The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Centre for delay in the investigation of the alleged 1.76 lakh crore 2G Spectrum case.

The court asked the government if there was any kind of pressure being faced from any quarter in the ongoing course of the investigation.&nbsp;

It further underlined the importance of the case, saying the people of the country cannot be fooled and kept in the dark.

A bench of Justices Arun Misra and Naveen Sinha directed the Centre to file a status report on investigation into the 2G spectrum scam and related cases arising out of it, including the Aircel-Maxis deal, in two weeks.

&quot;Aircel maxis ki janch abhi adhuri hai ..jise lekar supreme court ne ye aadeh diya..saath hi kendra sarkar ko jamkar fatkara ki 2G mamla bada mehatpurna hai aur desh ki janta ko gumrah aur andhere me nahi rakha ja sakta hai,&quot; the court said.

The apex court also ordered the investigating agencies, CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to complete their probe into the 2G spectrum allocation cases and other related matters in six months.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a>: Supreme Court has directed the CBI &amp; ED to complete all the cases related to 2G scam in 6 months.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/973100309164650496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The bench observed that the investigation has been going on for long time.&nbsp;

&quot;2G se jude sabhi mamlon aur pehluon ki janch har surat me 6 mahine me puri kar li jaye..nahi to janch adhikariyon ke khilaf awmanna ki karwahi ki jayegi,&quot; the bench added.

The apex court also relieved senior advocate Anand Grover, who was appointed by it in 2014 as Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G spectrum case.

The 2G &nbsp;scam came to light after the Comptroller and Auditor General in its report in 2010 claimed that the Telecom Ministry had caused a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the national exchequer by allocating 2G spectrum and licences to some companies at throwaway prices. 
&nbsp;

The court asked the government if there was any kind of pressure being faced from any quarter

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Centre for delay in the investigation of the alleged 1.76 lakh crore 2G Spectrum case. The court asked the government if there was any kind of pressure being faced from any quarter in the ongoing course of the investigation. It further underlined the importance of the case, saying the people of the country cannot be fooled and kept in the dark. A bench of Justices Arun Misra and Naveen Sinha directed the Centre to file a status report on investigation into the 2G spectrum scam and related cases arising out of it, including the Aircel-Maxis deal, in two weeks. "Aircel maxis ki janch abhi adhuri hai ..jise lekar supreme court ne ye aadeh diya..saath hi kendra sarkar ko jamkar fatkara ki 2G mamla bada mehatpurna hai aur desh ki janta ko gumrah aur andhere me nahi rakha ja sakta hai," the court said. The apex court also ordered the investigating agencies, CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to complete their probe into the 2G spectrum allocation cases and other related matters in six months. #Delhi: Supreme Court has directed the CBI & ED to complete all the cases related to 2G scam in 6 months. — ANI (@ANI) March 12, 2018 × The bench observed that the investigation has been going on for long time. "2G se jude sabhi mamlon aur pehluon ki janch har surat me 6 mahine me puri kar li jaye..nahi to janch adhikariyon ke khilaf awmanna ki karwahi ki jayegi," the bench added. The apex court also relieved senior advocate Anand Grover, who was appointed by it in 2014 as Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G spectrum case. The 2G scam came to light after the Comptroller and Auditor General in its report in 2010 claimed that the Telecom Ministry had caused a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the national exchequer by allocating 2G spectrum and licences to some companies at throwaway prices.

2G case: SC pulls up Centre, asks to file status report on investigation in two weeks

Hadiya, who figures at the centre of the &#39;Kerala love jihad&#39; case, expressed her happiness after the Supreme Court restored her marriage with husband Shafin Jahan. She noted that she is happy after getting freedom. Hadiya also noted that she had &quot;approached the Supreme Court&quot; to be able to exercise her right to live as a Muslim and to be able to live with her partner.&nbsp;

&quot;I am happy that I got freedom now. I approached Supreme Court for two things. One, I want to live as a Muslim and second, I want to live with my partner,&quot; noted Hadiya.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I am happy that I got freedom now. I approached Supreme Court for two things. One, I want to live as a Muslim and second, I want to live with my partner: Hadiya <a href="https://t.co/Lm4eUN5k1I">pic.twitter.com/Lm4eUN5k1I</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/973087375495651328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Supreme Court <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-love-jihad-supreme-court-restores-hadiyas-marriage-35093">restored Hadiya&#39;s marriage</a> with her husband Shafin Jahan on March 8. The apex court&#39;s order set aside the Kerala High Court&#39;s directive that had annulled the validity of her marriage with Jahan.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud put up the matter for order after lunch on the plea filed Hadiya&#39;s husband challenging Kerala High Court&#39;s order that had annulled his marriage with her.

On February 22 the Supreme Court questioned if the high court could nullify a marriage between &quot;vulnerable adults&quot;.

On November 27, 2017, Hadiya was freed Hadiya from her parents&#39; custody and sent to a college to pursue her studies. Hadiya had pleaded to be sent to her husband instead.

The high court had annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;, Hadiya&#39;s husband later moved the apex court.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) continues to investigate&nbsp;the case.

The Supreme Court restored Hadiya's marriage with her husband Shafin Jahan on March 8

Hadiya, who figures at the centre of the 'Kerala love jihad' case, expressed her happiness after the Supreme Court restored her marriage with husband Shafin Jahan. She noted that she is happy after getting freedom. Hadiya also noted that she had "approached the Supreme Court" to be able to exercise her right to live as a Muslim and to be able to live with her partner. "I am happy that I got freedom now. I approached Supreme Court for two things. One, I want to live as a Muslim and second, I want to live with my partner," noted Hadiya. I am happy that I got freedom now. I approached Supreme Court for two things. One, I want to live as a Muslim and second, I want to live with my partner: Hadiya pic.twitter.com/Lm4eUN5k1I — ANI (@ANI) March 12, 2018 × The Supreme Court restored Hadiya's marriage with her husband Shafin Jahan on March 8. The apex court's order set aside the Kerala High Court's directive that had annulled the validity of her marriage with Jahan. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud put up the matter for order after lunch on the plea filed Hadiya's husband challenging Kerala High Court's order that had annulled his marriage with her. On February 22 the Supreme Court questioned if the high court could nullify a marriage between "vulnerable adults". On November 27, 2017, Hadiya was freed Hadiya from her parents' custody and sent to a college to pursue her studies. Hadiya had pleaded to be sent to her husband instead. The high court had annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of 'love jihad', Hadiya's husband later moved the apex court. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) continues to investigate the case.

'I want to live with my partner,' Hadiya to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside decisions of Bhupinder Hooda government in Haryana to drop the land acquisition proceedings against private builders for about 688 acres land in Manesar.

Terming the decisions as cases of fraud on power, the court on Monday said they were brought about by &quot;malafide exercise of power&quot;.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case in September 2015 on allegations that private builders in conspiracy with public servants of the Haryana government had acquired land from farmers and land owners of Manesar at throwaway prices. The land was reportedly purchased showing the threat of acquisition by the government.

The CBI had filed a chargesheet against Hooda and 33 others in a case of alleged corruption in Manesar land deals worth over Rs 1,500 crore. Twenty-nine builders and companies were also named in the chargesheet.

The Supreme Court ruled today that buyers from whom money was collected by builders will either be entitled to refunds or plots/apartments.

The Supreme Court also directed the CBI to investigate transactions including the unearthing of unnatural gains received by &ldquo;middlemen&rdquo; in the Manesar land case. The court has now asked the CBI to investigate the matter.

The apex court also asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to dispose of the petition challenging the constitution of SN Dhingra Commission of inquiry within two months so that public interest does not suffer by delay. The Dhingra commission was set up in 2015 to investigate alleged corruption in the land deals. The commission submitted its report to the ML Khattar government in August, 2016.

It is alleged that on August 27, 2004 and August 25, 2005, the Haryana government issued separate notifications for the acquisition of 912 acres of land for setting up an industrial model township at Manesar, Naurangpur and Lakhnoula villages in Gurgaon.

Threatening the farmers with the governments acquisition process, builders allegedly purchased around 459 acres from farmers at prices in the range of Rs 20-25 lakh per acre to Rs 1.50 crore per acre, according to CBI.

Around 350 acres of land were bought at throwaway price of Rs 20-25 lakh per acre, while another 50 acres at the rate of even Rs 1.50 crore (approx) per acre, the agency said.

In 2007, the builders reportedly gave a plea in the office of the then chief minister, Bhupinder Singh Hooda, seeking withdrawal of the acquisition process which was done two months later on August 24, the CBI said.

&nbsp;

Terming the decisions as cases of fraud on power, the court on Monday said they were brought about by "malafide exercise of power"

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside decisions of Bhupinder Hooda government in Haryana to drop the land acquisition proceedings against private builders for about 688 acres land in Manesar. Terming the decisions as cases of fraud on power, the court on Monday said they were brought about by "malafide exercise of power". The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case in September 2015 on allegations that private builders in conspiracy with public servants of the Haryana government had acquired land from farmers and land owners of Manesar at throwaway prices. The land was reportedly purchased showing the threat of acquisition by the government. The CBI had filed a chargesheet against Hooda and 33 others in a case of alleged corruption in Manesar land deals worth over Rs 1,500 crore. Twenty-nine builders and companies were also named in the chargesheet. The Supreme Court ruled today that buyers from whom money was collected by builders will either be entitled to refunds or plots/apartments. The Supreme Court also directed the CBI to investigate transactions including the unearthing of unnatural gains received by “middlemen” in the Manesar land case. The court has now asked the CBI to investigate the matter. The apex court also asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to dispose of the petition challenging the constitution of SN Dhingra Commission of inquiry within two months so that public interest does not suffer by delay. The Dhingra commission was set up in 2015 to investigate alleged corruption in the land deals. The commission submitted its report to the ML Khattar government in August, 2016. It is alleged that on August 27, 2004 and August 25, 2005, the Haryana government issued separate notifications for the acquisition of 912 acres of land for setting up an industrial model township at Manesar, Naurangpur and Lakhnoula villages in Gurgaon. Threatening the farmers with the governments acquisition process, builders allegedly purchased around 459 acres from farmers at prices in the range of Rs 20-25 lakh per acre to Rs 1.50 crore per acre, according to CBI. Around 350 acres of land were bought at throwaway price of Rs 20-25 lakh per acre, while another 50 acres at the rate of even Rs 1.50 crore (approx) per acre, the agency said. In 2007, the builders reportedly gave a plea in the office of the then chief minister, Bhupinder Singh Hooda, seeking withdrawal of the acquisition process which was done two months later on August 24, the CBI said.

Manesar land scam: Supreme Court sets aside Hooda govt decision to drop proceedings against private builders

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court today approved passive euthanasia, recognising a terminally ill patient&#39;s right to &#39;die with dignity&#39;. With apex court&#39;s move, it gets important to throw light on other terms that most of us may come across in association with euthanasia.&nbsp;

The term &#39;euthanasia&#39; is loosely described to define the &#39;painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma&#39;. It further gets classified into active and passive euthanasia.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/94mKy2S1XNU" width="560"></iframe>

The former is where a &quot;deliberate action&quot; is taken to end a patient&#39;s life to save them from further suffering. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is where a &quot;deliberate disconnection of life-support equipment&quot;, or cessation of any life-sustaining medical procedure is carried out. Passive euthanasia facilitates the natural death of a patient.&nbsp;

Besides these two terms, there are several others technical jargons associated with a person&#39;s life, health and necessitated demise, here&#39;s simplifying some of them:

1. Active voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Both involve injecting the patient with a lethal, life-ending drug; the former involves patient&#39;s requests while the latter doesn&#39;t.&nbsp;

2. Persistent vegetative state

A state where a person is declared brain-damaged, suffers an irrecoverable state of coma and is offered a permanent life support. A person is often described as a &quot;vegetable&quot; when in a state of coma, which may get cured.

