The US&nbspgovernment's Supreme Court battle with Microsoft Corp over whether technology companies can be forced to hand over data stored overseas could be nearing its end, after federal prosecutors asked that the case be dismissed.

President Donald Trump on March 22 signed a provision into law making it clear that US&nbspjudges can issue warrants for such data, while giving companies an avenue to object if the request conflicts with foreign law.

"This case is now moot," the US&nbspDepartment of Justice said, citing the newly passed legislation, in a 16-page court filing on Friday that requested the dismissal.&nbsp

The Supreme Court on Feb. 27 heard arguments in the case, which had been one of the most closely watched of the high court`s current term. Some justices urged Congress to pass a law to resolve the matter.&nbsp

Microsoft and the Justice Department had been locked in a dispute over how US&nbspprosecutors seek access to data held on overseas computer servers owned by American companies. The case involved Microsoft's challenge to a domestic warrant issued by a US&nbspjudge for emails stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin relating to a drug-trafficking investigation.

The bipartisan new law, known as the Cloud Act, was supported by Microsoft, other major technology companies and the Trump administration. But civil liberties groups opposed it, saying it lacked sufficient privacy protections.

Microsoft, which has 100 data centres in 40 countries, was the first American company to challenge a domestic search warrant seeking data held outside the United States. The Microsoft customer whose emails were sought told the company he was based in Ireland when he signed up for his account.

A representative for Microsoft did not immediately return requests for comment on the Justice Department's filing.

A representative for Microsoft did not immediately return requests for comment on the Justice Department`s filing

The US&nbspgovernment's Supreme Court battle with Microsoft Corp over whether technology companies can be forced to hand over data stored overseas could be nearing its end, after federal prosecutors asked that the case be dismissed. President Donald Trump on March 22 signed a provision into law making it clear that US&nbspjudges can issue warrants for such data, while giving companies an avenue to object if the request conflicts with foreign law. "This case is now moot," the US&nbspDepartment of Justice said, citing the newly passed legislation, in a 16-page court filing on Friday that requested the dismissal. The Supreme Court on Feb. 27 heard arguments in the case, which had been one of the most closely watched of the high court`s current term. Some justices urged Congress to pass a law to resolve the matter. Microsoft and the Justice Department had been locked in a dispute over how US&nbspprosecutors seek access to data held on overseas computer servers owned by American companies. The case involved Microsoft's challenge to a domestic warrant issued by a US&nbspjudge for emails stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin relating to a drug-trafficking investigation. The bipartisan new law, known as the Cloud Act, was supported by Microsoft, other major technology companies and the Trump administration. But civil liberties groups opposed it, saying it lacked sufficient privacy protections. Microsoft, which has 100 data centres in 40 countries, was the first American company to challenge a domestic search warrant seeking data held outside the United States. The Microsoft customer whose emails were sought told the company he was based in Ireland when he signed up for his account. A representative for Microsoft did not immediately return requests for comment on the Justice Department's filing.

US government seeks end to Supreme Court privacy fight with Microsoft

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbse-class-xii-economics-re-exam-to-be-held-on-april-25-127342">CBSE Class XII economics re-exam to be held on April 25</a>

CBSE Class XII economics re-examination to be held on April 25 while the class X re-test is likely to be held in July, said HRD Ministry.&nbsp

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/spy-poisoning-row-britain-has-one-month-to-reduce-diplomatic-presence-says-russia-127345">Spy poisoning row: Britain has one month to reduce diplomatic presence, says Russia</a>

Russia on Friday summoned ambassadors of nine nations while declaring that Britain has one month to reduce diplomatic presence.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-to-review-supreme-courts-ruling-over-scst-act-127277">Government to review Supreme Court's ruling over SC/ST Act</a>

The government will be filing a review petition against the Supreme Court's ruling on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-russian-rocket-takes-military-satellite-into-orbit-127306">Watch: Russian rocket takes </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-russian-rocket-takes-military-satellite-into-orbit-127306">military</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-russian-rocket-takes-military-satellite-into-orbit-127306"> satellite into orbit</a>

Russian Defence Ministry released a video showing a Soyuz rocket launch from the Plesetsk cosmodrome.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/irish-pubs-open-on-good-friday-for-first-time-in-91-years-127339">Irish pubs open on Good Friday for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/irish-pubs-open-on-good-friday-for-first-time-in-91-years-127339">first</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/irish-pubs-open-on-good-friday-for-first-time-in-91-years-127339"> time in 91 years</a>

Pubs in Ireland were open on Good Friday for the first time in almost a century after the repeal of a law banning sales of alcohol on the Christian holiday. 
&nbsp

CBSE Class XII economics re-exam to be held on April 25 CBSE Class XII economics re-examination to be held on April 25 while the class X re-test is likely to be held in July, said HRD Ministry. Spy poisoning row: Britain has one month to reduce diplomatic presence, says Russia Russia on Friday summoned ambassadors of nine nations while declaring that Britain has one month to reduce diplomatic presence. Government to review Supreme Court's ruling over SC/ST Act The government will be filing a review petition against the Supreme Court's ruling on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Watch: Russian rocket takes military satellite into orbit Russian Defence Ministry released a video showing a Soyuz rocket launch from the Plesetsk cosmodrome. Irish pubs open on Good Friday for first time in 91 years Pubs in Ireland were open on Good Friday for the first time in almost a century after the repeal of a law banning sales of alcohol on the Christian holiday.

WION evening news brief, March 30, 2018

The government has decided to review the apex court's ruling on the SC/ST Act.

The government will be filing a review petition&nbsp;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&nbsp;ministry may approach the apex court soon after discussing the case with the Ministry of Social Justice.

The Supreme Court had on March 20,&nbsp;banned immediate and automatic arrest under the SC/ST 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;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Government has decided to file a review petition in Supreme Court over the recent ruling on SC/ST Act, tweets Union Minister Thawarchand Gehlot <a href="https://t.co/1zyyhSmSRd">pic.twitter.com/1zyyhSmSRd</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/979633915861372929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The government will be filing a review petition against the Supreme Court's ruling on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The government has decided to review the apex court's ruling on the SC/ST Act. The government will be filing 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. The Supreme Court had on March 20, banned immediate and automatic arrest under the SC/ST 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. Government has decided to file a review petition in Supreme Court over the recent ruling on SC/ST Act, tweets Union Minister Thawarchand Gehlot pic.twitter.com/1zyyhSmSRd — ANI (@ANI) March 30, 2018 ×

Government to review Supreme Court's ruling over SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking a re-investigation into the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, which heard the matter, dismissed the petition filed by Mumbai-based Pankaj Phadnis from Abhinav Bharat.

The apex court, which reserved its verdict on March 6, had made it clear that it would not go by "sentiments" but rely on legal submissions to decide on the petition.

The apex court had said the plea seeking retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen the matter which happened years ago.

The petitioner had questioned the 'three bullet theory' relied upon by various courts to hold the conviction of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, who was hanged. He had contended that there was a need to examine whether there was a fourth bullet, which was fired by someone other than Godse.

Phadnis, a trustee of charitable trust Abhinav Bharat, had also sought the expunction of "adverse, unfounded" remarks made by the Kapur Commission in 1969 report against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the setting up of a commission to probe the conspiracy behind the incident.

Phadnis alleged that the Maratha community was "maligned" due to these adverse remarks, which should hence be removed. He said there should be a retrial of the case, which led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949.&nbsp

The court, however, said it did not share his sentiments that Marathas have been maligned and observed,"Maratha people have survived in spite of all this. You are talking about two persons who happened to be from Maharashtra. They do not represent the state. The observation about two persons does not malign whole Marathis."

Phadnis claimed in his affidavit that the alleged conspirators were hanged even before the murder trial had attained legal finality from the top court.

Gandhi was shot dead at point-blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948, by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. The assassination case had led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949. Savarkar was given benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence.

Phadnis had challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016, had dismissed his plea on two grounds — first, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court second, that the Kapur Commission had submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition was filed 46 years later.

The apex court had said the plea seeking retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen the matter which happened years ago.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking a re-investigation into the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, which heard the matter, dismissed the petition filed by Mumbai-based Pankaj Phadnis from Abhinav Bharat. The apex court, which reserved its verdict on March 6, had made it clear that it would not go by "sentiments" but rely on legal submissions to decide on the petition. The apex court had said the plea seeking retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen the matter which happened years ago. The petitioner had questioned the 'three bullet theory' relied upon by various courts to hold the conviction of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, who was hanged. He had contended that there was a need to examine whether there was a fourth bullet, which was fired by someone other than Godse. Phadnis, a trustee of charitable trust Abhinav Bharat, had also sought the expunction of "adverse, unfounded" remarks made by the Kapur Commission in 1969 report against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the setting up of a commission to probe the conspiracy behind the incident. Phadnis alleged that the Maratha community was "maligned" due to these adverse remarks, which should hence be removed. He said there should be a retrial of the case, which led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949. The court, however, said it did not share his sentiments that Marathas have been maligned and observed,"Maratha people have survived in spite of all this. You are talking about two persons who happened to be from Maharashtra. They do not represent the state. The observation about two persons does not malign whole Marathis." Phadnis claimed in his affidavit that the alleged conspirators were hanged even before the murder trial had attained legal finality from the top court. Gandhi was shot dead at point-blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948, by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. The assassination case had led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949. Savarkar was given benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence. Phadnis had challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016, had dismissed his plea on two grounds — first, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court second, that the Kapur Commission had submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition was filed 46 years later.

