribery that would likely end his hopes of regaining the presidency. Lula remained holed up inside the headquarters of a steelworkers union in metropolitan Sao Paulo, surrounded by hundreds of fervent supporters, creating a standoff expected to stretch into the weekend. Talks between Lula's aides and federal police to arrange his surrender were ongoing on Friday evening, according to two people familiar with the matter. One of the sources, who requested anonymity, said he would not be taken into custody before Saturday. Workers Party leader Gleisi Hoffmann said Lula would take part in a Saturday morning mass at the union headquarters to commemorate the birthday of his late wife Marisa. Hoffmann denied reports that he was negotiating his surrender. Federal police in Sao Paulo declined to say if they would attempt to forcibly take the former president into custody, a move that could trigger intense clashes with his supporters. Lula's legal team filed a late Friday petition with the Supreme Court to quash the prison order, after losing a last-minute plea to an appeals court. The lawyers argued they had not exhausted procedural appeals and painted the case as an effort to remove Lula from the presidential race he is leading. Hundreds of supporters, including workers, students, and land rights activists, filled the street outside the union headquarters, cheering defiant speeches calling the case a political witch hunt. A banner hung from the building showed Lula's smiling face on an electronic voting machine. "We are here to show that the workers will resist this attack against democracy," said union leader Jorge Nazareno. Lula himself had not addressed the crowd nearly 24 hours after arriving at the building but briefly appeared at a window to wave. The same steelworkers union in Sao Paulo's industrial suburbs where 72-year-old Lula sought refuge served as the launch pad for his political career nearly four decades ago, when he led nationwide strikes that helped to end Brazil's 1964-85 military government. Lula's everyman style and unvarnished speeches electrified masses long governed by the elite and eventually won him two terms as president, from 2003 to 2011, when he oversaw robust economic growth and falling inequality amid a commodities boom. He left office with the sky-high approval of 83 percent and was called "the most popular politician on Earth" by former US&nbspPresident Barack Obama. Lula's downfall has been as stunning as the unprecedented corruption probes that have convulsed Brazil for the last four years, jailing dozens of politicians and business leaders long considered above the law. The fall Federal Judge Sergio Moro, who has handled the bulk of cases in Brazil's biggest-ever graft investigation and issued Lula's prison order, wrote that he should not be handcuffed and would have a special cell in Curitiba, where he stood trial. Lula was convicted last year for taking bribes from an engineering firm in return for help landing contracts with state-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA. Brazil's Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Lula's plea to remain free until he exhausts all his appeals, clearing the way for his imprisonment. The ruling likely ends his political career and blows October's election wide open, leaving Brazil's left without an obvious candidate to regain power following the unpopular current president, Michel Temer. Under Brazilian electoral law, a candidate is forbidden from running for office for eight years after being found guilty of a crime. Rare exceptions have been made in the past, and the final decision would be made by the top electoral court if and when Lula officially files to be a candidate. With Lula out the race, the chances would increase of a market-friendly candidate winning the election, according to analysts and political foes. But Cassio Goncalves, a labour safety specialist at the union headquarters, said he and fellow members of the Workers Party had not considered alternatives in the presidential race. "We have no other plan," he said. "Plan A, B, and C is Lula, because he is innocent. He will be our president."

Brazil's Lula defies prison order, creating standoff

The Supreme Court today said it will pass orders on April 9 on the BJP West Bengal unit's plea alleging that its candidates are not being allowed to file their nomination papers for the panchayat polls next month.

In its plea, BJP sought an extension of the last date of nomination, which is April 9, and online availability of nomination papers.

A bench of Justices R K Agrawal and A M Sapre said, "We are reserving verdict for April 9."

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the West Bengal unit of the BJP, said democracy is being murdered in the state as candidates are not being allowed to file their nomination papers and there is large-scale violence.

The West Bengal panchayat elections are scheduled to be held on May 1, 3, and 5 and the votes are to be counted on May 8.

According to the notification, the last date of filing nominations is April 9 and the last date of scrutiny of the nominations is April 11.

The plea alleged that block development officers, appointed as assistant panchayat electoral registration officers by the West Bengal State Election Commission, are refusing to give nomination forms to BJP candidates.

The West Bengal State Election Commission is the authority tasked with superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to panchayats and municipalities.