3. Palliative care

Wherein a person is not treated to get cured but to relieve the pain and other discomfort associated with the disease. A person on palliative care is terminally ill -- &nbsp;without any cure.&nbsp;

4. Terminal illness

A medical condition that cannot be treated.

5. Living will

A directive by a terminally ill person stating when to not connect or disconnect life-supporting equipment if the process delays the inevitable death making it more painful.

6. Mercy killing&nbsp;

Often interchangeably used for euthanasia but not limited to such cases. The act describes a request to end a life with a belief that it is the ultimate and the only compassionate choice.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

With apex court's move, it gets important to throw light on other terms that most of us may come across in association with euthanasia

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court today approved passive euthanasia, recognising a terminally ill patient's right to 'die with dignity'. With apex court's move, it gets important to throw light on other terms that most of us may come across in association with euthanasia. The term 'euthanasia' is loosely described to define the 'painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma'. It further gets classified into active and passive euthanasia. The former is where a "deliberate action" is taken to end a patient's life to save them from further suffering. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is where a "deliberate disconnection of life-support equipment", or cessation of any life-sustaining medical procedure is carried out. Passive euthanasia facilitates the natural death of a patient. Besides these two terms, there are several others technical jargons associated with a person's life, health and necessitated demise, here's simplifying some of them: 1. Active voluntary and involuntary euthanasia Both involve injecting the patient with a lethal, life-ending drug; the former involves patient's requests while the latter doesn't. 2. Persistent vegetative state A state where a person is declared brain-damaged, suffers an irrecoverable state of coma and is offered a permanent life support. A person is often described as a "vegetable" when in a state of coma, which may get cured. 3. Palliative care Wherein a person is not treated to get cured but to relieve the pain and other discomfort associated with the disease. A person on palliative care is terminally ill -- without any cure. 4. Terminal illness A medical condition that cannot be treated. 5. Living will A directive by a terminally ill person stating when to not connect or disconnect life-supporting equipment if the process delays the inevitable death making it more painful. 6. Mercy killing Often interchangeably used for euthanasia but not limited to such cases. The act describes a request to end a life with a belief that it is the ultimate and the only compassionate choice.

Euthanasia debate: Key terms you need to know

After Delhi&nbsp;Court extended his&nbsp;Central Bureau of Investigation&nbsp;(CBI) custody, Karti Chidambaram filed a caveat in Supreme Court on Saturday.

In the caveat, Karti appealed to the court not to give any order without hearing him if Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenges Delhi court&#39;s interim order in the case on Friday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INXMediaCase?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INXMediaCase</a>: Karti Chidambaram files caveat in Supreme Court, appeals to SC to not give any order without hearing him if Enforcement Directorate challenges yesterday&#39;s interim order in the case. (file pic) <a href="https://t.co/kgKCa9IjdC">pic.twitter.com/kgKCa9IjdC</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/972363952955981824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 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>

A Delhi court extended CBI&nbsp;custody of Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chidambaram, by three days in the INX Media corruption case.

Karti&#39;s custody has now been extended till March 12.

The Patiala House Court also allowed the CBI application seeking permission to confront Karti Chidambaram with his chartered accountant Bhaskaraman in Tihar jail.

The court will now hear Karti&#39;s bail plea on March 15 in the CBI&#39;s case against him.&nbsp;The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Karti until March 20 in the event of an arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) ) in the INX Media money laundering case on Friday.&nbsp;The court granted the relief till next date of hearing which is March 20.&nbsp;

Karti Chidambaram&#39;s lawyer also said that they have rejected CBI&#39;s&nbsp;request for conducting&nbsp;a polygraph test on Karti.

He said &quot;There cannot be a compulsion with regard to this test. We have given a written rejection saying that we are not accepting the polygraph test&quot;.

The CBI has alleged that Karti Chidambaram got kickbacks in return for foreign investment clearance for INX Media when his father was the finance minister.

Bhaskararaman was arrested from a five-star hotel in Delhi&nbsp;on February 16.

The ED claimed that Bhaskararaman, a qualified CA, had been assisting Karti in managing his &quot;ill-gotten wealth&quot; in India and abroad.

Karti appealed to court to not give any order without hearing him if ED challenges Delhi court's interim order on Friday

After Delhi Court extended his Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) custody, Karti Chidambaram filed a caveat in Supreme Court on Saturday. In the caveat, Karti appealed to the court not to give any order without hearing him if Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenges Delhi court's interim order in the case on Friday. #INXMediaCase: Karti Chidambaram files caveat in Supreme Court, appeals to SC to not give any order without hearing him if Enforcement Directorate challenges yesterday's interim order in the case. (file pic) pic.twitter.com/kgKCa9IjdC — ANI (@ANI) March 10, 2018 × A Delhi court extended CBI custody of Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chidambaram, by three days in the INX Media corruption case. Karti's custody has now been extended till March 12. The Patiala House Court also allowed the CBI application seeking permission to confront Karti Chidambaram with his chartered accountant Bhaskaraman in Tihar jail. The court will now hear Karti's bail plea on March 15 in the CBI's case against him. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Karti until March 20 in the event of an arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) ) in the INX Media money laundering case on Friday. The court granted the relief till next date of hearing which is March 20. Karti Chidambaram's lawyer also said that they have rejected CBI's request for conducting a polygraph test on Karti. He said "There cannot be a compulsion with regard to this test. We have given a written rejection saying that we are not accepting the polygraph test". The CBI has alleged that Karti Chidambaram got kickbacks in return for foreign investment clearance for INX Media when his father was the finance minister. Bhaskararaman was arrested from a five-star hotel in Delhi on February 16. The ED claimed that Bhaskararaman, a qualified CA, had been assisting Karti in managing his "ill-gotten wealth" in India and abroad.

INX media case: Karti Chidambaram files caveat in Supreme Court

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion.

It said that Loya&#39;s ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning .

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Candrachud was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an intervenor in the case, that reports were shown to the doctors and forensic experts, who were of the opinion that there was no sign of heart attack.

&quot;If there was no sign that Loya suffered a heart attack, then what made the judges who were accompanying him believe that he had a heart attack,&quot; Bhushan asked.

He said the two judges of the Bombay High Court in their statement have said that Loya had complained of chest pain in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.

&quot;Does this not mean that he may have died due to poisoning? Because in poisoning also there are similar symptoms of chest congestion and blood flow stops to the heart,&quot; he said.

Bhushan said that two sitting judges of the high court have given their statements regarding the death of judge Loya and this indicates that they are witness to the case.

&quot;If this is the case, then two judges of bench (referring to Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud) who have served in Maharashtra and know these judges (HC judges), may not hear the case,&quot; Bhushan added.

This argument prompted Justice Khanwilkar to say, &quot;Mr&nbsp;Bhushan, we will be more than happy if the high court hear this matter.&quot;

Justice Chandrachud also interfered and said, &quot;If that is your argument then we will deal with it the way we deal a case. We must tell you, we ask ourselves in every case whether we should consider hearing the matter or not especially when the matter comes from high court.&quot;

Bhushan replied that he has not filed any application seeking recusal of judges from the bench but all he is saying is that two of the judges in this bench knows the Bombay High Court judges who have become witnesses in the case.

This contention of Bhushan was objected by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, who said that this argument is absurd as Supreme Court judges come mostly from high courts and it can&#39;t be that they should recuse from hearing every other case.

Bhushan said he had personally met many cardiologists who had seen these reports and had ruled out that judge Loya had died of a heart attack.

He pointed out the expert opinion of Dr Upendra Kaul, former professor of cardiology at AIIMS and Padma Shri awardee, who had virtually ruled out a heart attack as the cause of death, on the basis of the histopathology and ECG reports.

Bhushan further pointed out that the doctor at Dande Hospital and Meditrina Hospital in Nagpur had noted tall T-waves in the ECG, in their statements filed with the State.

On Thursday, the apex court had taken umbrage against a senior lawyer for casting aspersions on judges that they were only asking &quot;searching questions&quot; to those who brought the Loya death case before it, and not to the Maharashtra government.

Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.&nbsp;

NGO says Loya's ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion. It said that Loya's ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning . A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Candrachud was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an intervenor in the case, that reports were shown to the doctors and forensic experts, who were of the opinion that there was no sign of heart attack. "If there was no sign that Loya suffered a heart attack, then what made the judges who were accompanying him believe that he had a heart attack," Bhushan asked. He said the two judges of the Bombay High Court in their statement have said that Loya had complained of chest pain in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. "Does this not mean that he may have died due to poisoning? Because in poisoning also there are similar symptoms of chest congestion and blood flow stops to the heart," he said. Bhushan said that two sitting judges of the high court have given their statements regarding the death of judge Loya and this indicates that they are witness to the case. "If this is the case, then two judges of bench (referring to Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud) who have served in Maharashtra and know these judges (HC judges), may not hear the case," Bhushan added. This argument prompted Justice Khanwilkar to say, "Mr Bhushan, we will be more than happy if the high court hear this matter." Justice Chandrachud also interfered and said, "If that is your argument then we will deal with it the way we deal a case. We must tell you, we ask ourselves in every case whether we should consider hearing the matter or not especially when the matter comes from high court." Bhushan replied that he has not filed any application seeking recusal of judges from the bench but all he is saying is that two of the judges in this bench knows the Bombay High Court judges who have become witnesses in the case. This contention of Bhushan was objected by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, who said that this argument is absurd as Supreme Court judges come mostly from high courts and it can't be that they should recuse from hearing every other case. Bhushan said he had personally met many cardiologists who had seen these reports and had ruled out that judge Loya had died of a heart attack. He pointed out the expert opinion of Dr Upendra Kaul, former professor of cardiology at AIIMS and Padma Shri awardee, who had virtually ruled out a heart attack as the cause of death, on the basis of the histopathology and ECG reports. Bhushan further pointed out that the doctor at Dande Hospital and Meditrina Hospital in Nagpur had noted tall T-waves in the ECG, in their statements filed with the State. On Thursday, the apex court had taken umbrage against a senior lawyer for casting aspersions on judges that they were only asking "searching questions" to those who brought the Loya death case before it, and not to the Maharashtra government. Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

Justice Loya may have died due to poisoning: NGO to Supreme court

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189" target="_blank">recognised the right to passive euthanasia</a> for the terminally ill.&nbsp;

The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The court&#39;s 538-page judgement included lines from the Amitabh Bachchan film and song Mukkadar ka Sikandar.&nbsp;

Paragraph 47 on page 231 ends with the lines: &quot;Rote hue aate hain sab, hasta hua jo jayega 
Woh mukaddar ka Sikandar jaaneman kehlayega.&quot;

Which translates into: &quot;Everybody comes into this world crying. But he who leaves it laughing is the king of destiny.&quot;&nbsp;

Paragraph 46 ends with a quote from Dr Jonathan Moreno, which says: &quot;Euthanasia, and especially physician-assisted suicide appears as the ultimate post-modern demand for dignity in an era of technologically-mediated death.&quot;&nbsp;

It it is important to understand though that the court has not allowed physician-assisted suicide. What it has allowed is passive euthanasia -- defined as &quot;the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in the knowledge that the person concerned will die.&quot;&nbsp;

Active euthanasia on the other hand is &quot;the ending of a terminally ill person&#39;s life by direct intervention, such as administering a lethal dose of painkilling drugs.&quot;

The court had already allowed passive euthanasia in 2011 the case of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aruna-shanbaug-first-supreme-court-verdict-on-euthanasia-35226" target="_blank">Aruna </a>Shaunbaug. But on Friday it allowed people to make that choice for themselves.&nbsp;

(Aruna had been in a &quot;vegetative state&quot; since she was attacked in 1973 and unable to make any choice for herself.)&nbsp;

On Friday, the Supreme Court said that a terminally-ill patient can write a &#39;living will&#39; that permits doctors to withdraw life support, saying a person with no will to live shouldn&#39;t suffer in a comatose state.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra said passive euthanasia and advance living will are &quot;permissible&quot;.