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking re-probe into Mahatma Gandhi assassination

The Supreme Court, in its landmark ruling, called Khap Panchayats intervention in marriages illegal. The apex court stated that any assembly which is intended to scuttle a marriage between two consenting adults would be illegal.

The Supreme Court today disposed of the petition filed by an NGO against Khap Panchayats.&nbsp

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Khap Panchayat matter: Supreme Court disposed off the petition filed by NGO, Shakti Vahini against khap panchayats & seeking directions to Centre and state governments for preventing honour killings
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/978500348846407687?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbspA bench headed by Chief Justice Misra sought measures against interference of Khap Panchayats in marriages.&nbsp

The Khaps, present largely in rural areas of north India, act as self-proclaimed quasi-judicial bodies. Khap Panchayats came under the scanner after reports of honour killings surfaced.

Haryana sentenced five people to death and one person to life-imprisonment in 2007 for killing a couple on the orders of a self-styled Khap Panchayat.&nbsp 
&nbsp

The Khaps, present largely in rural areas of north India, act as self-proclaimed quasi-judicial bodies

The Supreme Court, in its landmark ruling, called Khap Panchayats intervention in marriages illegal. The apex court stated that any assembly which is intended to scuttle a marriage between two consenting adults would be illegal. The Supreme Court today disposed of the petition filed by an NGO against Khap Panchayats. Khap Panchayat matter: Supreme Court disposed off the petition filed by NGO, Shakti Vahini against khap panchayats & seeking directions to Centre and state governments for preventing honour killings — ANI (@ANI) March 27, 2018 × &nbspA bench headed by Chief Justice Misra sought measures against interference of Khap Panchayats in marriages. The Khaps, present largely in rural areas of north India, act as self-proclaimed quasi-judicial bodies. Khap Panchayats came under the scanner after reports of honour killings surfaced. Haryana sentenced five people to death and one person to life-imprisonment in 2007 for killing a couple on the orders of a self-styled Khap Panchayat.

Scuttling marriage between consenting adults is illegal: Supreme Court rules on Khap Panchayats

The Supreme Court today refused to pass an interim order extending the deadline of March 31 for linking of Aadhaar with the welfare schemes where benefits are transferred to citizens from the Consolidated Fund of India.

The top court had on March 13 extended indefinitely the March 31 deadline for linking bank accounts and mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar.

However, it had allowed the government and its agencies to link the 12-digit national biometric identifier number of the beneficiaries for transfer of benefits of schemes funded from this fund.

A plea, seeking extension of time beyond March 31 for linking Aadhaar with welfare schemes, was made today before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra after Ajay Bhushan Pandey, CEO of Unique Identification

Authority of India (UIDAI), concluded his PowerPoint presentation (PPT), claiming it would take "billions of years" to decrypt the saved data, including the biometrics.

Senior advocate K V Viswanath, appearing for a petitioner opposed to the Aadhaar scheme, took a cue from the PPT in which the UIDAI CEO said that the success rate of Aadhaar authentication in government systems was 88 per cent.

"If the data of UIDAI says that there was only 88 per cent success rate of Aadhaar authentication, then it means that 12 per cent people are excluded from the benefits in schemes linked with Aadhaar. Twelve per cent failure is too high," the lawyer said, adding that almost 14 crore citizens cannot take benefits.

An interim order is required to be passed to extend the March 31 deadline for welfare schemes also, Viswanath said during the day-long hearing before the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

Attorney General K K Venugopal vehemently opposed the submission saying "nobody has been excluded. Not a single case is there where denial of benefits (for want of Aadhaar) has taken place".

The bench then said "We will not pass any interim order at this stage" and added that the petitioner may argue this aspect in their rejoinder submissions.

The UIDAI CEO, in his presentation, referred to the success rate of biometric authentication and said "for government systems, the success rate is 88 per cent, for banks it is 95 per cent and for telecom, it is 97 per cent".

He said the success rate of Aadhaar authentication was lower in government system because of some "vested interests".

Some people wanted that the Aadhaar-linked services to go and hence, the misinformation was being spread and the some section of media was also helping in it.

To buttress the submission, Pandey referred to Aadhaar authentication success rates at banks and in telecom companies and said these were 95 per cent and 97 per cent respectively.

"67 crore SIM cards have been sold by telecom companies by using Aadhaar authentication," he said, adding that in business activities, the success rates were higher and "the reasons are obvious".

Allaying the apprehensions regarding failures in authentication of elderly people, the UIDAI CEO said the success rate was 83 per cent and if iris is also matched, then it goes to 90 per cent.

He said that from July, the authentication process will also include "face recognition technology" which would be more accurate and enhance the success rate.

At the outset, the CEO gave the details of enrolment operators who have been blacklisted and said that 10,268 such entities have been suspended for various reasons like corruption, use of unparliamentary language, lack of quality.

"Have you suspended any operator who have parted with information," the bench asked.

The CEO said the enrolment process, which includes capturing of biometrics, is being conducted on the UIDAI's software and the moment the operator presses the 'save' button, the data gets encrypted. It would take "billions of years" to decrypt it, he said.

UIDAI was also phasing out private enrolment agencies and the process was on to ensure that enrolment is carried out only at banks and post offices, he said, adding that the Aadhaar Act makes sharing of any data punishable as well.

The bench asked the UIDAI to satisfy it as to whether any aggregation of data was possible or not.

The UIDAI head said there was not much details with it as Aadhaar required minimum information from citizens like photograph, demographics, finger prints and iris. It does not collect details of "religion, caste, tribe, language, records of entitlements, income or medical history and profession", he said.

The UIDAI is "blind" to the real purpose for which Aadhaar authentication has been done and there is no question of surveillance on citizens, he said.

After the UIDAI CEO concluded his presentation, senior advocates Shyam Divan and K V Viswanath gave a list of 20 questions to the bench which asked Pandey to submit a written response.

The hearing on clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, would resume on April 3 when the Attorney General would restart advancing his submissions.&nbsp

The top court had on March 13 extended indefinitely the March 31 deadline for linking bank accounts and mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar

The Supreme Court today refused to pass an interim order extending the deadline of March 31 for linking of Aadhaar with the welfare schemes where benefits are transferred to citizens from the Consolidated Fund of India. The top court had on March 13 extended indefinitely the March 31 deadline for linking bank accounts and mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar. However, it had allowed the government and its agencies to link the 12-digit national biometric identifier number of the beneficiaries for transfer of benefits of schemes funded from this fund. A plea, seeking extension of time beyond March 31 for linking Aadhaar with welfare schemes, was made today before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra after Ajay Bhushan Pandey, CEO of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), concluded his PowerPoint presentation (PPT), claiming it would take "billions of years" to decrypt the saved data, including the biometrics. Senior advocate K V Viswanath, appearing for a petitioner opposed to the Aadhaar scheme, took a cue from the PPT in which the UIDAI CEO said that the success rate of Aadhaar authentication in government systems was 88 per cent. "If the data of UIDAI says that there was only 88 per cent success rate of Aadhaar authentication, then it means that 12 per cent people are excluded from the benefits in schemes linked with Aadhaar. Twelve per cent failure is too high," the lawyer said, adding that almost 14 crore citizens cannot take benefits. An interim order is required to be passed to extend the March 31 deadline for welfare schemes also, Viswanath said during the day-long hearing before the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Attorney General K K Venugopal vehemently opposed the submission saying "nobody has been excluded. Not a single case is there where denial of benefits (for want of Aadhaar) has taken place". The bench then said "We will not pass any interim order at this stage" and added that the petitioner may argue this aspect in their rejoinder submissions. The UIDAI CEO, in his presentation, referred to the success rate of biometric authentication and said "for government systems, the success rate is 88 per cent, for banks it is 95 per cent and for telecom, it is 97 per cent". He said the success rate of Aadhaar authentication was lower in government system because of some "vested interests". Some people wanted that the Aadhaar-linked services to go and hence, the misinformation was being spread and the some section of media was also helping in it. To buttress the submission, Pandey referred to Aadhaar authentication success rates at banks and in telecom companies and said these were 95 per cent and 97 per cent respectively. "67 crore SIM cards have been sold by telecom companies by using Aadhaar authentication," he said, adding that in business activities, the success rates were higher and "the reasons are obvious". Allaying the apprehensions regarding failures in authentication of elderly people, the UIDAI CEO said the success rate was 83 per cent and if iris is also matched, then it goes to 90 per cent. He said that from July, the authentication process will also include "face recognition technology" which would be more accurate and enhance the success rate. At the outset, the CEO gave the details of enrolment operators who have been blacklisted and said that 10,268 such entities have been suspended for various reasons like corruption, use of unparliamentary language, lack of quality. "Have you suspended any operator who have parted with information," the bench asked. The CEO said the enrolment process, which includes capturing of biometrics, is being conducted on the UIDAI's software and the moment the operator presses the 'save' button, the data gets encrypted. It would take "billions of years" to decrypt it, he said. UIDAI was also phasing out private enrolment agencies and the process was on to ensure that enrolment is carried out only at banks and post offices, he said, adding that the Aadhaar Act makes sharing of any data punishable as well. The bench asked the UIDAI to satisfy it as to whether any aggregation of data was possible or not. The UIDAI head said there was not much details with it as Aadhaar required minimum information from citizens like photograph, demographics, finger prints and iris. It does not collect details of "religion, caste, tribe, language, records of entitlements, income or medical history and profession", he said. The UIDAI is "blind" to the real purpose for which Aadhaar authentication has been done and there is no question of surveillance on citizens, he said. After the UIDAI CEO concluded his presentation, senior advocates Shyam Divan and K V Viswanath gave a list of 20 questions to the bench which asked Pandey to submit a written response. The hearing on clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, would resume on April 3 when the Attorney General would restart advancing his submissions.