In its plea, BJP sought an extension of the last date of nomination, which is April 9, and online availability of nomination papers

The Supreme Court today said it will pass orders on April 9 on the BJP West Bengal unit's plea alleging that its candidates are not being allowed to file their nomination papers for the panchayat polls next month. In its plea, BJP sought an extension of the last date of nomination, which is April 9, and online availability of nomination papers. A bench of Justices R K Agrawal and A M Sapre said, "We are reserving verdict for April 9." During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the West Bengal unit of the BJP, said democracy is being murdered in the state as candidates are not being allowed to file their nomination papers and there is large-scale violence. The West Bengal panchayat elections are scheduled to be held on May 1, 3, and 5 and the votes are to be counted on May 8. According to the notification, the last date of filing nominations is April 9 and the last date of scrutiny of the nominations is April 11. The plea alleged that block development officers, appointed as assistant panchayat electoral registration officers by the West Bengal State Election Commission, are refusing to give nomination forms to BJP candidates. The West Bengal State Election Commission is the authority tasked with superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to panchayats and municipalities.

West Bengal panchayat polls: Supreme Court to pass order on BJP's plea

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed five petitions challenging the CBSE's decision to conduct a re-examination of the Class 12 economics paper after an alleged leak.

The top court said it is the discretion of the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct the re-examination and can't be challenged in the court, reported news agency PTI.

A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao asked the students who had challenged the CBSE's decision to appear in the examination if conducted.

Several petitions were filed before the apex court after the CBSE said on March 28 that the Class 10 maths and Class 12 economics paper had allegedly leaked.

The CBSE said yesterday that it has found after assessment there was no impact of alleged paper leak of Class 10 maths paper and no re-examination would be held.

Besides challenging the CBSE's decision, the petitioners also wanted a CBI probe into the alleged paper leak, saying several incidents were reported from various states and Delhi Police was not competent to hold the nation-wide probe.

Besides seeking an independent probe into the leak, one of the petitioners, 15-year-old Rohan Mathew, also sought a direction to the CBSE to declare the results on the basis of the examinations already conducted.

The CBSE, on March 30, had announced that it would re-conduct the examination for economics for Class 12 throughout the country on April 25.

Mathew and two others have moved the top court seeking quashing of the CBSE's decision to re-conduct the Class 10 mathematics examination on several grounds, including violation of their fundamental rights.

(With PTI inputs)

The top court said it is the discretion of the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct the re-examination and can't be challenged in the court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed five petitions challenging the CBSE's decision to conduct a re-examination of the Class 12 economics paper after an alleged leak. The top court said it is the discretion of the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct the re-examination and can't be challenged in the court, reported news agency PTI. A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao asked the students who had challenged the CBSE's decision to appear in the examination if conducted. Several petitions were filed before the apex court after the CBSE said on March 28 that the Class 10 maths and Class 12 economics paper had allegedly leaked. The CBSE said yesterday that it has found after assessment there was no impact of alleged paper leak of Class 10 maths paper and no re-examination would be held. Besides challenging the CBSE's decision, the petitioners also wanted a CBI probe into the alleged paper leak, saying several incidents were reported from various states and Delhi Police was not competent to hold the nation-wide probe. Besides seeking an independent probe into the leak, one of the petitioners, 15-year-old Rohan Mathew, also sought a direction to the CBSE to declare the results on the basis of the examinations already conducted. The CBSE, on March 30, had announced that it would re-conduct the examination for economics for Class 12 throughout the country on April 25. Mathew and two others have moved the top court seeking quashing of the CBSE's decision to re-conduct the Class 10 mathematics examination on several grounds, including violation of their fundamental rights. (With PTI inputs)

SC dismisses pleas challenging CBSE's retest decision

A Pakistani woman and two others were acquitted by the Supreme Court today, 20 years after a triple murder case was registered against them.

In 1998, Asma Nawab was alleged to have orchestrated the murder of her parents and brother over a love marriage, Geo TV reported.

In 1999, the sessions court had ordered double death sentences for Asma, Farhan Khan and Javed Ahmed Siddiqui.

The Sindh High Court had rejected their appeal against the death sentence in 2015 and the appeal against that order was eventually taken up by the Supreme Court.

Hearing the case at apex court's Karachi Registry, the bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, accepted their appeals, nullified their sentences and ordered their immediate release, the channel said.

The court ruled that there was no concrete evidence against the suspects, and the evidence presented before the court had several loopholes. The court also found that the weapons recovered had no connection to the case, it added.

Farhan's fingerprints were taken two days after his arrest, the court ruled, adding that the prosecution failed to prove its allegations.