The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan also laid down guidelines as to who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board.

The apex court said that advance directives for terminally-ill patients could be issued and executed by the next friend and relatives of such a person after which a medical board would consider it.

The top court said that the directions and guidelines laid down by it shall remain in force till a legislation is brought on the issue.

The CJI, while reading out the judgement, said that though there were four separate opinions of the bench but all the judges were unanimous that the &#39;living will&#39; should be permitted since a person cannot be allowed to continue suffering in a comatose state when he or she doesn&#39;t wish to live.

The top court had in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, saying safeguards were needed while taking a decision by medical boards to withdraw life support of a terminally-ill patient.

On January 15, 2016, the Centre had said the 241st report of the Law Commission stated that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards and there was also a proposed law - Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2006.

Read the full Supreme Court judgement:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7068965517241379" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_4593" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/373380793/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-vUCvijLZ1qp0Afe782rL&amp;show_recommendations=true" title="Supreme-Court-Euthanasia" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

 
&nbsp;

'Rote hue aate hain sab, hasta hua jo jayega... Woh mukaddar ka Sikandar jaaneman kehlayega,' the court said in its 112-page judgement

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday recognised the right to passive euthanasia for the terminally ill. The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The court's 538-page judgement included lines from the Amitabh Bachchan film and song Mukkadar ka Sikandar. Paragraph 47 on page 231 ends with the lines: "Rote hue aate hain sab, hasta hua jo jayega Woh mukaddar ka Sikandar jaaneman kehlayega." Which translates into: "Everybody comes into this world crying. But he who leaves it laughing is the king of destiny." Paragraph 46 ends with a quote from Dr Jonathan Moreno, which says: "Euthanasia, and especially physician-assisted suicide appears as the ultimate post-modern demand for dignity in an era of technologically-mediated death." It it is important to understand though that the court has not allowed physician-assisted suicide. What it has allowed is passive euthanasia -- defined as "the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in the knowledge that the person concerned will die." Active euthanasia on the other hand is "the ending of a terminally ill person's life by direct intervention, such as administering a lethal dose of painkilling drugs." The court had already allowed passive euthanasia in 2011 the case of Aruna Shaunbaug. But on Friday it allowed people to make that choice for themselves. (Aruna had been in a "vegetative state" since she was attacked in 1973 and unable to make any choice for herself.) On Friday, the Supreme Court said that a terminally-ill patient can write a 'living will' that permits doctors to withdraw life support, saying a person with no will to live shouldn't suffer in a comatose state. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra said passive euthanasia and advance living will are "permissible". The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan also laid down guidelines as to who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board. The apex court said that advance directives for terminally-ill patients could be issued and executed by the next friend and relatives of such a person after which a medical board would consider it. The top court said that the directions and guidelines laid down by it shall remain in force till a legislation is brought on the issue. The CJI, while reading out the judgement, said that though there were four separate opinions of the bench but all the judges were unanimous that the 'living will' should be permitted since a person cannot be allowed to continue suffering in a comatose state when he or she doesn't wish to live. The top court had in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, saying safeguards were needed while taking a decision by medical boards to withdraw life support of a terminally-ill patient. On January 15, 2016, the Centre had said the 241st report of the Law Commission stated that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards and there was also a proposed law - Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2006. Read the full Supreme Court judgement: × (With inputs from PTI)

With quote from Hindi film song, Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia

In a historical judgment, the supreme court of India has recognised that living will of &#39;&#39;terminally ill patients&#39;&#39; will now be legally valid and this living will permit the medical professionals to end the terminally ill patients&#39; life when he or she is incurable.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/94mKy2S1XNU" width="560"></iframe>

Supreme Court was hearing a plea seeking to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system.&nbsp;The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement.&nbsp;

For 13 years petitioners have argued that persons afflicted with incurable terminal disease be given the right to refuse to be put on life support systems because it further agonises them. The decision by the apex court to allow passive euthanasia under set guidelines has come as a major relief for the petitioners.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench&nbsp;headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra&nbsp;decided that passive euthanasia should be legalised. Now, a terminally patient will be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator.

&quot;The apex court, however, had previously observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of &#39;living will&#39; would be subject to medical board&#39;s certifying that the patient&#39;s comatose state is irreversible,&quot; PTI reported.&nbsp;

A person&#39;s &#39;living will&#39; is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery.

SC said that &#39;living will&#39; be permitted but with the permission from family members of the person who seeks passive euthanasia. A team of expert doctors will have to confirm that the person&#39;s revival is practically impossible.

The plea to the Supreme Court was filed by the NGO group &#39;Common Cause&#39;.&nbsp;

Many lauded the judgment including those who had previously advocated that Aruna Shanbaug be given the right to die with dignity, a terminally ill nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 45 years.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
This judgment has also made way for moral incursions where questions are being raised on the method of passive euthanasia as it gives a vivid assumption that the patient is anyway going to die. However, legalising passive euthanasia does spare the family members from making tough decisions on behalf of the terminally ill patients.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement

In a historical judgment, the supreme court of India has recognised that living will of ''terminally ill patients'' will now be legally valid and this living will permit the medical professionals to end the terminally ill patients' life when he or she is incurable. Supreme Court was hearing a plea seeking to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system. The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement. For 13 years petitioners have argued that persons afflicted with incurable terminal disease be given the right to refuse to be put on life support systems because it further agonises them. The decision by the apex court to allow passive euthanasia under set guidelines has come as a major relief for the petitioners. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided that passive euthanasia should be legalised. Now, a terminally patient will be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator. "The apex court, however, had previously observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of 'living will' would be subject to medical board's certifying that the patient's comatose state is irreversible," PTI reported. A person's 'living will' is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery. SC said that 'living will' be permitted but with the permission from family members of the person who seeks passive euthanasia. A team of expert doctors will have to confirm that the person's revival is practically impossible. The plea to the Supreme Court was filed by the NGO group 'Common Cause'. Many lauded the judgment including those who had previously advocated that Aruna Shanbaug be given the right to die with dignity, a terminally ill nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 45 years. This judgment has also made way for moral incursions where questions are being raised on the method of passive euthanasia as it gives a vivid assumption that the patient is anyway going to die. However, legalising passive euthanasia does spare the family members from making tough decisions on behalf of the terminally ill patients. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court approves passive euthanasia, recognises 'right to die with dignity'

The Supreme Court on Friday gave a landmark judgment by approving passive euthanasia --&nbsp;recognising terminally ill patient to &#39;die with dignity&#39;.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189">Supreme Court approves passive euthanasia, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189">recognises</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189"> &#39;right to die with dignity&#39;</a>

The term passive euthanasia is used by the Supreme Court of India which basically means withdrawal of artificial medical support system to patients. It is only available to patients who are terminally ill and are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement.

There are two types Euthanasia -- active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

Also read: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/euthanasia-debate-35209">Key terms Euthanasia debate you need to know</a>

What&#39;s the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia

Active euthanasia occurs when doctors deliberately do something on humanitarian grounds like injecting a substance in the patient&#39;s body&nbsp;that causes the patient&#39;s death while passive euthanasia is when doctors stop doing something to keep the patient alive like switching off life-support machines or disconnecting feeding tubes.

In passive euthanasia what doctors do is that they&nbsp;alter life support system and let nature take its course.

Another main difference between active and passive euthanasia is the moral debate that surrounds the killing of the patients. Many thinkers consider active euthanasia an immoral practice and consider it to be an equivalent to murdering a person because doctors in a way are assisting&nbsp;the patient to commit suicide.

Active Euthanasia is legal in a handful of countries like Canada, Switzerland etc&nbsp;in comparison to passive euthanasia which is legal in many countries with limitation to specific circumstances and the approval of councillors and doctors or specialists.

There is further sub-categorization of active and passive euthanasia which is voluntarily and involuntarily.

Involuntarily euthanasia is when the consent is directly taken from the patient whereas involuntarily euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent for example if the patient is in coma or the patient is a very young baby or the patient is not in an age of making the decision for himself.

There are countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg where active euthanasia is banned but voluntary-active euthanasia is legal.

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday gave a landmark judgment by approving passive euthanasia, recognising terminally ill patient to 'die with dignity'

The Supreme Court on Friday gave a landmark judgment by approving passive euthanasia -- recognising terminally ill patient to 'die with dignity'. Also read: Supreme Court approves passive euthanasia, recognises 'right to die with dignity' The term passive euthanasia is used by the Supreme Court of India which basically means withdrawal of artificial medical support system to patients. It is only available to patients who are terminally ill and are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement. There are two types Euthanasia -- active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Also read: Key terms Euthanasia debate you need to know What's the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia Active euthanasia occurs when doctors deliberately do something on humanitarian grounds like injecting a substance in the patient's body that causes the patient's death while passive euthanasia is when doctors stop doing something to keep the patient alive like switching off life-support machines or disconnecting feeding tubes. In passive euthanasia what doctors do is that they alter life support system and let nature take its course. Another main difference between active and passive euthanasia is the moral debate that surrounds the killing of the patients. Many thinkers consider active euthanasia an immoral practice and consider it to be an equivalent to murdering a person because doctors in a way are assisting the patient to commit suicide. Active Euthanasia is legal in a handful of countries like Canada, Switzerland etc in comparison to passive euthanasia which is legal in many countries with limitation to specific circumstances and the approval of councillors and doctors or specialists. There is further sub-categorization of active and passive euthanasia which is voluntarily and involuntarily. Involuntarily euthanasia is when the consent is directly taken from the patient whereas involuntarily euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent for example if the patient is in coma or the patient is a very young baby or the patient is not in an age of making the decision for himself. There are countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg where active euthanasia is banned but voluntary-active euthanasia is legal.

Know the difference between active and passive euthanasia!

The Supreme Court today will announce its verdict on passive euthanasia after hearing a plea that seeks to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system.&nbsp;

The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether passive euthanasia should be legalised. If passed, a terminally ill will now be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator.

&quot;The apex court, however, had observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of &#39;living will&#39;&nbsp;would be subject to medical board&#39;s certifying that the patient&#39;s comatose state is irreversible,&quot; PTI reported.&nbsp;

A person&#39;s &#39;living will&#39; is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery.