No extension of time for linking Aadhaar to welfare schemes: Supreme Court

The Supreme court of India will examine whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not while adjudicating the Ayodhya&nbsp;Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.

Also read:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-supreme-court-sets-april-6-as-date-of-hearing-36864">Supreme Court sets April 6 as </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-supreme-court-sets-april-6-as-date-of-hearing-36864">date</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-supreme-court-sets-april-6-as-date-of-hearing-36864">&nbsp;of hearing of Ayodhya dispute</a>

A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, would also examine whether a five-judge bench is needed to go into the question.

However, the top court declined the demand by a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that dispute should also be referred to a larger bench.

The question posed by the court is expected to further delay the long going&nbsp;Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict.

The court will next hear the case on April 6.

The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla.

It had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy.

The bench had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528.&nbsp;

On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque.

The Supreme court of India will examine whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not while adjudicating the Ayodhya dispute

The Supreme court of India will examine whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not while adjudicating the Ayodhya Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. Also read: Supreme Court sets April 6 as date of hearing of Ayodhya dispute A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, would also examine whether a five-judge bench is needed to go into the question. However, the top court declined the demand by a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that dispute should also be referred to a larger bench. The question posed by the court is expected to further delay the long going Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict. The court will next hear the case on April 6. The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. It had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy. The bench had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528. On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque.

Babri Masjid dispute: Supreme Court to decide whether 'mosque is an integral part of Islam'

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed April 6 as the date for further hearings in the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case.

The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. 
 
A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had earlier directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The top court had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy.

The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528.&nbsp;

On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque.

(With inputs from ANI)

The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed April 6 as the date for further hearings in the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case. The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had earlier directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The top court had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy. The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528. On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya dispute: Supreme Court sets April 6 as date of hearing

The owner of Mumbai&rsquo;s Kamala Mills today moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest in connection with a fire that claimed 14 lives in December last year.

A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked Ravi Bhandari to serve a copy of his petition to the Maharashtra government. The top court listed the matter for further hearing on March 27.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Bhandari, said his arrest is illegal detention and he can&rsquo;t be booked for the offence of culpable homicide. He said the apex court has already held in the Bhopal gas tragedy and Uphaar cinema hall fire case that they are cases of negligence, which is a bailable offence.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Bhandari&#39;s bail application.Bhandari was arrested in January along with fire officer Rajendra Patil and Utkarsh Pandey, who supplied hookahs to the pubs Mojo&rsquo;s Bistro and 1 Above &nbsp;where the fire started. All three are in judicial custody.

Earlier on January 25, a Mumbai court rejected the bail applications of all five accused- Yug Tuli, Yug Pathak, Abhijit Mankar, Jigar Sanghvi and Kripesh Sanghvi, in connection with the fire case.

 
&nbsp;

The top court listed the matter for further hearing on March 27

The owner of Mumbai’s Kamala Mills today moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest in connection with a fire that claimed 14 lives in December last year. A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked Ravi Bhandari to serve a copy of his petition to the Maharashtra government. The top court listed the matter for further hearing on March 27. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Bhandari, said his arrest is illegal detention and he can’t be booked for the offence of culpable homicide. He said the apex court has already held in the Bhopal gas tragedy and Uphaar cinema hall fire case that they are cases of negligence, which is a bailable offence. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Bhandari's bail application.Bhandari was arrested in January along with fire officer Rajendra Patil and Utkarsh Pandey, who supplied hookahs to the pubs Mojo’s Bistro and 1 Above where the fire started. All three are in judicial custody. Earlier on January 25, a Mumbai court rejected the bail applications of all five accused- Yug Tuli, Yug Pathak, Abhijit Mankar, Jigar Sanghvi and Kripesh Sanghvi, in connection with the fire case.

Kamala Mills owner moves Supreme Court against arrest, says it's illegal detention

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a detailed reply from 11 states for not appointing the Lokayukta.

The top court asked the chief secretaries to specify the reasons for not appointing the anti-corruption ombudsman in their respective states even after the enactment of a law in 2013.

A bench of the top court headed by justice Ranjan Gogoi directed chief secretaries of states concerned to file an affidavit in the issue within two weeks and apprise the court about it.

&quot;The Chief Secretaries of the aforesaid 11 States shall inform the court within two weeks as to whether steps have been taken for appointment of Lokyukta/Uplokayukta and if so the stage thereof. The reasons for non appointment of Lokayukta/Uplokayukta in the aforesaid States be also laid before the Court in the aforesaid affidavit(s) to be filed by the Chief Secretaries,&quot; the bench said.

The top court also asked the 11 states to specify the time period by which they would appoint a Lokayukta as mandated by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

The court sought a reply from the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi and West Bengal.

Though the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was passed in 2013 and came into effect the following year, the states have failed to appoint the anti-corruption ombudsman.

The Supreme Court on Friday sought explanation from chief secretaries of 11 states in two weeks on why they have not appointed Lokayukta and Uplokayukta, despite the enactment of the law five years ago

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a detailed reply from 11 states for not appointing the Lokayukta. The top court asked the chief secretaries to specify the reasons for not appointing the anti-corruption ombudsman in their respective states even after the enactment of a law in 2013. A bench of the top court headed by justice Ranjan Gogoi directed chief secretaries of states concerned to file an affidavit in the issue within two weeks and apprise the court about it. "The Chief Secretaries of the aforesaid 11 States shall inform the court within two weeks as to whether steps have been taken for appointment of Lokyukta/Uplokayukta and if so the stage thereof. The reasons for non appointment of Lokayukta/Uplokayukta in the aforesaid States be also laid before the Court in the aforesaid affidavit(s) to be filed by the Chief Secretaries," the bench said. The top court also asked the 11 states to specify the time period by which they would appoint a Lokayukta as mandated by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The court sought a reply from the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi and West Bengal. Though the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was passed in 2013 and came into effect the following year, the states have failed to appoint the anti-corruption ombudsman.

Supreme Court raps 11 states for not appointing Lokayukta

Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey on Thursday afternoon got a unique opportunity to make a PowerPoint presentation in the Supreme court to defend the government&#39;s ambitious Aadhaar scheme.

The CJI&#39;s courtroom was the centre of attraction for lawyers, litigants and journalists as probably for the first time, two projectors were installed to enable the UIDAI CEO to make a case in favour of Aadhaar.

Pandey, a 1984-batch IAS officer of Maharashtra cadre heading UIDAI since 2010, allayed concerns about data security and said the Aadhaar data is protected by a 2048-bit encryption and &quot;once biometrics comes to us, it will never go away&quot;.

Making use of two projectors, he said breaking the Aadhaar encryption may take &quot;more than the age of the universe for the fastest computer on earth&quot;.

The bench questioned the CEO on his plea that Aadhaar was infallible, asking why the UIDAI blacklisted 49,000 registered operators.

Pandey said the agents were blacklisted for indulging in corruption, carelessness and harassment of the public.

&quot;It sounds somehow strange that you blacklisted 49,000 of your operators for harassing people,&quot; the bench asked.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&quot;Initially, we trusted these operators, but they ended up registering trees, Lord Hanuman, Jamun trees etc,&quot; Pandey responded.

On the issue of failure of authentication, he said if a biometric authentication does not work, the officers have been instructed to check the Aadhaar card and see that the case is genuine.

&quot;A person should not be denied benefits because there is a failure in authentication,&quot; the CEO, who will continue with his presentation on March 27, said.

The bench then asked him about the death of a woman in Jharkhand after she was denied ration for want of Aadhaar authentication.

The CEO said he was aware of the case and it was not the case of failure of authentication. The authentication was done and Aadhaar details matched, it was a case of dishonesty on part of the shopkeeper of the fair price shop.

It was the &quot;failure of honesty&quot; and not the failure of Aadhaar, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents UIDAI, said.

The UIDAI CEO said from July 1, Aadhaar would include the face besides the fingerprints and iris for authentication.

At the start of the presentation, a technical snag led to not functioning of one of the projectors facing the lawyers and litigants. The glitch was rectified later.&nbsp;

Pandey, a 1984-batch IAS officer of Maharashtra cadre heading UIDAI since 2010, allayed concerns about data security

Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey on Thursday afternoon got a unique opportunity to make a PowerPoint presentation in the Supreme court to defend the government's ambitious Aadhaar scheme. The CJI's courtroom was the centre of attraction for lawyers, litigants and journalists as probably for the first time, two projectors were installed to enable the UIDAI CEO to make a case in favour of Aadhaar. Pandey, a 1984-batch IAS officer of Maharashtra cadre heading UIDAI since 2010, allayed concerns about data security and said the Aadhaar data is protected by a 2048-bit encryption and "once biometrics comes to us, it will never go away". Making use of two projectors, he said breaking the Aadhaar encryption may take "more than the age of the universe for the fastest computer on earth". The bench questioned the CEO on his plea that Aadhaar was infallible, asking why the UIDAI blacklisted 49,000 registered operators. Pandey said the agents were blacklisted for indulging in corruption, carelessness and harassment of the public. "It sounds somehow strange that you blacklisted 49,000 of your operators for harassing people," the bench asked. "Initially, we trusted these operators, but they ended up registering trees, Lord Hanuman, Jamun trees etc," Pandey responded. On the issue of failure of authentication, he said if a biometric authentication does not work, the officers have been instructed to check the Aadhaar card and see that the case is genuine. "A person should not be denied benefits because there is a failure in authentication," the CEO, who will continue with his presentation on March 27, said. The bench then asked him about the death of a woman in Jharkhand after she was denied ration for want of Aadhaar authentication. The CEO said he was aware of the case and it was not the case of failure of authentication. The authentication was done and Aadhaar details matched, it was a case of dishonesty on part of the shopkeeper of the fair price shop. It was the "failure of honesty" and not the failure of Aadhaar, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents UIDAI, said. The UIDAI CEO said from July 1, Aadhaar would include the face besides the fingerprints and iris for authentication. At the start of the presentation, a technical snag led to not functioning of one of the projectors facing the lawyers and litigants. The glitch was rectified later.