During the court proceedings, Justice Khosa remarked that police arrests suspects but fails to present evidence against them before courts. The suspects are released for lack of evidence but it is said courts acquit suspects, he asserted.

Justice Khosa said that suspects have been facing jail time since last 20 years without any evidence.

Asma was the only woman facing the death sentence in Sindh province.

In 1998, Asma Nawab was alleged to have orchestrated the murder of her parents and brother over a love marriage

A Pakistani woman and two others were acquitted by the Supreme Court today, 20 years after a triple murder case was registered against them. In 1998, Asma Nawab was alleged to have orchestrated the murder of her parents and brother over a love marriage, Geo TV reported. In 1999, the sessions court had ordered double death sentences for Asma, Farhan Khan and Javed Ahmed Siddiqui. The Sindh High Court had rejected their appeal against the death sentence in 2015 and the appeal against that order was eventually taken up by the Supreme Court. Hearing the case at apex court's Karachi Registry, the bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, accepted their appeals, nullified their sentences and ordered their immediate release, the channel said. The court ruled that there was no concrete evidence against the suspects, and the evidence presented before the court had several loopholes. The court also found that the weapons recovered had no connection to the case, it added. Farhan's fingerprints were taken two days after his arrest, the court ruled, adding that the prosecution failed to prove its allegations. During the court proceedings, Justice Khosa remarked that police arrests suspects but fails to present evidence against them before courts. The suspects are released for lack of evidence but it is said courts acquit suspects, he asserted. Justice Khosa said that suspects have been facing jail time since last 20 years without any evidence. Asma was the only woman facing the death sentence in Sindh province.

Pakistan: SC acquits woman, 2 others in murder case after 20 years

Minors, whose Aadhaar card has already been generated, cannot opt out of the Aadhaar scheme after attaining majority, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) today told the Supreme Court. Attorney General K K Venugopal was referring to the written replies of UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to the queries posed by the petitioners, opposed to the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law, before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

He said that school authorities can act as introducers to get children, between the age group of 5 to 15 years, enrolled for Aadhaar with the parental consent. Responding to a query whether a child, after attaining the age of 18 years, can opt out, the top law officer told the bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chanadrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that it is not permissible under the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

“However, residents have the option of permanently locking their biometrics and only temporarily unlocking it when needed for biometric authentication as per Regulation 11 of the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016,” he said. The lawyers for the petitioners had given a list of queries to the UIDAI CEO after he had concluded his PowerPoint Presentation (PPT) to allay apprehensions with regard the Aadhaar scheme.

In response to the query as to what were the Aadhaar authentication failure rates in the states and at the national level, Venugopal said the UIDAI cannot provide authentication failure rates at the state level since it does not track the location of the authentication transactions. Referring to the data, he further said that the biometric failure rates are at 6 per cent for fingerprints and 8.54 per cent for iris at the national level.

“It must be stated that authentication failures do not mean exclusion or denial from subsidies, benefits or services since the requesting entities are obliged under the law to provide for exception handling mechanisms,” he said. In response to a question as to how a leprosy patient or a person, who does not have a mobile number, is being enrolled for Aadhaar, the top law officer said, “Aadhaar enrolment is done for all residents, even of residents with leprosy. Biometric exception process is defined in the UIDAI resident enrolment process.

“In the case of a leprosy patient, who may not be able to do fingerprint authentication, iris authentication can be used for update (and the mobile number added). This was the reason for multi-modal enrolment and authentication being selected for use in Aadhaar.” As part of the exception handling mechanism, the UIDAI has already implemented a digitally signed QR code into eAadhaar which allows agencies to verify the Aadhaar card in an offline manner and trust the data, he said.

Venugopal said that as on March 21, the total number of biometric de-duplication rejections that have taken place are 6.91 crore. “This figure merely pertains to number of applications which have been identified by the Aadhaar de-duplication system as having matching biometrics to an existing Aadhaar number holder… “It is highly improbable for the biometrics to match unless the same person has applied again. There are a number of reasons why the same person might apply more than once.,” he said.

Venugopal said, “For instance, many individuals innocently apply for enrolment multiple times because of the delay in getting their Aadhaar cards due to postal delays, loss or destruction of their cards or confusion about how the system works.” Those whose enrolments have been rejected for any reason and who do not have Aadhaar can re-enrol and obtain it, he said, adding that rejection of enrolments did not mean that a person will never be able to get it.