The plea to the Supreme Court has been filed by the NGO group &#39;Common Cause&#39;.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether passive euthanasia should be legalised

The Supreme Court today will announce its verdict on passive euthanasia after hearing a plea that seeks to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system. The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement. A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether passive euthanasia should be legalised. If passed, a terminally ill will now be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator. "The apex court, however, had observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of 'living will' would be subject to medical board's certifying that the patient's comatose state is irreversible," PTI reported. A person's 'living will' is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery. The plea to the Supreme Court has been filed by the NGO group 'Common Cause'. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on passive euthanasia today

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-quote-from-hindi-film-song-supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-35235" target="_blank">With </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-quote-from-hindi-film-song-supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-35235" target="_blank">quote</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-quote-from-hindi-film-song-supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-35235" target="_blank"> from Hindi film song, Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia</a>

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189" target="_blank">recognised the right to passive euthanasia</a>for the terminally ill.&nbsp; The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank">Rajasthan passes </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank">bill</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank"> providing for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank">death</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank"> penalty to rapists of girls under 12</a>

Rajasthan home minister GC Kataria said the government had made two amendments in the case -- adding life sentence and life imprisonment for convicts in offences against girls below 12 years of age and making a provision that a convict can&#39;t leave prison for life even after completing 14 years in jail.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/parag-agrawal-iit-alumnus-is-twitters-new-cto-35224" target="_blank">Parag Agrawal, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/parag-agrawal-iit-alumnus-is-twitters-new-cto-35224" target="_blank">IIT</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/parag-agrawal-iit-alumnus-is-twitters-new-cto-35224" target="_blank"> alumnus, is Twitter&#39;s new CTO</a>

Microblogging platform Twitter has appointed &nbsp;IIT-Bombay alumnus Parag Agrawal as its chief technology officer (CTO), an update on the company&#39;s website said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-surprised-at-north-koreas-offer-of-talks-rex-tillerson-35238" target="_blank">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-surprised-at-north-koreas-offer-of-talks-rex-tillerson-35238" target="_blank">&nbsp;surprised at North Korea&#39;s offer of talks: Rex Tillerson</a>

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday said Washington had been surprised by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un&#39;s willingness to hold direct talks with the US on the nuclear standoff in the Korean peninsula.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pak-govt-making-efforts-to-mainstream-hafiz-saeed-and-his-system-mea-raveesh-kumar-35239" target="_blank">Pak govt making efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system: India&#39;s MEA</a>

The Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar has said that Pakistan is trying to make efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system as a political party.

With quote from Hindi film song, Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia The Indian Supreme Court on Friday recognised the right to passive euthanasiafor the terminally ill. The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Rajasthan passes bill providing for death penalty to rapists of girls under 12 Rajasthan home minister GC Kataria said the government had made two amendments in the case -- adding life sentence and life imprisonment for convicts in offences against girls below 12 years of age and making a provision that a convict can't leave prison for life even after completing 14 years in jail. Parag Agrawal, IIT alumnus, is Twitter's new CTO Microblogging platform Twitter has appointed IIT-Bombay alumnus Parag Agrawal as its chief technology officer (CTO), an update on the company's website said. US surprised at North Korea's offer of talks: Rex Tillerson Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday said Washington had been surprised by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's willingness to hold direct talks with the US on the nuclear standoff in the Korean peninsula. Pak govt making efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system: India's MEA The Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar has said that Pakistan is trying to make efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system as a political party.

WION Evening News brief, March 9, 2018

In a relief to Kerala-based Hadiya, an alleged victim of love jihad, the Supreme Court today set aside the high court order annulling her marriage to a Muslim man.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, however, said that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) may continue its investigation in the matter.

The apex court had in August last year asked the NIA to probe the case of conversion and marriage of Hadiya, as the agency claimed a &quot;pattern&quot; was emerging in Kerala.

The matter came to the fore when Shafin Jahan, Hadiya&#39;s husband, had challenged a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with her and sending the woman to her parents&#39; custody.

On November 27 last year, the apex court had freed Hadiya from her parents&#39; custody and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she had pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband.

The high court had in May last year annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;, following which Jahan had approached the apex court.&nbsp;

The court however said the NIA could continue its investigation into whether Hadiya's marriage to Shafin Jahan was an example of 'love jihad'

In a relief to Kerala-based Hadiya, an alleged victim of love jihad, the Supreme Court today set aside the high court order annulling her marriage to a Muslim man. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, however, said that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) may continue its investigation in the matter. The apex court had in August last year asked the NIA to probe the case of conversion and marriage of Hadiya, as the agency claimed a "pattern" was emerging in Kerala. The matter came to the fore when Shafin Jahan, Hadiya's husband, had challenged a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with her and sending the woman to her parents' custody. On November 27 last year, the apex court had freed Hadiya from her parents' custody and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she had pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband. The high court had in May last year annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of 'love jihad', following which Jahan had approached the apex court.

Kerala 'love jihad' case: Supreme Court restores Hadiya's marriage, strikes down high court order

The Supreme Court today restored the marriage of Hadiya with her husband Shafin Jahan. The apex court&#39;s order set aside the Kerala High Court&#39;s directive that had annulled the validity of her marriage with Jahan.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud put up the matter for order after lunch on the plea filed Hadiya&#39;s husband challenging Kerala High Court&#39;s order that had annulled his marriage with her.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kerala &#39;love jihad&#39; case - Supreme Court restored the marriage of Hadiya, also set aside the Kerala High Court order which had annulled her validity of marriage. <a href="https://t.co/DUaes45TxD">pic.twitter.com/DUaes45TxD</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/971668997900029952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 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>

In a fresh affidavit, K M Asokan said that his daughter Hadiya was a &quot;vulnerable adult&quot; and she &quot;abjectly surrendered herself to complete strangers who adopted her into their fold, offering her shelter and protection and further imparted religious indoctrination in an isolated environment&quot;.

Hadiya, in an affidavit, had previously told the apex court that she had willingly converted to Islam and wanted to remain a Muslim. She also noted that she had married Jahan out of pure will and sought the court&#39;s permission to &quot;live as his wife&quot;.

She also noted that her husband, Jahan, was wrongly portrayed as a terrorist by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and had nothing to do with the Middle East-based terror group ISIS.

On February 22 the Supreme Court questioned if the high court could nullify a marriage between &quot;vulnerable adults&quot;.

On November 27, 2017, Hadiya was freed Hadiya from her parents&#39; custody and sent to a college to pursue her studies. Hadiya had pleaded to be sent to her husband instead.

The high court had annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;, Hadiya&#39;s husband later moved the apex court.

The Supreme Court has asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to continue investigating the case.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The high court had annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of 'love jihad', Hadiya's husband later moved the apex court

The Supreme Court today restored the marriage of Hadiya with her husband Shafin Jahan. The apex court's order set aside the Kerala High Court's directive that had annulled the validity of her marriage with Jahan. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud put up the matter for order after lunch on the plea filed Hadiya's husband challenging Kerala High Court's order that had annulled his marriage with her. Kerala 'love jihad' case - Supreme Court restored the marriage of Hadiya, also set aside the Kerala High Court order which had annulled her validity of marriage. pic.twitter.com/DUaes45TxD — ANI (@ANI) March 8, 2018 × In a fresh affidavit, K M Asokan said that his daughter Hadiya was a "vulnerable adult" and she "abjectly surrendered herself to complete strangers who adopted her into their fold, offering her shelter and protection and further imparted religious indoctrination in an isolated environment". Hadiya, in an affidavit, had previously told the apex court that she had willingly converted to Islam and wanted to remain a Muslim. She also noted that she had married Jahan out of pure will and sought the court's permission to "live as his wife". She also noted that her husband, Jahan, was wrongly portrayed as a terrorist by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and had nothing to do with the Middle East-based terror group ISIS. On February 22 the Supreme Court questioned if the high court could nullify a marriage between "vulnerable adults". On November 27, 2017, Hadiya was freed Hadiya from her parents' custody and sent to a college to pursue her studies. Hadiya had pleaded to be sent to her husband instead. The high court had annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of 'love jihad', Hadiya's husband later moved the apex court. The Supreme Court has asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to continue investigating the case. (With inputs from PTI)

The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushi-talwar-murder-case-rajesh-nupur-talwar-acquitted-22340" target="_blank">acquittal of Dr&nbsp;Rajesh and Nupur Talwar</a>&nbsp;in the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
CBI moves Supreme Court challenging Talwars&#39; acquittal in Aarushi Talwar murder case. <a href="https://t.co/E2vpq8X9vV">pic.twitter.com/E2vpq8X9vV</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/971757931468394496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 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 October 12,&nbsp;2017, the Allahabad High Court had set aside a CBI court&#39;s conviction and acquitted the couple&nbsp;of the murder of their daughter.&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/6v9jaIoDC3M" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The court had said it was giving the &quot;benefit of doubt&quot; to the couple.

In December 2017, Hemraj&#39;s wife had also moved&nbsp;the Supreme Court challenging&nbsp;the acquittal&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushi-hemraj-double-murder-hemrajs-wife-challenges-talwars-acquittal-in-supreme-court-26859" target="_blank">Aarushi-Hemraj double murder: Hemraj&#39;s wife challenges Talwars&#39; acquittal in Supreme Court</a>

The Talwars had filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court challenging the CBI court order which had convicted them of the murder of their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room at the Talwars&#39; Noida, Uttar Pradesh home with her throat slit on the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008.&nbsp;

Hemraj was initially suspected of the murder after he was thought to be missing but his body was found on the terrace of the Talwar home a day&nbsp;later.

Aarushi&#39;s father Rajesh Talwar was arrested seven days after his daughter&#39;s murder by the Uttar Pradesh police on May 23, 2008.&nbsp;

The case was later taken over by the CBI.&nbsp;

In 2009, the CBI had handed over the investigation to a new team, which in 2010 recommended closing the case due to critical gaps in the investigation.

It named Rajesh Talwar as the sole suspect based on circumstantial evidence but refused to charge him because of a lack of evidence.The court however refused to allow the CBI to close the case.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Allahabad High Court had set aside a CBI court's conviction and acquitted the couple of the murder of their daughter on October 12

The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the acquittal of Dr Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar. CBI moves Supreme Court challenging Talwars' acquittal in Aarushi Talwar murder case. pic.twitter.com/E2vpq8X9vV — ANI (@ANI) March 8, 2018 × On October 12, 2017, the Allahabad High Court had set aside a CBI court's conviction and acquitted the couple of the murder of their daughter. × The court had said it was giving the "benefit of doubt" to the couple. In December 2017, Hemraj's wife had also moved the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal Aarushi-Hemraj double murder: Hemraj's wife challenges Talwars' acquittal in Supreme Court The Talwars had filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court challenging the CBI court order which had convicted them of the murder of their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj. Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room at the Talwars' Noida, Uttar Pradesh home with her throat slit on the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008. Hemraj was initially suspected of the murder after he was thought to be missing but his body was found on the terrace of the Talwar home a day later. Aarushi's father Rajesh Talwar was arrested seven days after his daughter's murder by the Uttar Pradesh police on May 23, 2008. The case was later taken over by the CBI. In 2009, the CBI had handed over the investigation to a new team, which in 2010 recommended closing the case due to critical gaps in the investigation. It named Rajesh Talwar as the sole suspect based on circumstantial evidence but refused to charge him because of a lack of evidence.The court however refused to allow the CBI to close the case.

Aarushi Talwar murder case: CBI challenges parents' acquittal in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice Dipak Misra directed the CBSE to upload the information on their website.