Breaking Aadhaar encryption may take 'more than age of universe': UIDAI CEO

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday.

The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

The petitions challenge the high court verdict that mandated a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre site in Ayodhya.

The court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen and Teesta Setalvad, in the dispute case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The Supreme Court also rejected the intervention plea of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy in the dispute, a century-old point of the tussle between Hindus and Muslims.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was on December 6, 1992, demolished by Hindu Karsevaks in Ayodhya, following which 2000 people were killed in massive riots in Uttar Pradesh.

The Hindus, however, claim that a Ram temple that originally stood there was demolished to construct the mosque.&nbsp;

The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday. The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. The petitions challenge the high court verdict that mandated a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre site in Ayodhya. The court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen and Teesta Setalvad, in the dispute case. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The Supreme Court also rejected the intervention plea of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy in the dispute, a century-old point of the tussle between Hindus and Muslims. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was on December 6, 1992, demolished by Hindu Karsevaks in Ayodhya, following which 2000 people were killed in massive riots in Uttar Pradesh. The Hindus, however, claim that a Ram temple that originally stood there was demolished to construct the mosque.

Babri Masjid case: Supreme Court to continue 'final hearing' today

The Supreme Court has allowed the UIDAI CEO to make it a power point presentation on the Aadhaar programme.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bVzi2dAIaF8" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The presentation by the UIDAI CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, will be made today at 2.30 pm today. It is meant to allay people&#39;s fears about the scheme.&nbsp;

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-asks-to-give-supreme-court-power-point-presentation-on-aadhaar-36606" target="_blank">request</a> had been made yesterday, with the Chief Justice of India replying to the Government of India&#39;s counsel that he would get back to him after discussing the idea with the other judges on the bench listening to the myriad petitions against the programme.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has also asked the petitioners opposed to the Aadhaar programme to prepare a questionnaire after the power point presentation.&nbsp;

The Aadhaar programme aims to assign every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says this will streamline its delivery systems, getting aid more efficiently to the people who need it the most.&nbsp;

In reality however&nbsp;there have been reports of people without Aadhaar numbers starving to death because government ration shops have refused to serve them.&nbsp;

A number of petitions were filed against the programme. The petitions were later clubbed together by the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-compulsory-linking-of-aadhaar-with-bank-accounts-mobiles-extended-indefinitely-35673" target="_blank">Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely, says Supreme Court</a>

The presentation, meant to allay people's fears about the Aadhaar programme, will be made at 2.30 pm today

The Supreme Court has allowed the UIDAI CEO to make it a power point presentation on the Aadhaar programme. × The presentation by the UIDAI CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, will be made today at 2.30 pm today. It is meant to allay people's fears about the scheme. The request had been made yesterday, with the Chief Justice of India replying to the Government of India's counsel that he would get back to him after discussing the idea with the other judges on the bench listening to the myriad petitions against the programme. The Supreme Court has also asked the petitioners opposed to the Aadhaar programme to prepare a questionnaire after the power point presentation. The Aadhaar programme aims to assign every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says this will streamline its delivery systems, getting aid more efficiently to the people who need it the most. In reality however there have been reports of people without Aadhaar numbers starving to death because government ration shops have refused to serve them. A number of petitions were filed against the programme. The petitions were later clubbed together by the Supreme Court. Also read: Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely, says Supreme Court

Supreme Court allows UIDAI CEO to make it power point presentation on Aadhaar

In a series of recent landmark judgments, the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court, on March, 9, 2018, added another feather to its cap when it put to rest the long-debated issue of euthanasia i.e. mercy killing. Indian society had, for long, considered the concept of mercy killing as a taboo and had prevented itself from opening up to the idea and, as such, the political dispensations had also been reluctant in promulgating the relevant legislations on the subject.

However, the change came about with the case of Aruna Shanbaug which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, wherein, the apex court permitted passive euthanasia and issued strict guidelines for the same which included a clearance from the jurisdictional high court. The latest verdict of March 9 is in pursuance to the previous one and has also introduced the concept of &#39;living will&#39; which is a document executed by an individual of a sound mental disposition, thereby, placing on record as to whether he/she would like to be placed on artificial medical support should the individual suffer from an incurable terminal ailment.

As a reference, worldwide, there are multiple recognised forms of euthanasia like passive/active euthanasia, assisted suicide etc but India has only permitted passive euthanasia. The basic difference is that, in active euthanasia, death of the patient is brought about by an action like administering an overdose of medicines whereas passive euthanasia involves an omission to provide any further medical support and letting the individual die in natural course.

Historically, various religions have also practised this form of euthanasia. For example, Jainism has the concept of Sallekhana which is primarily practiced by seers. In this, when they feel like putting an end to their worldly journey, they refuse the food, water or medications and, gradually, slip into eternal sleep. But this was not a legally recognised concept and had also led to controversies in recent years. But now, with the legal sanction, the concept of euthanasia has been accepted and can be professed by anyone who chooses the path.

While passing the judgement, Supreme Court was also conscious of the probable misuse of this provision and, as such, has introduced multiple layers of precautions in the form of guidelines so as to ensure that the provision is exercised in its letter and spirit. As stated above, there is no legislation in place on the subject and, hence, till that time, the guidelines issued by the apex court would act as guiding light. As a basic measure, the &#39;living will&#39; can be executed only by an individual of sound mind out of free will and volition. The living will has to be unambiguous in its intent and should clearly state the terms and conditions and circumstances of withdrawal. Further, the living will should specify the name of guardian or a close relative who, in the event of executor becoming completely indisposed, would be authorised to accord consent on behalf of the patient to withdraw the treatment.

In order to allay the fears of misuse, the Supreme Court has also provided for the clearance by the State before the living will is carried out. The living will is to be signed by the executor before two attesting witnesses and the same is to be countersigned by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Both the Judicial Magistrate and the witnesses would record their satisfaction as to the free will of the executor while preserving one copy in his office and sending another to the record of the jurisdictional district court and to the competent officer of the local government.

The safeguards have also been provided at the medical platform like verifying the authenticity of the living will and forming of medical boards - one by hospital and another by the district collector - and, only after their clearance, can the process be proceeded with.

Undoubtedly, this is a welcome introduction by the Supreme Court and it is hoped that the provision is carried out in letter and spirit and ends the sufferings of those with no hopes. However, with the first step taken, a debate upon extending the sweep of the provision to cover active euthanasia as well is not far away in sight but that can only be after the provisions of passive euthanasia are successfully imbibed by the society.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Historically, various religions have also practised this form of euthanasia.

In a series of recent landmark judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on March, 9, 2018, added another feather to its cap when it put to rest the long-debated issue of euthanasia i.e. mercy killing. Indian society had, for long, considered the concept of mercy killing as a taboo and had prevented itself from opening up to the idea and, as such, the political dispensations had also been reluctant in promulgating the relevant legislations on the subject. However, the change came about with the case of Aruna Shanbaug which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, wherein, the apex court permitted passive euthanasia and issued strict guidelines for the same which included a clearance from the jurisdictional high court. The latest verdict of March 9 is in pursuance to the previous one and has also introduced the concept of 'living will' which is a document executed by an individual of a sound mental disposition, thereby, placing on record as to whether he/she would like to be placed on artificial medical support should the individual suffer from an incurable terminal ailment. As a reference, worldwide, there are multiple recognised forms of euthanasia like passive/active euthanasia, assisted suicide etc but India has only permitted passive euthanasia. The basic difference is that, in active euthanasia, death of the patient is brought about by an action like administering an overdose of medicines whereas passive euthanasia involves an omission to provide any further medical support and letting the individual die in natural course. Historically, various religions have also practised this form of euthanasia. For example, Jainism has the concept of Sallekhana which is primarily practiced by seers. In this, when they feel like putting an end to their worldly journey, they refuse the food, water or medications and, gradually, slip into eternal sleep. But this was not a legally recognised concept and had also led to controversies in recent years. But now, with the legal sanction, the concept of euthanasia has been accepted and can be professed by anyone who chooses the path. While passing the judgement, Supreme Court was also conscious of the probable misuse of this provision and, as such, has introduced multiple layers of precautions in the form of guidelines so as to ensure that the provision is exercised in its letter and spirit. As stated above, there is no legislation in place on the subject and, hence, till that time, the guidelines issued by the apex court would act as guiding light. As a basic measure, the 'living will' can be executed only by an individual of sound mind out of free will and volition. The living will has to be unambiguous in its intent and should clearly state the terms and conditions and circumstances of withdrawal. Further, the living will should specify the name of guardian or a close relative who, in the event of executor becoming completely indisposed, would be authorised to accord consent on behalf of the patient to withdraw the treatment. In order to allay the fears of misuse, the Supreme Court has also provided for the clearance by the State before the living will is carried out. The living will is to be signed by the executor before two attesting witnesses and the same is to be countersigned by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Both the Judicial Magistrate and the witnesses would record their satisfaction as to the free will of the executor while preserving one copy in his office and sending another to the record of the jurisdictional district court and to the competent officer of the local government. The safeguards have also been provided at the medical platform like verifying the authenticity of the living will and forming of medical boards - one by hospital and another by the district collector - and, only after their clearance, can the process be proceeded with. Undoubtedly, this is a welcome introduction by the Supreme Court and it is hoped that the provision is carried out in letter and spirit and ends the sufferings of those with no hopes. However, with the first step taken, a debate upon extending the sweep of the provision to cover active euthanasia as well is not far away in sight but that can only be after the provisions of passive euthanasia are successfully imbibed by the society. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Passive euthanasia brings in a new wind of change

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL), the parent company of Jaypee Infratech, to deposit Rs 200 crore in two equal installments before the SC registry by April 15 and May 10.