Minors, whose Aadhaar card has already been generated, cannot opt out of the Aadhaar scheme after attaining majority, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) today told the Supreme Court.

Minors, whose Aadhaar card has already been generated, cannot opt out of the Aadhaar scheme after attaining majority, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) today told the Supreme Court. Attorney General K K Venugopal was referring to the written replies of UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to the queries posed by the petitioners, opposed to the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law, before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. He said that school authorities can act as introducers to get children, between the age group of 5 to 15 years, enrolled for Aadhaar with the parental consent. Responding to a query whether a child, after attaining the age of 18 years, can opt out, the top law officer told the bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chanadrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that it is not permissible under the Aadhaar Act, 2016. “However, residents have the option of permanently locking their biometrics and only temporarily unlocking it when needed for biometric authentication as per Regulation 11 of the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016,” he said. The lawyers for the petitioners had given a list of queries to the UIDAI CEO after he had concluded his PowerPoint Presentation (PPT) to allay apprehensions with regard the Aadhaar scheme. In response to the query as to what were the Aadhaar authentication failure rates in the states and at the national level, Venugopal said the UIDAI cannot provide authentication failure rates at the state level since it does not track the location of the authentication transactions. Referring to the data, he further said that the biometric failure rates are at 6 per cent for fingerprints and 8.54 per cent for iris at the national level. “It must be stated that authentication failures do not mean exclusion or denial from subsidies, benefits or services since the requesting entities are obliged under the law to provide for exception handling mechanisms,” he said. In response to a question as to how a leprosy patient or a person, who does not have a mobile number, is being enrolled for Aadhaar, the top law officer said, “Aadhaar enrolment is done for all residents, even of residents with leprosy. Biometric exception process is defined in the UIDAI resident enrolment process. “In the case of a leprosy patient, who may not be able to do fingerprint authentication, iris authentication can be used for update (and the mobile number added). This was the reason for multi-modal enrolment and authentication being selected for use in Aadhaar.” As part of the exception handling mechanism, the UIDAI has already implemented a digitally signed QR code into eAadhaar which allows agencies to verify the Aadhaar card in an offline manner and trust the data, he said. Venugopal said that as on March 21, the total number of biometric de-duplication rejections that have taken place are 6.91 crore. “This figure merely pertains to number of applications which have been identified by the Aadhaar de-duplication system as having matching biometrics to an existing Aadhaar number holder… “It is highly improbable for the biometrics to match unless the same person has applied again. There are a number of reasons why the same person might apply more than once.,” he said. Venugopal said, “For instance, many individuals innocently apply for enrolment multiple times because of the delay in getting their Aadhaar cards due to postal delays, loss or destruction of their cards or confusion about how the system works.” Those whose enrolments have been rejected for any reason and who do not have Aadhaar can re-enrol and obtain it, he said, adding that rejection of enrolments did not mean that a person will never be able to get it.

Minors can’t opt out of Aadhaar after attaining majority: UIDAI to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that it is not against the SC/ST Act and doesn't want the innocent to be punished.

The court made these observations while hearing Attorney General K K Venugopal's submission during the hearing of Centre's petition of SC/ST Act.

"Those agitating on streets may not have even read our judgment. Vested interests are also involved sometimes. We are only concerned about innocent people being put behind bars. We are not against the Act at all. But innocents can't be punished on a unilateral version. Why does government want people to be arrested without verification," the apex court observes.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/scst-verdict-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-review-petition-in-open-court-128014">Supreme Court</a> asked the lawyers in the case, including the Attorney General, to file a written submission and it will hear the case after 10 days.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said that the question of a preliminary inquiry before an FIR or a prior permission for the arrest of a public servant comes up only when the charges are framed solely under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The court said its order neither dilutes the provisions of the said act or affects any other offences charged under other sections of IPC or CrPC.&nbsp;

Earlier, Amid <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/protests-over-centres-decision-to-file-scst-review-petition-in-supreme-court-1-dead-in-madhya-pradesh-127773">noisy protests</a> in the Lok Sabha, Home Minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/done-nothing-to-dilute-scst-act-rajnath-singh-on-dalit-protests-128034">Rajnath Singh</a> addressed the violence that singed large parts of the country on Monday.

"The government has not diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Atrocities Act. In fact, we have strengthened the act. We have introduced provisions for the protection of victims, who are already suffered enough. Moreover, if officials are found lacking in their response to a complaint filed by anybody, we want action initiated against them as well," Rajnath Singh said.