Earlier in the day, UIDAI had told the apex court that it has not authorised CBSE to mandatorily take Aadhaar number of students to get themselves enroled for appearing in NEET 2018 examination.

Attorney General K K Venugopal had said he has instructions from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that like in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and Assam other identity proofs like passport, voter card and ration card can be used by the CBSE for enroling the students in the examination.

The UIDAI&#39;s remarks came on a plea challenging the decision of CBSE seeking mandatorily the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number from students who are aspiring to take up the NEET 2018 examination.

The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea on February 27. 
 
The appeal in Supreme Court challenges the order of Gujarat High Court.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice Dipak Misra directed the CBSE to upload the information on their website. Earlier in the day, UIDAI had told the apex court that it has not authorised CBSE to mandatorily take Aadhaar number of students to get themselves enroled for appearing in NEET 2018 examination. Attorney General K K Venugopal had said he has instructions from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that like in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and Assam other identity proofs like passport, voter card and ration card can be used by the CBSE for enroling the students in the examination. The UIDAI's remarks came on a plea challenging the decision of CBSE seeking mandatorily the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number from students who are aspiring to take up the NEET 2018 examination. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea on February 27. The appeal in Supreme Court challenges the order of Gujarat High Court.

Aadhaar not mandatory for students taking all-India examinations: Supreme Court

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-lokayukta-justice-vishwanath-shetty-stabbed-attacker-arrested-34982" target="_blank">Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Vishwanath Shetty stabbed thrice in his office, attacker arrested</a>

Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Vishwanath Shetty was stabbed three times in his Bengaluru office Wednesday while hearing a case.

The attacker, identified by police as Tejharaj Sharma, has been taken into custody by Bengaluru Police.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-not-mandatory-for-all-india-examinations-supreme-court-34993" target="_blank">Aadhaar not mandatory for students taking all-India examinations: Supreme Court</a>

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-china-bilateral-trade-hits-historic-high-of-8444-billion-in-2017-34998" target="_blank">India-China bilateral trade hits historic high of $84.44 billion in 2017</a>

The India-China bilateral trade reached $84.44 billion last year, an historic high notwithstanding bilateral tensions over a host of issues including the Doklam standoff.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/cricketer-mohammed-shami-rubbishes-reports-of-extra-marital-affair-34988" target="_blank">Cricketer Mohammed Shami denies torturing wife, having extramarital affairs</a>

Indian fast bowler Mohammed Shami has rejected reports of his extramarital affairs, saying that someone is conspiring against him to ruin his career.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bsf-rescinds-the-order-of-jawans-salary-cut-after-pms-intervention-34997" target="_blank">BSF revokes pay cut of </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bsf-rescinds-the-order-of-jawans-salary-cut-after-pms-intervention-34997" target="_blank">jawan</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bsf-rescinds-the-order-of-jawans-salary-cut-after-pms-intervention-34997" target="_blank"> who did not call PM &#39;Shri&#39;</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked Border Security Force to withdraw an order against a BSF jawan who was given a penalty of seven days&rsquo; pay for showing disrespect towards Mr Modi.

Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Vishwanath Shetty stabbed thrice in his office, attacker arrested Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Vishwanath Shetty was stabbed three times in his Bengaluru office Wednesday while hearing a case. The attacker, identified by police as Tejharaj Sharma, has been taken into custody by Bengaluru Police. Aadhaar not mandatory for students taking all-India examinations: Supreme Court The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams. India-China bilateral trade hits historic high of $84.44 billion in 2017 The India-China bilateral trade reached $84.44 billion last year, an historic high notwithstanding bilateral tensions over a host of issues including the Doklam standoff. Cricketer Mohammed Shami denies torturing wife, having extramarital affairs Indian fast bowler Mohammed Shami has rejected reports of his extramarital affairs, saying that someone is conspiring against him to ruin his career. BSF revokes pay cut of jawan who did not call PM 'Shri' Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked Border Security Force to withdraw an order against a BSF jawan who was given a penalty of seven days’ pay for showing disrespect towards Mr Modi.

WION Evening News Brief, March 7, 2018

The Supreme Court today said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy.

The top court said that it was of a &quot;prima facie view&quot; that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench &#39;per incuriam&#39; (without due regard to the law).

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC.

&quot;We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8),&quot; the bench said.

The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, &quot;we are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect.&quot;

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014.

Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam.

On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an &quot;appropriate bench&quot; to deal with the &quot;piquant&quot; situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict.

It had said &quot;We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was &#39;per incuriam&#39; and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it.&quot;

A three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur on February 21, had observed that if &quot;judicial discipline&quot; and propriety were not maintained, the institution will &quot;go forever&quot; while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition.

It had said that perhaps there has been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition.

In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons.

It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency.

The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed.

The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that &quot;the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested&quot;.

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

The Supreme Court today said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy. The top court said that it was of a "prima facie view" that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench 'per incuriam' (without due regard to the law). A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC. "We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8)," the bench said. The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, "we are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect." The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014. Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam. On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an "appropriate bench" to deal with the "piquant" situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict. It had said "We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was 'per incuriam' and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it." A three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur on February 21, had observed that if "judicial discipline" and propriety were not maintained, the institution will "go forever" while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition. It had said that perhaps there has been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition. In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons. It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency. The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed. The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that "the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested".

Will look into correctness of two 3-judge verdicts on land acquisition: SC

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed.

Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case.

&quot;Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then,&quot; a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any &quot;coercive steps&quot; against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case.

Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident.

The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir).

The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son.

Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was &quot;wrongly and arbitrarily&quot; named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an &quot;unruly and deranged&quot; mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles.

During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

&nbsp;

Supreme court has halted the investigation till April 24 in the case

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed. Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case. "Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said. The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any "coercive steps" against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case. Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident. The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir). The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son. Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was "wrongly and arbitrarily" named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an "unruly and deranged" mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles. During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

Shopian case: J&K says Major Aditya not named as accused, Supreme Court halts probe

According to a Supreme Court order, no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir government apprised the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar&#39;s name does not figure in the FIR lodged against Army personnel involved in the Shopian firing.

A three-judge bench stayed the investigation into the Shopian firing till the next date of hearing on April 24.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Shopian firing incident case: Supreme Court says no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya till the next date of hearing, April 24. <a href="https://t.co/32K23b1k7A">pic.twitter.com/32K23b1k7A</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/970564699526844417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 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 Supreme Court was listening to retired Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh&#39;s plea seeking to challenge the FIR against his son Major Aditya.

&quot;Major Aditya is an army officer and cannot be treated like ordinary criminals by the J&amp;K police,&quot; the apex court noted.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had directed the J&amp;K government not to take any &quot;coercive steps&quot; against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar.

The Mehbooba Mufti-led government retorted that the Army personnel do not respond to the letters addressed to them and asked if the Army has the licence to kill.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court was listening to retired Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh's plea seeking to challenge the FIR against his son Major Aditya

According to a Supreme Court order, no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir government apprised the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar's name does not figure in the FIR lodged against Army personnel involved in the Shopian firing. A three-judge bench stayed the investigation into the Shopian firing till the next date of hearing on April 24. Shopian firing incident case: Supreme Court says no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya till the next date of hearing, April 24. pic.twitter.com/32K23b1k7A — ANI (@ANI) March 5, 2018 × The Supreme Court was listening to retired Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh's plea seeking to challenge the FIR against his son Major Aditya. "Major Aditya is an army officer and cannot be treated like ordinary criminals by the J&K police," the apex court noted. The Supreme Court had directed the J&K government not to take any "coercive steps" against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar. The Mehbooba Mufti-led government retorted that the Army personnel do not respond to the letters addressed to them and asked if the Army has the licence to kill.

Shopian firing case: No probe against Major Aditya until next date of hearing

Karti Chidambaram has moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. Karti, son of senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, mentioned in his writ that he has been in compliance with the investigating proceedings.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KartiChidambaram?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KartiChidambaram</a> moves Supreme Court in the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/INXMediaCase?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#INXMediaCase</a> seeking quashing of summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. (File Pic) <a href="https://t.co/fIOgVx2itZ">pic.twitter.com/fIOgVx2itZ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/970532974331482112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 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>

Chidambaram also noted that the ED and the CBI are looking into matters unrelated to investment in INX Media and are trying to involve him into matters that are not mentioned in the FIR lodged by the CBI.

Karti Chidambaram faces charges in connection with alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media. The company received an investment worth about Rs 305 crore approved by the FIPB in 2007 when Karti&#39;s father P Chidambaram was the finance minister.

Chidambaram noted that the ED and the CBI are looking into matters unrelated to investment in INX Media

Karti Chidambaram has moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. Karti, son of senior Congress leader and former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, mentioned in his writ that he has been in compliance with the investigating proceedings. #KartiChidambaram moves Supreme Court in the #INXMediaCase seeking quashing of summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. (File Pic) pic.twitter.com/fIOgVx2itZ — ANI (@ANI) March 5, 2018 × Chidambaram also noted that the ED and the CBI are looking into matters unrelated to investment in INX Media and are trying to involve him into matters that are not mentioned in the FIR lodged by the CBI. Karti Chidambaram faces charges in connection with alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media. The company received an investment worth about Rs 305 crore approved by the FIPB in 2007 when Karti's father P Chidambaram was the finance minister.

INX Media case: Karti Chidambaram moves Supreme Court to challenge CBI probe

Nepal&#39;s largest newspaper is due in court Friday summoned by the country&#39;s chief justice for articles critical of him, in a case widely condemned as an attack on press freedom.

The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country&#39;s top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents.

Judges in Nepal have to retire at 65 and the suggestion is that Parajuli knocked years off his age to hold office for longer.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country&#39;s top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country's top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

In the subpoena issued Sunday by Parajuli -- who will preside over the case despite being directly implicated in it -- the newspaper is accused of using &quot;objectionable language&quot; and repeating &quot;imaginary facts&quot;.

&quot;The articles published by the Kantipur Daily are intended to obstruct the judicial process and weaken the judiciary by disrespecting the court and spreading confusion about the court and its justices,&quot; according to the order seen by AFP.

Multiple news outlets have carried reports that the chief justice&#39;s official documents show as many as five different dates of birth, but only the Kantipur Daily -- Nepal&#39;s largest newspaper by circulation -- has been singled out by the court.

Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders slammed the move against the newspaper and urged lawmakers to impeach the top judge.

&quot;It shouldn&#39;t be necessary to remind a chief justice that you cannot be judge and party at the same time,&quot; said Daniel Bastard, the watchdog&#39;s Asia-Pacific expert.&nbsp;

&quot;This is a completely unacceptable case of prior censorship that could have dire consequences for media freedom if it sets a legal precedent.&quot;

Akhilesh Upadhyay, the editor-in-chief of Kantipur Daily&#39;s English-language sister publication, The Kathmandu Post, said the court order was motivated by a personal vendetta and said the newspaper would fight the charges.

&quot;He has put a muzzle on the press,&quot; he said in an interview with AFP earlier this week.

Parajuli was appointed chief justice nine months ago, and even by the youngest age on his official documents, is due to retire in two months.

Kantipur Daily&#39;s editor-in-chief, the chairman, a company director and a reporter are due in court Friday.

They could face up to a year in jail if found guilty.

Nepal&#39;s media industry has boomed since the country&#39;s king was overthrown a decade ago following a brutal civil war, spawning dozens of newspapers.

A new constitution passed in 2015 proclaims complete press freedom and bans censorship of news, which was common during monarchic rule.