The court has listed the matter for further hearing on April 16, to see if the JAL has complied with the payment of the first instalment or not.

The court will also take a decision on pro rata distribution of funds received.

The amount would make a part of Rs 2,000 crore, which the infrastructure company has to deposit with the top court&#39;s registry in order to refund the money of home buyers of Jaypee Infratech.

Jaypee Infratech is among the 12 companies against whom the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through its 13 June directive, asked banks to file insolvency petitions.

The court has listed the matter for further hearing on April 16, to see if the JAL has complied with the payment of the first instalment or not

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL), the parent company of Jaypee Infratech, to deposit Rs 200 crore in two equal installments before the SC registry by April 15 and May 10. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on April 16, to see if the JAL has complied with the payment of the first instalment or not. The court will also take a decision on pro rata distribution of funds received. The amount would make a part of Rs 2,000 crore, which the infrastructure company has to deposit with the top court's registry in order to refund the money of home buyers of Jaypee Infratech. Jaypee Infratech is among the 12 companies against whom the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through its 13 June directive, asked banks to file insolvency petitions.

Supreme Court asks Jaypee Associates to deposit Rs 200 crore

Accused of Bhima Koregaon violence, Milind Ekbote has been sent to 14 days judicial custody by the sessions court in Pune on Wednesday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Milind Ekbote, an accused in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BhimaKoregaonViolence?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BhimaKoregaonViolence</a>, sent to 14 days judicial custody by sessions court in Pune <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Maharashtra?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Maharashtra</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/976403318758092800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 21, 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">&times;</a></div>

On March 14, Ekbote was detained by Pune police reportedly from his house at Shivajinagar in Pune.&nbsp;

Ekbote was refused another anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court. He was granted anticipatory bail until March 14.&nbsp;

A couple of FIRs were registered against Ekbote alleging his role in the violence at Bhima-Koregaon.&nbsp;

In January Police arrested 54 people in connection with caste violence that erupted in Pune during a gathering to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon earlier this year.

Clashes broke out between villagers from Maharashtra&#39;s Koregaon Bhima, Pabal, and Shikrapur.&nbsp;

&nbsp;A youth was also killed during the violence.&nbsp;

After the violence, a day-long `Maharashtra bandh` was also called by various Dalit organizations on January 3.&nbsp;

On March 14, Ekbote was detained by Pune police reportedly from his house at Shivajinagar in Pune

Accused of Bhima Koregaon violence, Milind Ekbote has been sent to 14 days judicial custody by the sessions court in Pune on Wednesday. Milind Ekbote, an accused in #BhimaKoregaonViolence, sent to 14 days judicial custody by sessions court in Pune #Maharashtra — ANI (@ANI) March 21, 2018 × On March 14, Ekbote was detained by Pune police reportedly from his house at Shivajinagar in Pune. Ekbote was refused another anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court. He was granted anticipatory bail until March 14. A couple of FIRs were registered against Ekbote alleging his role in the violence at Bhima-Koregaon. In January Police arrested 54 people in connection with caste violence that erupted in Pune during a gathering to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon earlier this year. Clashes broke out between villagers from Maharashtra's Koregaon Bhima, Pabal, and Shikrapur. A youth was also killed during the violence. After the violence, a day-long `Maharashtra bandh` was also called by various Dalit organizations on January 3.

Pune: Bhima Koregaon violence accused Milind Ekbote sent to custody

Aam Aadmi Party members met with the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday over the ongoing sealing drive issue in the capital city. A Supreme Court-appointed Monitoring Committee was set up to find a solution to the sealing drive issue.

&quot;Representatives of all 3 parties along with Council of Ministers met SC Monitoring Committee. Urged them to stop sealing till SC judgement on this issue,&quot; Kejriwal tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Reps of all 3 parties alongwid Council of Min met SC Monitoring comm. Urged them to stop sealing till SC judgement on this issue. <a href="https://t.co/znMZ2TeAh0">https://t.co/znMZ2TeAh0</a>
&mdash; Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArvindKejriwal/status/976375172533047296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 21, 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">&times;</a></div>

After a meeting last week, the AAP and the Congress had agreed to hold an all-party meeting along with the Monitoring Committee to find a solution to the sealing drive.

A Supreme Court-appointed committee ordered various municipal corporations in the national capital region to carry out sealing drives. Hundreds of commercial established have borne the brunt of the drive that began in December last year.&nbsp;

The sealing drive has been carried out to keep a check on the violators who did not pay &#39;conversion charges&#39; or violated Delhi Master Plan.&nbsp;

After a meeting last week, the AAP and the Congress had agreed to hold an all-party meeting along with the Monitoring Committee to find a solution to the sealing drive

Aam Aadmi Party members met with the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday over the ongoing sealing drive issue in the capital city. A Supreme Court-appointed Monitoring Committee was set up to find a solution to the sealing drive issue. "Representatives of all 3 parties along with Council of Ministers met SC Monitoring Committee. Urged them to stop sealing till SC judgement on this issue," Kejriwal tweeted. Reps of all 3 parties alongwid Council of Min met SC Monitoring comm. Urged them to stop sealing till SC judgement on this issue. https://t.co/znMZ2TeAh0 — Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) March 21, 2018 × After a meeting last week, the AAP and the Congress had agreed to hold an all-party meeting along with the Monitoring Committee to find a solution to the sealing drive. A Supreme Court-appointed committee ordered various municipal corporations in the national capital region to carry out sealing drives. Hundreds of commercial established have borne the brunt of the drive that began in December last year. The sealing drive has been carried out to keep a check on the violators who did not pay 'conversion charges' or violated Delhi Master Plan.

Delhi sealing drive: AAP, Congress, BJP leaders meet Supreme Court-appointed committee

The government of India has asked to give the Supreme Court a power point presentation on the Aadhaar programme.&nbsp;

The presentation, should the court accept the proposition, will be given by the CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, of the UIDAI. The Unique Identification Authority of India is the body rolling out the programme.&nbsp;

The programme aims to give every single India a unique identification number, but it has gathered plenty of opposition.&nbsp;

The aim of the presentation is to allay those concerns.&nbsp;

The Chief Justice of India responded to the request, saying he would fix a time after discussing the matter with the other judges on the bench hearing the cases against Aadhaar.&nbsp;

&quot;There are technical points related to surveillance, data security and exclusion,&quot; the court said.&nbsp;

There were a number of petitions filed against the Aadhaar programme, with people saying that it is an invasion of privacy, and that it could be misused.&nbsp;

The court had clubbed all the petitions, saying it would hear them together.&nbsp;

Most recently, the court had extended &mdash; indefinitely, until its judgement was out &mdash; the date for the linking of Aadhaar numbers to cell phones, and bank accounts.&nbsp;

The earlier date to do the aforesaid linking was March 31, 2018

The presentation, should the court accept the proposition, will be given by the CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, of the UIDAI. The aim of the presentation is to allay people's fears about Aadhaar

The government of India has asked to give the Supreme Court a power point presentation on the Aadhaar programme. The presentation, should the court accept the proposition, will be given by the CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, of the UIDAI. The Unique Identification Authority of India is the body rolling out the programme. The programme aims to give every single India a unique identification number, but it has gathered plenty of opposition. The aim of the presentation is to allay those concerns. The Chief Justice of India responded to the request, saying he would fix a time after discussing the matter with the other judges on the bench hearing the cases against Aadhaar. "There are technical points related to surveillance, data security and exclusion," the court said. There were a number of petitions filed against the Aadhaar programme, with people saying that it is an invasion of privacy, and that it could be misused. The court had clubbed all the petitions, saying it would hear them together. Most recently, the court had extended — indefinitely, until its judgement was out — the date for the linking of Aadhaar numbers to cell phones, and bank accounts. The earlier date to do the aforesaid linking was March 31, 2018

Centre asks to give Supreme Court power point presentation on Aadhaar

The NDA government on Wednesday quoted former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the Supreme Court to put forth its arguments supporting the Aadhaar scheme, saying it would stop the leakage of public money.

&quot;A former Prime Minister of this country (late Shri Rajiv Gandhi] has gone on record to say that out of one rupee spent by the Government for welfare of the downtrodden, only 15 paisa thereof actually reaches those persons for whom it is meant.