Meanwhile, at least nine people were killed in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on Monday, while thousands were detained by the police and hundreds, were left injured as the state and central governments struggled to control the massive Bharat Bandh protests that erupted across the north, west and east India over the Supreme Court’s alleged dilution of the SC/ST Act.

'We are not against the Act at all. But innocents can't be punished on a unilateral version. Why does govt want people to be arrested without verification,' the apex court observes.

The Supreme Court has said that it is not against the SC/ST Act and doesn't want the innocent to be punished. The court made these observations while hearing Attorney General K K Venugopal's submission during the hearing of Centre's petition of SC/ST Act. "Those agitating on streets may not have even read our judgment. Vested interests are also involved sometimes. We are only concerned about innocent people being put behind bars. We are not against the Act at all. But innocents can't be punished on a unilateral version. Why does government want people to be arrested without verification," the apex court observes. Supreme Court asked the lawyers in the case, including the Attorney General, to file a written submission and it will hear the case after 10 days. The Supreme Court said that the question of a preliminary inquiry before an FIR or a prior permission for the arrest of a public servant comes up only when the charges are framed solely under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The court said its order neither dilutes the provisions of the said act or affects any other offences charged under other sections of IPC or CrPC. Earlier, Amid noisy protests in the Lok Sabha, Home Minister Rajnath Singh addressed the violence that singed large parts of the country on Monday. "The government has not diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Atrocities Act. In fact, we have strengthened the act. We have introduced provisions for the protection of victims, who are already suffered enough. Moreover, if officials are found lacking in their response to a complaint filed by anybody, we want action initiated against them as well," Rajnath Singh said. Meanwhile, at least nine people were killed in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on Monday, while thousands were detained by the police and hundreds, were left injured as the state and central governments struggled to control the massive Bharat Bandh protests that erupted across the north, west and east India over the Supreme Court’s alleged dilution of the SC/ST Act.

SC/ST Act: We are not against it, says Supreme Court but refuses to cancel earlier order

The Supreme Court Monday slammed the Centre over its inability to stop encroachment in Delhi.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;court asked the centre to ensure that the protest against sealing should stop.

calling it a complete breakdown of law and order in Delhi the apex court said that it was a serious issue and the failure of the authorities has led to such a situation.

It also questioned the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the Centre saying that the Centre can not just go on destroying Delhi.

The court further said that the government and its bodies were not doing their job because of which the people of Delhi were suffering.

The court further lashed the Centre saying " Is this the way you are playing with the lives of the people of Delhi?"

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi sealing case: Supreme Court slammed the govt over its inability to stop encroachment in Delhi. SC suggested the govt to ensure that protest against sealing should stop, said, it seems that the government is playing with the life of people in Delhi.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980757401757540352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said that it seems that the government is playing with the lives of the people of Delhi

The Supreme Court Monday slammed the Centre over its inability to stop encroachment in Delhi. The court asked the centre to ensure that the protest against sealing should stop. calling it a complete breakdown of law and order in Delhi the apex court said that it was a serious issue and the failure of the authorities has led to such a situation. It also questioned the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the Centre saying that the Centre can not just go on destroying Delhi. The court further said that the government and its bodies were not doing their job because of which the people of Delhi were suffering. The court further lashed the Centre saying " Is this the way you are playing with the lives of the people of Delhi?" Delhi sealing case: Supreme Court slammed the govt over its inability to stop encroachment in Delhi. SC suggested the govt to ensure that protest against sealing should stop, said, it seems that the government is playing with the life of people in Delhi. — ANI (@ANI) April 2, 2018 ×

Government is playing with life of Delhi people: Supreme Court slams Centre over sealing

Union <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-to-review-supreme-courts-ruling-over-scst-act-127277">government will file a review petition</a> regarding the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Protection Act today.

Union Minister of Law Ravi Shankar Prasad took to his Twitter account on Sunday to inform that the Union Government on Monday will file a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment regarding the legal clause of immediate arrest and registration of alleged cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

"Review petition by the Government against the SC judgment on SC/ST Protection Act shall be filed positively on&nbsp;Monday, April 2" Prasad tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Review petition by the Government against the SC judgement on SC/ST Protection Act shall be filed positively on tomorrow, Monday, April 2
— Ravi Shankar Prasad (@rsprasad) <a href="https://twitter.com/rsprasad/status/980465550051569665?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The opposition has been pressing the Centre to file a review petition against the recent top court ruling that diluted the provisions for immediate arrest under the SC/ST Act.