Journalists in the Himalayan nation do still face intimidation and arrest, particularly if reporting on issues deemed by authorities to affect national unity.

Nepal ranks 100 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders&#39; press freedom index.

The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by Chief Justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for articles that said he had fudged his date of birth

Nepal's largest newspaper is due in court Friday summoned by the country's chief justice for articles critical of him, in a case widely condemned as an attack on press freedom. The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country's top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents. Judges in Nepal have to retire at 65 and the suggestion is that Parajuli knocked years off his age to hold office for longer. The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country's top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents × In the subpoena issued Sunday by Parajuli -- who will preside over the case despite being directly implicated in it -- the newspaper is accused of using "objectionable language" and repeating "imaginary facts". "The articles published by the Kantipur Daily are intended to obstruct the judicial process and weaken the judiciary by disrespecting the court and spreading confusion about the court and its justices," according to the order seen by AFP. Multiple news outlets have carried reports that the chief justice's official documents show as many as five different dates of birth, but only the Kantipur Daily -- Nepal's largest newspaper by circulation -- has been singled out by the court. Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders slammed the move against the newspaper and urged lawmakers to impeach the top judge. "It shouldn't be necessary to remind a chief justice that you cannot be judge and party at the same time," said Daniel Bastard, the watchdog's Asia-Pacific expert. "This is a completely unacceptable case of prior censorship that could have dire consequences for media freedom if it sets a legal precedent." Akhilesh Upadhyay, the editor-in-chief of Kantipur Daily's English-language sister publication, The Kathmandu Post, said the court order was motivated by a personal vendetta and said the newspaper would fight the charges. "He has put a muzzle on the press," he said in an interview with AFP earlier this week. Parajuli was appointed chief justice nine months ago, and even by the youngest age on his official documents, is due to retire in two months. Kantipur Daily's editor-in-chief, the chairman, a company director and a reporter are due in court Friday. They could face up to a year in jail if found guilty. Nepal's media industry has boomed since the country's king was overthrown a decade ago following a brutal civil war, spawning dozens of newspapers. A new constitution passed in 2015 proclaims complete press freedom and bans censorship of news, which was common during monarchic rule. Journalists in the Himalayan nation do still face intimidation and arrest, particularly if reporting on issues deemed by authorities to affect national unity. Nepal ranks 100 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index.

Nepal newspaper summoned to court by Chief Justice for articles critical of him

Pakistan`s Supreme Court was informed today that Interpol had not issued any warrant against former ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani in response to a request by the Pakistan government and had raised certain queries instead.

Pakistan`s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) may now register a case against Haqqani, acknowledging that six years after the former ambassador to US was accused in a scandal termed `Memogate`.The FIA requires some time to fulfil Interpol`s requirements which include providing details of the alleged crime, Assistant Attorney General Waqar Rana told the Supreme Court today according to Pakistani media reports.

Rana also requested the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar to hear the matter in his chamber.The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) accepted the plea and asked AAG and petitioner to appear in his chamber making it clear that he would not be influenced by any lobby.On February 15, Pakistan `s apex court issued an arrest warrant against Haqqani and directed him to appear in the Memogate case.However, Haqqani failed to comply with the court orders.

The FIA had asked Interpol to issue a red warrant for Haqqani, Additional Attorney General Rana Waqar told the top court but Interpol asked what, if any, criminal case had been filed against Haqqani.The Memogate scandal erupted in 2011 when Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz claimed to have received an `anti-army` memo from Haqqani for the then-US joint chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen.

Cases have recently been registered against Haqqani under Sections 120b (hatching a criminal conspiracy) and 121a (waging a war against Pakistan) of the Pakistan Penal Code.In this regard, a court notice has already been issued to Haqqani and other respondents of the case - including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

The scandal, taken to the Supreme Court by then opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, led to Haqqani`s resignation.

As per the international criminal police organization, Interpol`s charter prohibits it from intervening into a political, military, religious, or racial dispute.

Interpol mainly focuses on public safety and combating transnational crimes against humanity, child pornography, computer crime and cybercrime, drug trafficking, environmental crime, genocide, human trafficking.

Besides this, it also deals with cases related to illicit drug production, copyright infringement, illicit traffic in works of art, intellectual property crime, money laundering, organized crime, corruption, terrorism, war crimes, weapons smuggling, and white-collar crime.

The scandal, taken to the Supreme Court by then opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, led to Haqqani`s resignation.

Pakistan`s Supreme Court was informed today that Interpol had not issued any warrant against former ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani in response to a request by the Pakistan government and had raised certain queries instead. Pakistan`s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) may now register a case against Haqqani, acknowledging that six years after the former ambassador to US was accused in a scandal termed `Memogate`.The FIA requires some time to fulfil Interpol`s requirements which include providing details of the alleged crime, Assistant Attorney General Waqar Rana told the Supreme Court today according to Pakistani media reports. Rana also requested the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar to hear the matter in his chamber.The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) accepted the plea and asked AAG and petitioner to appear in his chamber making it clear that he would not be influenced by any lobby.On February 15, Pakistan `s apex court issued an arrest warrant against Haqqani and directed him to appear in the Memogate case.However, Haqqani failed to comply with the court orders. The FIA had asked Interpol to issue a red warrant for Haqqani, Additional Attorney General Rana Waqar told the top court but Interpol asked what, if any, criminal case had been filed against Haqqani.The Memogate scandal erupted in 2011 when Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz claimed to have received an `anti-army` memo from Haqqani for the then-US joint chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen. Cases have recently been registered against Haqqani under Sections 120b (hatching a criminal conspiracy) and 121a (waging a war against Pakistan) of the Pakistan Penal Code.In this regard, a court notice has already been issued to Haqqani and other respondents of the case - including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The scandal, taken to the Supreme Court by then opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, led to Haqqani`s resignation. As per the international criminal police organization, Interpol`s charter prohibits it from intervening into a political, military, religious, or racial dispute. Interpol mainly focuses on public safety and combating transnational crimes against humanity, child pornography, computer crime and cybercrime, drug trafficking, environmental crime, genocide, human trafficking. Besides this, it also deals with cases related to illicit drug production, copyright infringement, illicit traffic in works of art, intellectual property crime, money laundering, organized crime, corruption, terrorism, war crimes, weapons smuggling, and white-collar crime.

Interpol refuses to act against former Pak ambassador to US Husain Haqqani

Shahbaz Sharif was unanimously elected as interim president of Pakistan&#39;s ruling PML-N today while his elder brother and ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif was made the beleaguered party&#39;s &#39;Quaid&#39; (top leader) for life time.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) elected its new head days after the Supreme Court disqualified 68-year-old Nawaz as the chief of his party and struck down all decisions taken by him as the party head.

Shahbaz, the 66-year-old chief minister of Punjab province, has been elected as the party&#39;s president for 45 days by its central working committee (CWC) in a meeting held in Sharif&#39;s Model Town Lahore residence today.

In the meeting, Nawaz proposed the name of Shahbaz for the party&#39;s interim president which was unanimously approved by the CWC.

The meeting also approved making Nawaz PML-N &quot;Quaid&quot; (top leader) for life time and also paid tributes to his service for the party, country and democracy.

&quot;PML-N elects Nawaz as its Quaid for life. Raja Zafarul Haq, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif&#39;s proposal elicited a resounding approval from the CWC,&quot; Nawaz&#39;s daughter Maryam tweeted.

PML-N&#39;s information secretary Senator Mushahidullah Khan told PTI there was no candidate for the slot of interim president of PML-N other than Shahbaz Sharif.

&quot;Nawaz proposed Shahbaz&#39;s name for the party&#39;s interim president and all more than 100 CWC members approved his name unanimously. Shahbaz will continue as the party&#39;s full-time president after the general council elects him in a meeting in Islamabad next month,&quot; he said.

Under the party&#39;s rules, the PML-N&#39;s CWC is supposed to elect an acting party head within a week of its chief&#39;s removal. Then the party&#39;s general council is required to elect a president within 45 days. Nawaz was removed from the post of PML-N president by the apex court on February 22.

After becoming the party president, Shahbaz praised his elder brother for making the PML-N the country&#39;s most popular political force. &quot;I will try my best to come up to the expectations of my party after assuming this responsibility,&quot; he said.

Nawaz has already nominated Shahbaz for the prime minister candidate if PML-N wins this year&#39;s general elections.

He had finalised his younger brother&#39;s nomination for the slot of party president after consulting his wife Kulsoom, daughter Maryam, defunct finance minister Ishaq Dar, former information minister Senator Pervaiz Rashid and a few others.

&quot;Begum Kulsoom would have been the best choice to succeed Nawaz Sharif but since she is not well and is recovering from throat cancer (lymphoma) in London, Shahbaz Sharif has become the ultimate choice although some close to Nawaz have reservations (about him). Maryam&#39;s name was not considered for the slot as she is too young to handle the party at this stage,&quot; a PML-N leader said.

Nawaz was disqualified as the prime minister by the apex court in the Panama Papers case in July last year under Article 62 for failing to declare a receivable salary as an asset.

After his disqualification as prime minister, the ruling PML-N amended the Constitution to allow him to retain his chairmanship of the party.

However, the apex court last week ruled that it is mandatory for a party chief to fulfil the requirements of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution as a party head is powerful and political parties control the government.

It also said that a person who is disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution is not eligible to sign on any document needed to nominate someone to the National Assembly or Senate.

The apex court&#39;s verdict was in response to 17 petitions challenging the controversial Elections Act 2017, which had been bulldozed through parliament last year to pave the way for Nawaz&#39;s return to the PML-N&#39;s helm as party president.&nbsp;

He was unanimously elected as party's interim president

Shahbaz Sharif was unanimously elected as interim president of Pakistan's ruling PML-N today while his elder brother and ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif was made the beleaguered party's 'Quaid' (top leader) for life time. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) elected its new head days after the Supreme Court disqualified 68-year-old Nawaz as the chief of his party and struck down all decisions taken by him as the party head. Shahbaz, the 66-year-old chief minister of Punjab province, has been elected as the party's president for 45 days by its central working committee (CWC) in a meeting held in Sharif's Model Town Lahore residence today. In the meeting, Nawaz proposed the name of Shahbaz for the party's interim president which was unanimously approved by the CWC. The meeting also approved making Nawaz PML-N "Quaid" (top leader) for life time and also paid tributes to his service for the party, country and democracy. "PML-N elects Nawaz as its Quaid for life. Raja Zafarul Haq, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif's proposal elicited a resounding approval from the CWC," Nawaz's daughter Maryam tweeted. PML-N's information secretary Senator Mushahidullah Khan told PTI there was no candidate for the slot of interim president of PML-N other than Shahbaz Sharif. "Nawaz proposed Shahbaz's name for the party's interim president and all more than 100 CWC members approved his name unanimously. Shahbaz will continue as the party's full-time president after the general council elects him in a meeting in Islamabad next month," he said. Under the party's rules, the PML-N's CWC is supposed to elect an acting party head within a week of its chief's removal. Then the party's general council is required to elect a president within 45 days. Nawaz was removed from the post of PML-N president by the apex court on February 22. After becoming the party president, Shahbaz praised his elder brother for making the PML-N the country's most popular political force. "I will try my best to come up to the expectations of my party after assuming this responsibility," he said. Nawaz has already nominated Shahbaz for the prime minister candidate if PML-N wins this year's general elections. He had finalised his younger brother's nomination for the slot of party president after consulting his wife Kulsoom, daughter Maryam, defunct finance minister Ishaq Dar, former information minister Senator Pervaiz Rashid and a few others. "Begum Kulsoom would have been the best choice to succeed Nawaz Sharif but since she is not well and is recovering from throat cancer (lymphoma) in London, Shahbaz Sharif has become the ultimate choice although some close to Nawaz have reservations (about him). Maryam's name was not considered for the slot as she is too young to handle the party at this stage," a PML-N leader said. Nawaz was disqualified as the prime minister by the apex court in the Panama Papers case in July last year under Article 62 for failing to declare a receivable salary as an asset. After his disqualification as prime minister, the ruling PML-N amended the Constitution to allow him to retain his chairmanship of the party. However, the apex court last week ruled that it is mandatory for a party chief to fulfil the requirements of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution as a party head is powerful and political parties control the government. It also said that a person who is disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution is not eligible to sign on any document needed to nominate someone to the National Assembly or Senate. The apex court's verdict was in response to 17 petitions challenging the controversial Elections Act 2017, which had been bulldozed through parliament last year to pave the way for Nawaz's return to the PML-N's helm as party president.