&quot;It cannot be doubted that with UID/Aadhaar much of the malaise in this field can be taken care of,&quot; Attorney General K K Venugopal told a five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The bench is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its 2016 enabling law.

Venugopal said Aadhaar has effectively taken care of the issue of ghost beneficiaries of welfare schemes, besides fake cards for ration, BPL quota and PAN.

It becomes the Government&#39;s duty in a welfare state to come out with various schemes which not only take care of immediate needs of the deprived class but also ensure that adequate opportunities are provided to such persons to enable them make their lives better, economically and socially, Venugopal said.

However, for various reasons including corruption, actual benefit does not reach those who are supposed to receive such benefits he said.

&quot;One of the main reasons is failure to identify these persons for lack of means by which identity could be established of such genuine needy class. Resultantly, lots of ghosts and duplicate beneficiaries are able to take undue and impermissible benefits,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

The NDA government on Wednesday quoted former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the Supreme Court to put forth its arguments supporting the Aadhaar scheme, saying it would stop the leakage of public money

The NDA government on Wednesday quoted former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the Supreme Court to put forth its arguments supporting the Aadhaar scheme, saying it would stop the leakage of public money. "A former Prime Minister of this country (late Shri Rajiv Gandhi] has gone on record to say that out of one rupee spent by the Government for welfare of the downtrodden, only 15 paisa thereof actually reaches those persons for whom it is meant. "It cannot be doubted that with UID/Aadhaar much of the malaise in this field can be taken care of," Attorney General K K Venugopal told a five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The bench is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its 2016 enabling law. Venugopal said Aadhaar has effectively taken care of the issue of ghost beneficiaries of welfare schemes, besides fake cards for ration, BPL quota and PAN. It becomes the Government's duty in a welfare state to come out with various schemes which not only take care of immediate needs of the deprived class but also ensure that adequate opportunities are provided to such persons to enable them make their lives better, economically and socially, Venugopal said. However, for various reasons including corruption, actual benefit does not reach those who are supposed to receive such benefits he said. "One of the main reasons is failure to identify these persons for lack of means by which identity could be established of such genuine needy class. Resultantly, lots of ghosts and duplicate beneficiaries are able to take undue and impermissible benefits," he said.

Centre quotes Rajiv Gandhi in Supreme Court to defend Aadhaar scheme

As per the latest Supreme Court directive, the maximum fee for filing applications under the Right to Information Act would be Rs 50. The apex court&#39;s order came on Tuesday and noted that the maximum charge for photocopying charges can only amount to Rs 5 per page.

The top court&#39;s order will be applicable to all institutions, including high courts, legislative assemblies and other government and autonomous bodies that come within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

An NGO called Common Cause had moved the court noting that levying excessive fee for RTI applications would disincentivise and discourage the public from seeking information.

The Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha had increased RTI application fee to Rs 500 in the year 2011. The same was reduced to Rs 300 in 2016.

Officially, the fee for initiating an RTI application should ideally be just Rs 10.&nbsp;

The top court's order would be applicable to all institutions, including high courts, legislative assemblies and other government and autonomous bodies

As per the latest Supreme Court directive, the maximum fee for filing applications under the Right to Information Act would be Rs 50. The apex court's order came on Tuesday and noted that the maximum charge for photocopying charges can only amount to Rs 5 per page. The top court's order will be applicable to all institutions, including high courts, legislative assemblies and other government and autonomous bodies that come within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. An NGO called Common Cause had moved the court noting that levying excessive fee for RTI applications would disincentivise and discourage the public from seeking information. The Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha had increased RTI application fee to Rs 500 in the year 2011. The same was reduced to Rs 300 in 2016. Officially, the fee for initiating an RTI application should ideally be just Rs 10.

Maximum fee for RTI application should not exceed Rs 50: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted the plea filed by the widow of domestic help Hemraj challenging Rajesh and Nupur Talwar&rsquo;s acquittal by the Allahabad high court on October 12 last year.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued a notice to the dentist couple, who were acquitted by the Allahabad High Court in the twin murder case in October last year. Khumkala Banjade, Hemraj&#39;s wife, had filed an appeal in December last year against the Talwars acquittal in the case.

The high court has released the Talwars since there were not found guilty on the basis of the evidence on record.&nbsp;

On November 26, 2013, a CBI court in Ghaziabad sentenced the Talwars to life imprisonment in connection with the case.

Before the high court order, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were serving life sentences in Ghaziabad&#39;s Dasna jail.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars&#39; Noida residence with her throat slit in May 2008. The needle of suspicion had initially moved towards 45- year-old Hemraj, who had gone missing but his body was recovered from the terrace of the house two days later.

Former chief minister Mayawati had recommended a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after the UP police drew flak over a shoddy probe into the case which was making national headlines.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room at the Talwars’ Noida residence with her throat slit on May 16, 2008

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted the plea filed by the widow of domestic help Hemraj challenging Rajesh and Nupur Talwar’s acquittal by the Allahabad high court on October 12 last year. A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued a notice to the dentist couple, who were acquitted by the Allahabad High Court in the twin murder case in October last year. Khumkala Banjade, Hemraj's wife, had filed an appeal in December last year against the Talwars acquittal in the case. The high court has released the Talwars since there were not found guilty on the basis of the evidence on record. On November 26, 2013, a CBI court in Ghaziabad sentenced the Talwars to life imprisonment in connection with the case. Before the high court order, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were serving life sentences in Ghaziabad's Dasna jail. Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars' Noida residence with her throat slit in May 2008. The needle of suspicion had initially moved towards 45- year-old Hemraj, who had gone missing but his body was recovered from the terrace of the house two days later. Former chief minister Mayawati had recommended a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after the UP police drew flak over a shoddy probe into the case which was making national headlines.

Arushi murder case: Supreme Court admits appeal against Talwars

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Faridabad court trial of the lynching of the young Muslim boy Junaid.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has also asked the Haryana government for a detailed report.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Junaid train lynching case: Supreme Court said, it would also examine whether the probe agency, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be handed over the investigation or not.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/975632353568743429?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The court also said that it would examine whether the investigation into the lynching should be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation or not.&nbsp;

Fifteen-year-old Junaid Khan had in June last year been travelling with an elder brother and friends back to his Haryana village after shopping in Delhi for Eid when a few fellow passengers asked them to vacate their seats.&nbsp;

A fight ensued when they refused. And Junaid ended up being stabbed to death.&nbsp;

The killing was possibly a hate crime since Junaid and the others were called &quot;beef eaters&quot;&nbsp;and their beards tugged before they were attacked.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has also asked the Haryana government for a detailed report

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Faridabad court trial of the lynching of the young Muslim boy Junaid. The Supreme Court has also asked the Haryana government for a detailed report. Junaid train lynching case: Supreme Court said, it would also examine whether the probe agency, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be handed over the investigation or not. — ANI (@ANI) March 19, 2018 × The court also said that it would examine whether the investigation into the lynching should be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation or not. Fifteen-year-old Junaid Khan had in June last year been travelling with an elder brother and friends back to his Haryana village after shopping in Delhi for Eid when a few fellow passengers asked them to vacate their seats. A fight ensued when they refused. And Junaid ended up being stabbed to death. The killing was possibly a hate crime since Junaid and the others were called "beef eaters" and their beards tugged before they were attacked.

Junaid lynching: Supreme Court stays trial in Haryana court

Bangladesh&#39;s Supreme Court today stayed a high court order granting bail to former prime minister Khaleda Zia in a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ex-bangladesh-pm-khaleda-zia-sentenced-to-5-years-in-graft-case-32203" target="_blank">corruption case</a>, a media report said.

Zia, 72, was sentenced to five years in jail on February 8 in connection with the embezzlement of 21 million taka (about USD 250,000) in foreign donations meant for the Zia Orphanage Trust, named after her late husband Ziaur Rahman, a military ruler-turned-politician.

On March 12, the High Court here granted the chairperson of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) a four-month interim bail.

Opinion: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/opinion-a-jailed-khaleda-zia-is-more-popular-than-a-free-one-32961" target="_blank">A jailed Khaleda Zia is more popular than a free one</a>

However, today a full bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain passed the order to stay until May 8 the high court order which granted bail to Zia in the graft case.

Following today&#39;s Supreme Court order, Zia cannot get released from jail till May 8, Anti-Corruption Commission&#39;s lawyer Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan was quoted as saying by the report.

Earlier on March 15, the ACC and the state filed two leave-to-appeal petitions before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, challenging the BNP chief&#39;s bail. PTI

Zia, 72, was sentenced to five years in jail on February 8 in connection with the embezzlement of 21 million taka (about USD 250,000) in foreign donations meant for the Zia Orphanage Trust

Bangladesh's Supreme Court today stayed a high court order granting bail to former prime minister Khaleda Zia in a corruption case, a media report said. Zia, 72, was sentenced to five years in jail on February 8 in connection with the embezzlement of 21 million taka (about USD 250,000) in foreign donations meant for the Zia Orphanage Trust, named after her late husband Ziaur Rahman, a military ruler-turned-politician. On March 12, the High Court here granted the chairperson of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) a four-month interim bail. Opinion: A jailed Khaleda Zia is more popular than a free one However, today a full bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain passed the order to stay until May 8 the high court order which granted bail to Zia in the graft case. Following today's Supreme Court order, Zia cannot get released from jail till May 8, Anti-Corruption Commission's lawyer Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan was quoted as saying by the report. Earlier on March 15, the ACC and the state filed two leave-to-appeal petitions before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, challenging the BNP chief's bail. PTI

Bangladesh Supreme Court stays HC order on Zia's bail

The freedom to air ones view is the &quot;lifeline of any democratic institution&quot;, the Supreme Court Friday&nbsp;said, but made it clear that demonstrations creating public disturbance were not covered under the freedom of speech and expression granted by the Constitution.