On March 20, the apex court, in a bid to check misuse of the SC/ST Act, ruled that preliminary enquiry in a case under the Atrocities Act would be done by the DSP to ensure the allegations are not frivolous, and to avoid the false implication of an innocent.

The court also held that a government official cannot be prosecuted on a mere allegation of committing an offence under the Act without the sanction of the appointing authority.

Further, the Supreme Court noted that a public servant can be arrested after granting of approval by some senior officer.

On March 20, the apex court, in a bid to check misuse of the SC/ST Act, ruled that preliminary enquiry in a case under the Atrocities Act would be done by the DSP

Union government will file a review petition regarding the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Protection Act today. Union Minister of Law Ravi Shankar Prasad took to his Twitter account on Sunday to inform that the Union Government on Monday will file a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment regarding the legal clause of immediate arrest and registration of alleged cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. "Review petition by the Government against the SC judgment on SC/ST Protection Act shall be filed positively on Monday, April 2" Prasad tweeted. Review petition by the Government against the SC judgement on SC/ST Protection Act shall be filed positively on tomorrow, Monday, April 2 — Ravi Shankar Prasad (@rsprasad) April 1, 2018 × The opposition has been pressing the Centre to file a review petition against the recent top court ruling that diluted the provisions for immediate arrest under the SC/ST Act. On March 20, the apex court, in a bid to check misuse of the SC/ST Act, ruled that preliminary enquiry in a case under the Atrocities Act would be done by the DSP to ensure the allegations are not frivolous, and to avoid the false implication of an innocent. The court also held that a government official cannot be prosecuted on a mere allegation of committing an offence under the Act without the sanction of the appointing authority. Further, the Supreme Court noted that a public servant can be arrested after granting of approval by some senior officer.

Government to file SC/ST review petition today

The Supreme Court is set to hear Enforcement Directorate's plea against Karti Chidambaram in the INX media money laundering case today.

In March 26 hearing, Karti's interim protection was extended from March 26 to April 2. An interim protection was given to him by the Supreme Court against an arrest by the ED.

On February 28, Karti was arrested at the Chennai airport on his return from the UK. Former Finance Minister's son was accused of his alleged role in facilitating Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance for INX Media Ltd and its directors, Peter and Indrani Mukerjea.

According to reports, Karti is alleged to have taken service charges for getting the clearance to INX Media for receiving funds from abroad worth Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his father P Chidambaram's tenure as the Union finance minister in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

In March 26 hearing, Karti Chidambaram's interim protection was extended from March 26 to April 2

The Supreme Court is set to hear Enforcement Directorate's plea against Karti Chidambaram in the INX media money laundering case today. In March 26 hearing, Karti's interim protection was extended from March 26 to April 2. An interim protection was given to him by the Supreme Court against an arrest by the ED. On February 28, Karti was arrested at the Chennai airport on his return from the UK. Former Finance Minister's son was accused of his alleged role in facilitating Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance for INX Media Ltd and its directors, Peter and Indrani Mukerjea. According to reports, Karti is alleged to have taken service charges for getting the clearance to INX Media for receiving funds from abroad worth Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his father P Chidambaram's tenure as the Union finance minister in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. (With inputs from agencies)

INX Media case: Supreme Court to hear ED's plea against Karti today

The Supreme Court on Monday suspended further hearing on an alleged money laundering case filed against Karti Chidambaram till April 27, reports said.&nbsp

With this ruling, the interim protection previously granted to Karti, who cannot be arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) till the next date of hearing, is extended.

The ED is looking to remand the political heavyweight into its custody and for further investigation over his alleged involvement in the INX Media PMLA case and the Aircel-Maxis case.

Karti sought to strike down ED's power of arrest under section 19 of the PMLA, besides seeking quashing of the enforcement case information report (ECIR) and the probe being carried out by the agency.

Earlier, the apex court extended the interim protection of Karti from March 26 to April 2.

On February 28, Karti was arrested at the Chennai airport on his return from the UK for his alleged role in facilitating Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance for INX Media Ltd and its directors, Peter and Indrani Mukerjea.

Karti allegedly took service charges for getting the clearance to INX Media for receiving funds from abroad worth Rs 3.05 billion in 2007 when his father P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government.