Shahbaz Sharif becomes interim chief of ruling PML-N

Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram has approached the Supreme Court seeking protection of his fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, amid summons to his son Karti Chidambaram and raids by the CBI and the ED in connection with cases related to Aircel-Maxis and INX Media.

Chidambaram, who is also a senior advocate, has claimed in his plea that as part of &quot;political vendetta&quot;, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have made &quot;vexatious&quot; searches and issued the repeated summons in these cases.

&quot;The writ petition is being filed to defend and protect the petitioner?s fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and to defend his right to privacy and the right to live, along with members of his family, in dignity,&quot; the petition said.

&quot;The CBI and the ED, as part of political vendetta, have made vexatious searches, issued repeated summons, unreasonably questioned persons for unconscionably long hours, unlawfully attached fixed deposits, maliciously leaked false information to the media and otherwise caused extreme harassment, anguish and humiliation to me and my son, and to other persons who are normal business and social friends of my son,? Chidambaram said.

The Congress leader said that both he and his son have categorically denied any wrongdoing in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals in these cases.

&quot;Every government officer who has been examined by the CBI/ED has categorically stated that the approvals granted in these two cases were entirely in order,? he said.

The former Union finance minister also said that he was the &quot;real target&quot; of these &quot;motivated actions&quot; of the CBI and the ED, but these agencies have not accused him or other public servants of any offence in these cases.

Chidambaram raised a legal issue asking whether without an FIR naming him or his son, the CBI or the ED could probe the alleged offences against them.

He sought the top court&#39;s direction to prohibit these two agencies from continuing with &quot;illegal&quot; probe and acting in any manner causing repeated harassment to him, his son and family members.

An FIR, filed by the CBI on May 15 last year, had alleged irregularities in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was the Union finance minister. The ED has also registered a money laundering case.

The CBI is also probing the alleged irregularities in grant of the FIPB clearance to the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006.&nbsp;

Chidambaram claimed in his plea that as part of "political vendetta", the CBI and ED have made "vexatious" searches and issued the repeated summons in these cases

Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram has approached the Supreme Court seeking protection of his fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, amid summons to his son Karti Chidambaram and raids by the CBI and the ED in connection with cases related to Aircel-Maxis and INX Media. Chidambaram, who is also a senior advocate, has claimed in his plea that as part of "political vendetta", the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have made "vexatious" searches and issued the repeated summons in these cases. "The writ petition is being filed to defend and protect the petitioner?s fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and to defend his right to privacy and the right to live, along with members of his family, in dignity," the petition said. "The CBI and the ED, as part of political vendetta, have made vexatious searches, issued repeated summons, unreasonably questioned persons for unconscionably long hours, unlawfully attached fixed deposits, maliciously leaked false information to the media and otherwise caused extreme harassment, anguish and humiliation to me and my son, and to other persons who are normal business and social friends of my son,? Chidambaram said. The Congress leader said that both he and his son have categorically denied any wrongdoing in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals in these cases. "Every government officer who has been examined by the CBI/ED has categorically stated that the approvals granted in these two cases were entirely in order,? he said. The former Union finance minister also said that he was the "real target" of these "motivated actions" of the CBI and the ED, but these agencies have not accused him or other public servants of any offence in these cases. Chidambaram raised a legal issue asking whether without an FIR naming him or his son, the CBI or the ED could probe the alleged offences against them. He sought the top court's direction to prohibit these two agencies from continuing with "illegal" probe and acting in any manner causing repeated harassment to him, his son and family members. An FIR, filed by the CBI on May 15 last year, had alleged irregularities in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was the Union finance minister. The ED has also registered a money laundering case. The CBI is also probing the alleged irregularities in grant of the FIPB clearance to the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006.

Chidambaram moves SC for protection of fundamental rights

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-bypolls-voting-in-mungaoli-kolaras-assembly-constituencies-underway-33877">Madhya Pradesh </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-bypolls-voting-in-mungaoli-kolaras-assembly-constituencies-underway-33877">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-bypolls-voting-in-mungaoli-kolaras-assembly-constituencies-underway-33877">: Voting in Mungaoli, Kolaras assembly constituencies underway</a>

Voting for bypolls to two assembly seats in Madhya Pradesh begins on Saturday. Mungaoli and Kolaras seats were vacated after the death of sitting Congress MLAs Mahendra Singh Kalukheda (Mungaoli) and Ram Singh Yadav (Kolaras).&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/18-killed-as-2-bomb-blasts-gunfire-rock-somalias-capital-mogadishu-33874">At least 18 killed after two car bombs explode in Somalia&#39;s capital Mogadishu</a>

Twin car bombs killed 18 people in Somalia`s capital Mogadishu on Friday in an attack by the Islamist militant group al Shabaab, but security forces shot dead five assailants, officials said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-writ-petition-by-trans-woman-shanavi-ponnusamy-33871">Supreme Court to hear writ petition by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy</a>

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/donald-trump-names-india-china-to-defend-pulling-out-of-paris-climate-deal-33870">Donald Trump names India, China to defend pulling out of Paris climate deal</a>

US President Donald Trump has once again named India and China to defend his policy on climate change and reiterated that these countries and some others benefited the most from the Paris agreement while America didn&#39;t get any advantage.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/three-bombs-hit-capital-of-myanmars-rakhine-state-police-33875">Three bombs hit capital of Myanmar&#39;s Rakhine state: Police</a>

Three bombs exploded in different locations in Rakhine&#39;s state capital Sittwe early Saturday morning, including at the home of a high ranking official, Myanmar police told AFP.

Madhya Pradesh bypolls: Voting in Mungaoli, Kolaras assembly constituencies underway Voting for bypolls to two assembly seats in Madhya Pradesh begins on Saturday. Mungaoli and Kolaras seats were vacated after the death of sitting Congress MLAs Mahendra Singh Kalukheda (Mungaoli) and Ram Singh Yadav (Kolaras). At least 18 killed after two car bombs explode in Somalia's capital Mogadishu Twin car bombs killed 18 people in Somalia`s capital Mogadishu on Friday in an attack by the Islamist militant group al Shabaab, but security forces shot dead five assailants, officials said. Supreme Court to hear writ petition by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5. Donald Trump names India, China to defend pulling out of Paris climate deal US President Donald Trump has once again named India and China to defend his policy on climate change and reiterated that these countries and some others benefited the most from the Paris agreement while America didn't get any advantage. Three bombs hit capital of Myanmar's Rakhine state: Police Three bombs exploded in different locations in Rakhine's state capital Sittwe early Saturday morning, including at the home of a high ranking official, Myanmar police told AFP.

WION Morning News Brief, February 24, 2018

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5.

On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender.

Sanavi Ponnusami has alleged that Air India rejected her, telling her that they don&#39;t have a category for trans-women.

She had said that her living condition is not great and can&#39;t afford advocates to fight a case, as the Supreme Court listens to cases like hers.

She approached the Apex Court against the alleged discrimination in 2017.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender

The Supreme Court to hear the writ petition filed by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy, who alleged Air India, refused her a job due to her gender, on March 5. On February 14, Ponnusamy wrote a letter to President Ram Nath Kovind, seeking permission for mercy killing as she was allegedly refused the job of cabin crew in Air India due to her gender. Sanavi Ponnusami has alleged that Air India rejected her, telling her that they don't have a category for trans-women. She had said that her living condition is not great and can't afford advocates to fight a case, as the Supreme Court listens to cases like hers. She approached the Apex Court against the alleged discrimination in 2017.

Supreme Court to hear writ petition by trans-woman Shanavi Ponnusamy

The Supreme Court on Wednesday deplored the lack of &quot;judicial discipline&quot; among its own judges after its attention was drawn to a recent judgment by a three-judge bench that had overruled the order of another three-judge bench.

Usually, only a bench larger than the one that had delivered the judgment exercises the overturning power.

A three-judge bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, asked the high courts across the country not to decide any case of land acquisition on the basis of the new ruling.

The Bench headed by Justice Lokur is now considering whether the issue should be referred to a larger Bench.

On February 8, a three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, A.K. Goel and M.M. Shantanagouder had ruled that land acquisition by a government agency cannot be set aside if the plot owners do not accept compensation within five years of its deposit with the treasury.

The February 8 judgment had interpreted the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, and the outcome appeared beneficial for the Central and state governments.&nbsp;

This judgment gave an upper hand to the government in land acquisition matters with their duty considerably reduced about making sure the compensation is adequate and proper for the landowners, in particular, farmers, so that the acquisition does not lapse on this score alone.

&quot;The hoary principle of this great institution is you can&#39;t tinker with the system. If a judgment is wrong, there is a method of reference to a larger bench and this is the practice being followed over the years. If the Supreme Court is one, it should be made one and you need a conscious judicial discipline to do that. My painful concern is that this judicial discipline has not been followed. If it wants to correct an earlier judgment, it should be done by the larger bench to make it as the last word,&quot; Justice Kurian Joseph said.

The matter will be taken up for hearing on March 7 until which the new ruling shall cease to operate in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

(With inputs from Agencies)

Usually, only a bench larger than the one that had delivered the judgment exercises the overturning power

The Supreme Court on Wednesday deplored the lack of "judicial discipline" among its own judges after its attention was drawn to a recent judgment by a three-judge bench that had overruled the order of another three-judge bench. Usually, only a bench larger than the one that had delivered the judgment exercises the overturning power. A three-judge bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, asked the high courts across the country not to decide any case of land acquisition on the basis of the new ruling. The Bench headed by Justice Lokur is now considering whether the issue should be referred to a larger Bench. On February 8, a three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, A.K. Goel and M.M. Shantanagouder had ruled that land acquisition by a government agency cannot be set aside if the plot owners do not accept compensation within five years of its deposit with the treasury. The February 8 judgment had interpreted the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, and the outcome appeared beneficial for the Central and state governments. This judgment gave an upper hand to the government in land acquisition matters with their duty considerably reduced about making sure the compensation is adequate and proper for the landowners, in particular, farmers, so that the acquisition does not lapse on this score alone. "The hoary principle of this great institution is you can't tinker with the system. If a judgment is wrong, there is a method of reference to a larger bench and this is the practice being followed over the years. If the Supreme Court is one, it should be made one and you need a conscious judicial discipline to do that. My painful concern is that this judicial discipline has not been followed. If it wants to correct an earlier judgment, it should be done by the larger bench to make it as the last word," Justice Kurian Joseph said. The matter will be taken up for hearing on March 7 until which the new ruling shall cease to operate in the High Court and the Supreme Court. (With inputs from Agencies)

SC judges vs judges: Earlier order by bench overturned by another 3-judge bench

The Centre on Wednesday opposed a public interest litigation (PIL) saying that an FIR had already been filed in the case.&nbsp;

The PIL asked for an investigation into PNB&#39;s top management involved in the mega scam. The PIL also sought the extradition of diamond trader Nirav Modi.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal opposed the PIL filed by lawyer Vineet Dhandha. Venugopal urged the bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, to issue a notice to the Centre.