The apex court said that Article 19 of the Constitution which relates to freedom of speech and expression guarantees some of the &quot;most important fundamental rights&quot; to the citizens.

&quot;The right of freedom of speech and expression coupled with right to assemble peaceably and without arms are rights expression of which are reflected in carrying demonstration on several occasions. Freedom to air ones view is the lifeline of any democratic institution,&quot; a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said.

The apex court made these observations in its judgement by which it dismissed the plea of former Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leader Bimal Gurung seeking protection from any coercive action by West Bengal Police in connection with the cases lodged against him there.

The bench observed that the word &#39;freedom of speech&#39; must be broadly construed to include right to circulate once view by word of mouth or through audio-visual instrument.

&quot;Demonstrations are also a mode of expression of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Demonstrations whether political, religious or social or other demonstrations which create public disturbances or operate as nuisances, or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private mischief, are not covered by protection under Article 19(1),&quot; it said.

&quot;From the very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; &#39;it may be noisy and disorderly&#39;, for instance stone-throwing by a crowd may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration and this would not obviously be within Article 19(1)(a) or (b),&quot; the bench noted in its verdict.

&nbsp;

The freedom to air ones view is the "lifeline of any democratic institution", the Supreme Court Friday said, but made it clear that demonstrations creating public disturbance were not covered under the freedom of speech and expression granted by the Constitution

The freedom to air ones view is the "lifeline of any democratic institution", the Supreme Court Friday said, but made it clear that demonstrations creating public disturbance were not covered under the freedom of speech and expression granted by the Constitution. The apex court said that Article 19 of the Constitution which relates to freedom of speech and expression guarantees some of the "most important fundamental rights" to the citizens. "The right of freedom of speech and expression coupled with right to assemble peaceably and without arms are rights expression of which are reflected in carrying demonstration on several occasions. Freedom to air ones view is the lifeline of any democratic institution," a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said. The apex court made these observations in its judgement by which it dismissed the plea of former Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leader Bimal Gurung seeking protection from any coercive action by West Bengal Police in connection with the cases lodged against him there. The bench observed that the word 'freedom of speech' must be broadly construed to include right to circulate once view by word of mouth or through audio-visual instrument. "Demonstrations are also a mode of expression of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Demonstrations whether political, religious or social or other demonstrations which create public disturbances or operate as nuisances, or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private mischief, are not covered by protection under Article 19(1)," it said. "From the very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; 'it may be noisy and disorderly', for instance stone-throwing by a crowd may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration and this would not obviously be within Article 19(1)(a) or (b)," the bench noted in its verdict.

Demonstration creating public disturbance is not Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court

The Centre Friday informed the Supreme Court that in the &quot;interest of the nation&quot;, it will not damage the mythological Ram Sethu for its Sethusamudram Ship Channel project.

The Union Ministry of Shipping, in its affidavit, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the PIL filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against the Sethusamudram project can now be disposed off by taking note of its stand.

&quot;That the government of India intends to explore an alternative to the earlier alignment of Sethusamudram Ship Channel project without affecting/damaging the Adam&#39;s Bridge/Ram Sethu in the interest of the nation,&quot; the affidavit filed by the ministry said.

Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the Centre, said that the Centre has filed the response in pursuance of the earlier directions and the PIL can now be disposed off. Swamy had filed a PIL against the ship channel project and had sought direction to the Centre that the mythological Ram Sethu be not touched.

The Union Ministry of Shipping, in its affidavit, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the PIL filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against the Sethusamudram project can now be disposed off by taking note of its stand

The Centre Friday informed the Supreme Court that in the "interest of the nation", it will not damage the mythological Ram Sethu for its Sethusamudram Ship Channel project. The Union Ministry of Shipping, in its affidavit, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the PIL filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy against the Sethusamudram project can now be disposed off by taking note of its stand. "That the government of India intends to explore an alternative to the earlier alignment of Sethusamudram Ship Channel project without affecting/damaging the Adam's Bridge/Ram Sethu in the interest of the nation," the affidavit filed by the ministry said. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the Centre, said that the Centre has filed the response in pursuance of the earlier directions and the PIL can now be disposed off. Swamy had filed a PIL against the ship channel project and had sought direction to the Centre that the mythological Ram Sethu be not touched.

Ram Sethu will not be damaged for shipping channel project: Centre tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide if the Babri mosque is indeed an integral part of Islam. The court&#39;s comments came during a hearing on the Ayodhya case where senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board - one of the parties in the case - cited a previous judgement of a constitutional bench which said the mosque is not an integral part of Islam.

The court&#39;s decision will determine whether Muslims can continue holding prayers at the site where mosque once stood. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also refused to send the case to a five-member Constitution Bench as demanded by the Muslim organisations. The next hearing will take place on March 23.

At the hearing today, the Supreme Court also dismissed all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri Mosque-Ram temple land dispute case.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Najeeb accepted the contention that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to advance arguments in the case and the intervention applications of unrelated persons seeking impledment as parties be rejected.

This means that the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Shri Ram Lala Virajman are the only parties.

The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter.

The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy&#39;s disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya.

&quot;I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right,&quot; Swamy said.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The court however revived Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at the disputed site

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide if the Babri mosque is indeed an integral part of Islam. The court's comments came during a hearing on the Ayodhya case where senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board - one of the parties in the case - cited a previous judgement of a constitutional bench which said the mosque is not an integral part of Islam. The court's decision will determine whether Muslims can continue holding prayers at the site where mosque once stood. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also refused to send the case to a five-member Constitution Bench as demanded by the Muslim organisations. The next hearing will take place on March 23. At the hearing today, the Supreme Court also dismissed all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri Mosque-Ram temple land dispute case. A special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Najeeb accepted the contention that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to advance arguments in the case and the intervention applications of unrelated persons seeking impledment as parties be rejected. This means that the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Shri Ram Lala Virajman are the only parties. The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter. The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy's disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. "I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right," Swamy said. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya row: Supreme Court to decide if mosque is an integral part of Islam

A Goa court is hearing sexual assault case against Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tajpal.

Earlier the hearing was scheduled to take place between February 26 to March 1 but later the date was postponed to March 15 &nbsp;due to Tejpal changing his lawyer.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tarun-tejpal-charged-with-rape-pleads-not-guilty-20789">Tarun Tejpal charged with rape, pleads not guilty</a>

Last year in December Supreme Court directed Bombay High Court to conduct a trial and begin the examination of the witnesses.&nbsp;

In November 2013 Tejpal is accused of raping his then colleague during the magazine event in Goa.&nbsp;

After which he was booked under IPC sections 376, 376(2) (F)&nbsp; and 376(2) (k).

Tarun Tejpal has also been charged with sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of a woman in September 2016.

He was arrested on 30 November 2013 and is currently on bail granted by Supreme Court since 1 July 2014.

 
&nbsp;

Earlier the hearing was scheduled to take place between February 26 to March 1 but later the date was postponed to March 15 due to Tejpal changing his lawyer

A Goa court is hearing sexual assault case against Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tajpal. Earlier the hearing was scheduled to take place between February 26 to March 1 but later the date was postponed to March 15 due to Tejpal changing his lawyer. Also read: Tarun Tejpal charged with rape, pleads not guilty Last year in December Supreme Court directed Bombay High Court to conduct a trial and begin the examination of the witnesses. In November 2013 Tejpal is accused of raping his then colleague during the magazine event in Goa. After which he was booked under IPC sections 376, 376(2) (F) and 376(2) (k). Tarun Tejpal has also been charged with sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of a woman in September 2016. He was arrested on 30 November 2013 and is currently on bail granted by Supreme Court since 1 July 2014.

Tehelka rape case: Goa court begins Tarun Tejpal trial

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave interim protection to Karti Chidambaram from arrest in connection with the INX Media case, news agency ANI reported.

Karti cannot be arrested until March 26 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Thursday order was regarding the ED case pending in Delhi High Court in relation to the adjudication of the probe agency&#39;s power to arrest Karti Chidambaram under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The extension comes as a relief to Karti after the probe agency on March 13 moved the apex court against the high court order, which had granted him relief.

Karti, son of former finance minister P. Chidambaram, is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED for his alleged role in the INX Media case.

He is in judicial custody till March 24.

The high court on March 9 restrained the ED from arresting Karti Chidambaram till March 20 after he claimed the probe agency could not conduct the investigation without registering a formal case.

Karti Chidambaram and his father have dismissed the case as a political vendetta. The CBI and ED said Karti Chidambaram helped the INX Media Ltd get around foreign investment regulations in return for a bribe.(ANI)

Karti is in judicial custody till March 24.