The ED is looking to remand the political heavyweight into its custody and for further investigation over his alleged involvement in the INX Media PMLA case and the Aircel-Maxis case

The Supreme Court on Monday suspended further hearing on an alleged money laundering case filed against Karti Chidambaram till April 27, reports said. With this ruling, the interim protection previously granted to Karti, who cannot be arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) till the next date of hearing, is extended. The ED is looking to remand the political heavyweight into its custody and for further investigation over his alleged involvement in the INX Media PMLA case and the Aircel-Maxis case. Karti sought to strike down ED's power of arrest under section 19 of the PMLA, besides seeking quashing of the enforcement case information report (ECIR) and the probe being carried out by the agency. Earlier, the apex court extended the interim protection of Karti from March 26 to April 2. On February 28, Karti was arrested at the Chennai airport on his return from the UK for his alleged role in facilitating Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance for INX Media Ltd and its directors, Peter and Indrani Mukerjea. Karti allegedly took service charges for getting the clearance to INX Media for receiving funds from abroad worth Rs 3.05 billion in 2007 when his father P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government.

INX Media case: Supreme Court suspends hearing to April 27

The Delhi High Court today heard a Public Interest Litigation for a court-monitored probe into the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) paper leak case.

The high court&nbsp;issued notice to the CBSE, Delhi Police and the HRD ministry on a PIL which stated that the class 10 Maths paper be preferably held earlier and also seeking a&nbsp;court-monitored probe into the paper leak.

The next date of hearing is March 16.

The plea was mentioned before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar which agreed to hear it today.

The petition, moved by NGO Social Jurist, has sought that the class 10 Maths exam be held in April, rather than July as proposed by the authorities.

Apart from that, the petition filed by advocate Ashok Agarwal has sought that liberal marks be awarded to the students in the Maths and Economics re-examination.&nbsp; 
 
The Supreme Court will hear pleas relating to the CBSE re-examination on April 4.&nbsp;The top court agreed to hear on Wednesday 15-year-old Rohan Mathew's challenge to the CBSE decision to hold the re-examination of the class 10 Maths paper. Rohan has argued that re-examination is a violation of the fundamental right of students who appear for the exam.

The papers of the Economics exam of class 12, held on March 26 and Maths exam of class 10, held on March 28 were leaked on social media hours before the examination.&nbsp;

Two teachers and one tutor, who were arrested for their alleged role in leaking the question paper of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) examinations, were sent to two-day police custody by a Delhi court on April 1.

(With inputs from agencies)

The petition, moved by NGO Social Jurist, has sought that the class 10 Maths exam be held in April, rather than July as proposed by the authorities

The Delhi High Court today heard a Public Interest Litigation for a court-monitored probe into the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) paper leak case. The high court issued notice to the CBSE, Delhi Police and the HRD ministry on a PIL which stated that the class 10 Maths paper be preferably held earlier and also seeking a court-monitored probe into the paper leak. The next date of hearing is March 16. The plea was mentioned before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar which agreed to hear it today. The petition, moved by NGO Social Jurist, has sought that the class 10 Maths exam be held in April, rather than July as proposed by the authorities. Apart from that, the petition filed by advocate Ashok Agarwal has sought that liberal marks be awarded to the students in the Maths and Economics re-examination. The Supreme Court will hear pleas relating to the CBSE re-examination on April 4. The top court agreed to hear on Wednesday 15-year-old Rohan Mathew's challenge to the CBSE decision to hold the re-examination of the class 10 Maths paper. Rohan has argued that re-examination is a violation of the fundamental right of students who appear for the exam. The papers of the Economics exam of class 12, held on March 26 and Maths exam of class 10, held on March 28 were leaked on social media hours before the examination. Two teachers and one tutor, who were arrested for their alleged role in leaking the question paper of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) examinations, were sent to two-day police custody by a Delhi court on April 1. (With inputs from agencies)

CBSE papers' leak: Delhi High Court hears PIL for court-monitored probe

The Central Board of Secondary Education&nbsp;exams (CBSE) for Class X and XII which were scheduled for April 2 has been postponed in Punjab.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
CBSE Board Examinations for Class X & XII scheduled for 2nd April 2018, postponed in Punjab due to call of Bharat Bandh <a href="https://t.co/6LlURBkUP6">pic.twitter.com/6LlURBkUP6</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980500433826467846?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The exams have been postponed due to the call for Bharat bandh against the recent amendment of SC/ST Act, announced by various Dalit organisations in Punjab.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/punjab-dalit-outfits-call-for-bandh-tomorrow-against-scst-act-amendment---127679">Dalit outfits call for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/punjab-dalit-outfits-call-for-bandh-tomorrow-against-scst-act-amendment---127679">bandh</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/punjab-dalit-outfits-call-for-bandh-tomorrow-against-scst-act-amendment---127679"> tomorrow against SC/ST Act amendment</a>

All educational institutions, banks will remain closed tomorrow due&nbsp;to the Bandh call.&nbsp;Transport services will also likely to be affected.