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave interim protection to Karti Chidambaram from arrest in connection with the INX Media case, news agency ANI reported. Karti cannot be arrested until March 26 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Thursday order was regarding the ED case pending in Delhi High Court in relation to the adjudication of the probe agency's power to arrest Karti Chidambaram under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The extension comes as a relief to Karti after the probe agency on March 13 moved the apex court against the high court order, which had granted him relief. Karti, son of former finance minister P. Chidambaram, is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED for his alleged role in the INX Media case. He is in judicial custody till March 24. The high court on March 9 restrained the ED from arresting Karti Chidambaram till March 20 after he claimed the probe agency could not conduct the investigation without registering a formal case. Karti Chidambaram and his father have dismissed the case as a political vendetta. The CBI and ED said Karti Chidambaram helped the INX Media Ltd get around foreign investment regulations in return for a bribe.(ANI)

INX Media case: SC extends interim protection from arrest to Karti till March 26

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">Uttar Pradesh </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">: UP shocker; SP wins both Yogi bastion of Gorakhpur and Phulpur seat</a>

The Samajwadi Party&#39;s Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel won the Phulpur Lok Sabha bypoll by 59,613 votes Wednesday evening. The BJP came in second.&nbsp;

In the Gorakhpur bypoll meanwhile, the SP&#39;s Praveen Kumar Nishad won by 21,881 votes

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-accept-the-verdict-of-the-people-yogi-after-deafeat-in-bypolls-35825" target="_blank">Watch: We accept people&#39;s verdict, says Yogi Adityanath after BJP&#39;s defeat in </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-accept-the-verdict-of-the-people-yogi-after-deafeat-in-bypolls-35825" target="_blank">bypolls</a>

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has reacted after the shocking defeat of BJP on his home-turf Gorakhpur, and Phulpur &ndash; both seats previously represented by him and his deputy in Uttar Pradesh government Keshav Prasad Maurya respective

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">Bihar </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">: RJD wins Araria Lok Sabha seat and Jehanabad assembly seat while BJP retains Bhabua</a>

The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on &nbsp;Wednesday won the Jehanabad assembly seat bypoll.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, BJP&#39;s Rinky Rani Pandey has won the Bhabhua Assembly seat in Bihar.&nbsp;

The result of the Araria Lok Sabha constituency is also out, RJD&#39;s Sarfaraz Alam has won the Araria Lok Sabha seat.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-all-interim-pleas-to-intervene-in-ayodhya-dispute-35810" target="_blank">Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas to intervene in Ayodhya dispute</a>

The Supreme Court today rejected all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri masjid- Ram temple land dispute case.

The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy&#39;s disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/entertainment-former-wonder-woman-lynda-carter-says-she-was-sexually-harassed-35823" target="_blank">I was sexually harassed too, says Wonder Woman</a>

Former &quot;Wonder Woman&quot; superhero Lynda Carter who played the iconic character in the 1970s TV series revealed that she was sexually harassed during her career.&nbsp;

Uttar Pradesh bypolls: UP shocker; SP wins both Yogi bastion of Gorakhpur and Phulpur seat The Samajwadi Party's Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel won the Phulpur Lok Sabha bypoll by 59,613 votes Wednesday evening. The BJP came in second. In the Gorakhpur bypoll meanwhile, the SP's Praveen Kumar Nishad won by 21,881 votes Watch: We accept people's verdict, says Yogi Adityanath after BJP's defeat in bypolls Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has reacted after the shocking defeat of BJP on his home-turf Gorakhpur, and Phulpur – both seats previously represented by him and his deputy in Uttar Pradesh government Keshav Prasad Maurya respective Bihar bypolls: RJD wins Araria Lok Sabha seat and Jehanabad assembly seat while BJP retains Bhabua The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on Wednesday won the Jehanabad assembly seat bypoll. Meanwhile, BJP's Rinky Rani Pandey has won the Bhabhua Assembly seat in Bihar. The result of the Araria Lok Sabha constituency is also out, RJD's Sarfaraz Alam has won the Araria Lok Sabha seat. Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas to intervene in Ayodhya dispute The Supreme Court today rejected all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri masjid- Ram temple land dispute case. The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy's disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. I was sexually harassed too, says Wonder Woman Former "Wonder Woman" superhero Lynda Carter who played the iconic character in the 1970s TV series revealed that she was sexually harassed during her career.

WION Evening News Brief, March 14, 2018

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced the compulsory linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts and mobile phones.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court says mandatory <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aadhaar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Aadhaar</a> linking with bank accounts and mobile phones will stand extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced <a href="https://t.co/X8ZzrcjMBC">pic.twitter.com/X8ZzrcjMBC</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/973512942611255296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 13, 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">&times;</a></div>

The latest deadline given by the government for the compulsory linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts and mobile phones was March 31.&nbsp;

The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on March 7 said it may not be possible to decide by March 31 the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act.

The bench, which also comprised justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, had earlier said that since the matter would have implications on financial institutions, like banks and stock exchange, it would create a huge problem of compliance if the deadline was extended at the last moment.

On December 15 last year, the apex court had extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes.

Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice K S Puttaswamy had told the apex court on February 22 that several deaths had reportedly taken place due to starvation on account of glitches in the Aadhaar-based public distribution system and the court must consider granting them compensation.

Earlier, the top court had observed that the alleged defect of citizens&#39; biometric details under the Aadhaar scheme being collected without any law could be cured by subsequently bringing in a statute.

It had said that the Centre came out with the law in 2016 to negate the objection that it was collecting data since 2009 without any authorisation, but the issue which needed consideration was what would happen if the data collected earlier, had been compromised.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

The court said Tuesday that the compulsory linking stood extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced the compulsory linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts and mobile phones. Supreme Court says mandatory #Aadhaar linking with bank accounts and mobile phones will stand extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced pic.twitter.com/X8ZzrcjMBC — ANI (@ANI) March 13, 2018 × The latest deadline given by the government for the compulsory linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts and mobile phones was March 31. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on March 7 said it may not be possible to decide by March 31 the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. The bench, which also comprised justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, had earlier said that since the matter would have implications on financial institutions, like banks and stock exchange, it would create a huge problem of compliance if the deadline was extended at the last moment. On December 15 last year, the apex court had extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes. Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice K S Puttaswamy had told the apex court on February 22 that several deaths had reportedly taken place due to starvation on account of glitches in the Aadhaar-based public distribution system and the court must consider granting them compensation. Earlier, the top court had observed that the alleged defect of citizens' biometric details under the Aadhaar scheme being collected without any law could be cured by subsequently bringing in a statute. It had said that the Centre came out with the law in 2016 to negate the objection that it was collecting data since 2009 without any authorisation, but the issue which needed consideration was what would happen if the data collected earlier, had been compromised. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court: Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-compulsory-linking-of-aadhaar-with-bank-accounts-mobiles-extended-indefinitely-35673" target="_blank">Supreme Court: Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely</a>

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced the compulsory linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts and mobile phones.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-ousts-secretary-of-state-tillerson-cia-director-mike-pompeo-to-take-over-from-him-35689" target="_blank">Trump ousts Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, CIA director Mike Pompeo to take over from him</a>

US President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that that CIA Director was taking over from Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.&nbsp;Trump added that Gina Haspel would lead the CIA.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nine-crpf-jawans-killed-in-a-maoist-attack-in-chhattisgarhs-sukma-district-35669" target="_blank">Nine CRPF jawans killed in </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nine-crpf-jawans-killed-in-a-maoist-attack-in-chhattisgarhs-sukma-district-35669" target="_blank">Maoist</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nine-crpf-jawans-killed-in-a-maoist-attack-in-chhattisgarhs-sukma-district-35669" target="_blank"> attack in Chhattisgarh&#39;s Sukma district</a>

At least nine CRPF personnel were killed and three others injured when Maoists blew up an anti-landmine vehicle in Sukma district of Chhattisgarh on Tuesday, said a senior police official.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nepal-president-bidya-devi-bhandari-re-elected-to-second-term-in-office-35685" target="_blank">Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari re-elected to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nepal-president-bidya-devi-bhandari-re-elected-to-second-term-in-office-35685" target="_blank">second</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nepal-president-bidya-devi-bhandari-re-elected-to-second-term-in-office-35685" target="_blank"> term in office</a>

Nepal&#39;s first woman president Bidya Devi Bhandari was today re-elected for a second term in office.&nbsp;Incumbent President Bhandari defeated Nepali Congress leader Kumari Laxmi Rai with an overwhelming majority in the presidential election.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/japan-considers-seeking-summit-between-pm-abe-and-north-korea-leader-source-35690" target="_blank">Japan considers seeking summit between PM Abe and North Korea leader: Source</a>

Japan is considering seeking a summit between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to discuss Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents decades ago, a government source who was briefed on the matter said on Tuesday.&#39;

&nbsp;

Supreme Court: Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended indefinitely till the judgement is pronounced the compulsory linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts and mobile phones. Trump ousts Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, CIA director Mike Pompeo to take over from him US President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that that CIA Director was taking over from Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Trump added that Gina Haspel would lead the CIA. Nine CRPF jawans killed in Maoist attack in Chhattisgarh's Sukma district At least nine CRPF personnel were killed and three others injured when Maoists blew up an anti-landmine vehicle in Sukma district of Chhattisgarh on Tuesday, said a senior police official. Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari re-elected to second term in office Nepal's first woman president Bidya Devi Bhandari was today re-elected for a second term in office. Incumbent President Bhandari defeated Nepali Congress leader Kumari Laxmi Rai with an overwhelming majority in the presidential election. Japan considers seeking summit between PM Abe and North Korea leader: Source Japan is considering seeking a summit between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to discuss Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents decades ago, a government source who was briefed on the matter said on Tuesday.'

WION Evening News Brief, March 13, 2018

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