Army and paramilitary forces have been asked to stay on alert.

The Supreme Court on March 20, banned immediate and automatic arrest under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act citing"several occasions" &nbsp;where innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants were hindered from performing their duties under the prevailing Act.

&nbsp;

The exams have been postponed due to the call of Bharat bandh against the recent amendment of SC/ST Act announced by various Dalit organisations in Punjab

The Central Board of Secondary Education exams (CBSE) for Class X and XII which were scheduled for April 2 has been postponed in Punjab. CBSE Board Examinations for Class X & XII scheduled for 2nd April 2018, postponed in Punjab due to call of Bharat Bandh pic.twitter.com/6LlURBkUP6 — ANI (@ANI) April 1, 2018 × The exams have been postponed due to the call for Bharat bandh against the recent amendment of SC/ST Act, announced by various Dalit organisations in Punjab. Also read: Dalit outfits call for bandh tomorrow against SC/ST Act amendment All educational institutions, banks will remain closed tomorrow due to the Bandh call. Transport services will also likely to be affected. Army and paramilitary forces have been asked to stay on alert. The Supreme Court on March 20, banned immediate and automatic arrest under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act citing"several occasions" where innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants were hindered from performing their duties under the prevailing Act.

CBSE exam for Class X and XII postponed in Punjab due to bandh

A bandh has been called by various Dalit organisations on April 2 to protest against the amendments under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Punjab Government suspends services of public transport tomorrow (April 2) due to bandh called by several Dalit organisations against the amendment under the SC/ST Act.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980408074321252353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 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">
Punjab: All educational institutions to remain closed and mobile Internet services to be suspended in the state tomorrow in the wake of bandh called by several Dalit organisations against the amendment under the SC/ST Act.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980409023395753984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 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>

Punjab government announced that&nbsp;transport and mobile internet services will be suspended during the bandh.&nbsp;

All educational institutions will also remain closed, the government said.

Following the announcement, the Punjab police have also beefed up security arrangements.&nbsp;Heavy police have been deployed at parts that are considered sensitive in the state.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Punjab Chief Secy Karan A Singh wrote to Secr Dept of Defence, GoI stating 'Army in Punjab to remain ready for any eventuality as state govt may need their assistance in maintaining law & order' during bandh called by several Dalit organisations against amendment of SC/ST Act.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980414112403423232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court on March 20, banned immediate and automatic arrest under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)&nbsp;Act citing"several occasions" &nbsp;where innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants were hindered from performing their duties under the prevailing Act.

The government on Friday decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's ruling on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Media reports said that the law ministry may approach the apex court soon after discussing the case with the Ministry of Social Justice.

All educational institutions will also remain closed during bandh

A bandh has been called by various Dalit organisations on April 2 to protest against the amendments under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Punjab Government suspends services of public transport tomorrow (April 2) due to bandh called by several Dalit organisations against the amendment under the SC/ST Act. — ANI (@ANI) April 1, 2018 × Punjab: All educational institutions to remain closed and mobile Internet services to be suspended in the state tomorrow in the wake of bandh called by several Dalit organisations against the amendment under the SC/ST Act. — ANI (@ANI) April 1, 2018 × Punjab government announced that transport and mobile internet services will be suspended during the bandh. All educational institutions will also remain closed, the government said. Following the announcement, the Punjab police have also beefed up security arrangements. Heavy police have been deployed at parts that are considered sensitive in the state. Punjab Chief Secy Karan A Singh wrote to Secr Dept of Defence, GoI stating 'Army in Punjab to remain ready for any eventuality as state govt may need their assistance in maintaining law & order' during bandh called by several Dalit organisations against amendment of SC/ST Act. — ANI (@ANI) April 1, 2018 × The Supreme Court on March 20, banned immediate and automatic arrest under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act citing"several occasions" where innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants were hindered from performing their duties under the prevailing Act. The government on Friday decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's ruling on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Media reports said that the law ministry may approach the apex court soon after discussing the case with the Ministry of Social Justice.

Punjab: Dalit outfits call for bandh tomorrow against SC/ST Act amendment

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