&quot;It is a publicity-oriented litigation. You have to make averment that the government is not investigating. We must allow the government to investigate. These are the petitions playing to the gallery. Let us not pre-empt the jurisdiction of the government (to investigate a scam),&quot; Justice Chandrachud said.

 
&nbsp;

The PIL asked for an investigation into PNB's top management involved in the mega scam

The Centre on Wednesday opposed a public interest litigation (PIL) saying that an FIR had already been filed in the case. The PIL asked for an investigation into PNB's top management involved in the mega scam. The PIL also sought the extradition of diamond trader Nirav Modi. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal opposed the PIL filed by lawyer Vineet Dhandha. Venugopal urged the bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, to issue a notice to the Centre. "It is a publicity-oriented litigation. You have to make averment that the government is not investigating. We must allow the government to investigate. These are the petitions playing to the gallery. Let us not pre-empt the jurisdiction of the government (to investigate a scam)," Justice Chandrachud said.

PNB fraud: Centre opposes PIL in Supreme Court, says probe already on

Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a stay order on all the pending cases against actor Priya Prakash Varrier and said that no criminal proceedings to take place against the actress until further hearing.

The court&#39;s order comes after Varrier and director Omar Lulu moved the apex court over a case registered against her film &quot;Oru Adaar Love&quot; in Telangana under Section 295A.

In the petition, the actress stated that fringe elements have &quot;misunderstood the lyrics of the song&quot; which they claim allegedly offended their religious sentiments.

The petition further said that it adversely affected the petitioners right to life, liberty and freedom of expression under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Artists have the right to express themselves in a lawful manner, the petition stated, adding that the legality of the content of the film and the certification on the same can only be dealt with under law by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as prescribed under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

FIRs cause nothing but &quot;hindrance in the freedom of speech and expression&quot; granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the same is an outright abuse of the process of law, the petition said.

Rs. 1.5 crores have already been spent on the movie, it added.

The complainant alleged that the song of the film &lsquo;manikya malaraya poovi&rsquo; hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community.&nbsp;

Varrier became an internet sensation after a teaser song from her debut film &#39;Oru Adaar Love&#39; went viral on social media.

The court added that no criminal proceedings are to take place against the actress until further hearing

Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a stay order on all the pending cases against actor Priya Prakash Varrier and said that no criminal proceedings to take place against the actress until further hearing. The court's order comes after Varrier and director Omar Lulu moved the apex court over a case registered against her film "Oru Adaar Love" in Telangana under Section 295A. In the petition, the actress stated that fringe elements have "misunderstood the lyrics of the song" which they claim allegedly offended their religious sentiments. The petition further said that it adversely affected the petitioners right to life, liberty and freedom of expression under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Artists have the right to express themselves in a lawful manner, the petition stated, adding that the legality of the content of the film and the certification on the same can only be dealt with under law by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as prescribed under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. FIRs cause nothing but "hindrance in the freedom of speech and expression" granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the same is an outright abuse of the process of law, the petition said. Rs. 1.5 crores have already been spent on the movie, it added. The complainant alleged that the song of the film ‘manikya malaraya poovi’ hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community. Varrier became an internet sensation after a teaser song from her debut film 'Oru Adaar Love' went viral on social media.

Supreme Court stays all pending cases against 'wink' actress Priya Prakash Varrier

The Supreme Court today (February 21) set aside the Calcutta High Court order directing the Centre not to withdraw remaining the Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) companies in Darjeeling and Kalimpong over the Gorkhaland protests.

The top court permitted the Centre to withdraw the remaining four CAPF companies from the violence-hit areas of West Bengal.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra considered Attorney General KK Venugopal&#39;s submission that the deployment of the central armed forces fell under the Central government&#39;s administrative domain.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said the four companies will be deployed till March 8.

The Calcutta High Court order had restrained the Centre from withdrawing CAPF from the state&#39;s hill regions on the ground that normalcy had not returned.

(With inputs from agencies)

The top court set aside the Calcutta High Court order directing the Centre not to withdraw Central Armed Paramilitary Forces companies from Darjeeling and Kalimpong over the Gorkhaland protests

The Supreme Court today (February 21) set aside the Calcutta High Court order directing the Centre not to withdraw remaining the Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) companies in Darjeeling and Kalimpong over the Gorkhaland protests. The top court permitted the Centre to withdraw the remaining four CAPF companies from the violence-hit areas of West Bengal. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra considered Attorney General KK Venugopal's submission that the deployment of the central armed forces fell under the Central government's administrative domain. The Supreme Court said the four companies will be deployed till March 8. The Calcutta High Court order had restrained the Centre from withdrawing CAPF from the state's hill regions on the ground that normalcy had not returned. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court permits Centre to withdraw remaining troops from Darjeeling

The juvenile jurisprudence in India seemed to have come of age with the decision of trying the 16 years old perpetrator of the murder in Ryan International School in Gurugram as an adult in view of the original juvenile legislation being replaced by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (The Act). The new Act lowered the age of adult criminal liability from 18 to 16 with certain conditions. This was the result of an outcry in the wake of infamous Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case in 2012, where the most brutal of the accused was treated as a juvenile despite he was just a little under 18 years. The government did get up, took notice and made some amendments as stated above but the concept does need a deeper analysis.&nbsp;

One of the arguments advanced in support of keeping the juvenile law as invasive as possible is that, till the age of 18 (now 16), the mental faculty of the child is not developed enough so as to be able to understand the nature and consequences of the action. But it is to be understood that this assertion was justified at the time when the technology was not as advanced and surrounding societal circumstances were conducive. In the present scenario, technology has provided every information at the fingertips of an individual and, as such, the child is able to imbibe that much earlier than what he would have been able to, a few decades ago. In terms of society, the prevalent hostile environment has also caused the children of a reasonable age to experience the same and start responding to it at a much younger age.

The system needs to be receptive to the environment and change its perception according to the need of the hour. The brain is only an organ of the body but the mind is referred to as the ability of an individual to be aware of things, to think and to feel. That ability differs from person to person depending upon the circumstances that child is surrounded by. As a reference, a child who is exposed to a greater degree of public interaction would end up being more street smart as compared to a child of the same age who lives in the protective environment of the household.&nbsp;

The Act has, for the purpose of the application, classified the offences in three categories: 
Firstly, petty - which include the offences with a maximum punishment up to 3 years.&nbsp;Secondly, serious - which include the offences for which punishment is between 3 to 7 years.&nbsp;Thirdly, heinous - which include the offences for which minimum punishment is 7 years or more.&nbsp;

It is to be noted that, except heinous offences, for all other offences, the juvenile will not be trialled as an adult but would receive the institutional care for a maximum period of three years. Even for heinous offences, the minor accused, aged more than 16, would be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board and the Board will decide as to whether to send the child for trial as an adult or to send the accused to rehabilitation centre based upon the mental and physical ability of the child.&nbsp;

The present form of the statute, although better than before, still leaves a lot wanting and is just not sufficient to rein in the growing menace of juvenile crimes when even the serious offences are considered to have been committed without knowing the consequences of the action. It is reiterated that mental ability is an abstract principle and it changes with the circumstances. Criminal law provides two major touchstones to determine criminal liability i.e. a guilty mind and a criminal act in pursuance thereof. &nbsp;

There are certain offences where, irrespective of age, if committed, the guilt of the individual automatically follows. We cannot forget the Guwahati molestation case where a young lady was sexually assaulted for about 40 minutes in full public view. One of the perpetrators there was a juvenile. Unfortunately, even after the present amendment, this sinister offence would not make the accused liable to be trialled as an adult since the punishment for the same is a maximum term of five years. No stretch of the imagination could justify the argument that the juvenile there was not aware of his actions.

The changing paradigm of society makes it imperative to have the focus more on the offence rather than the offender, especially for the offences which inherently call for a punitive action. The rights of a victim cannot be brushed aside merely because they are in dispute with the age of the offender. It is hoped that coming years would bring with them a tilt towards reality rather than abstraction.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The system needs to be receptive to the society and change its law and perception according to the need of the hour.

The juvenile jurisprudence in India seemed to have come of age with the decision of trying the 16 years old perpetrator of the murder in Ryan International School in Gurugram as an adult in view of the original juvenile legislation being replaced by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (The Act). The new Act lowered the age of adult criminal liability from 18 to 16 with certain conditions. This was the result of an outcry in the wake of infamous Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case in 2012, where the most brutal of the accused was treated as a juvenile despite he was just a little under 18 years. The government did get up, took notice and made some amendments as stated above but the concept does need a deeper analysis. One of the arguments advanced in support of keeping the juvenile law as invasive as possible is that, till the age of 18 (now 16), the mental faculty of the child is not developed enough so as to be able to understand the nature and consequences of the action. But it is to be understood that this assertion was justified at the time when the technology was not as advanced and surrounding societal circumstances were conducive. In the present scenario, technology has provided every information at the fingertips of an individual and, as such, the child is able to imbibe that much earlier than what he would have been able to, a few decades ago. In terms of society, the prevalent hostile environment has also caused the children of a reasonable age to experience the same and start responding to it at a much younger age. The system needs to be receptive to the environment and change its perception according to the need of the hour. The brain is only an organ of the body but the mind is referred to as the ability of an individual to be aware of things, to think and to feel. That ability differs from person to person depending upon the circumstances that child is surrounded by. As a reference, a child who is exposed to a greater degree of public interaction would end up being more street smart as compared to a child of the same age who lives in the protective environment of the household. The Act has, for the purpose of the application, classified the offences in three categories: Firstly, petty - which include the offences with a maximum punishment up to 3 years. Secondly, serious - which include the offences for which punishment is between 3 to 7 years. Thirdly, heinous - which include the offences for which minimum punishment is 7 years or more. It is to be noted that, except heinous offences, for all other offences, the juvenile will not be trialled as an adult but would receive the institutional care for a maximum period of three years. Even for heinous offences, the minor accused, aged more than 16, would be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board and the Board will decide as to whether to send the child for trial as an adult or to send the accused to rehabilitation centre based upon the mental and physical ability of the child. The present form of the statute, although better than before, still leaves a lot wanting and is just not sufficient to rein in the growing menace of juvenile crimes when even the serious offences are considered to have been committed without knowing the consequences of the action. It is reiterated that mental ability is an abstract principle and it changes with the circumstances. Criminal law provides two major touchstones to determine criminal liability i.e. a guilty mind and a criminal act in pursuance thereof. There are certain offences where, irrespective of age, if committed, the guilt of the individual automatically follows. We cannot forget the Guwahati molestation case where a young lady was sexually assaulted for about 40 minutes in full public view. One of the perpetrators there was a juvenile. Unfortunately, even after the present amendment, this sinister offence would not make the accused liable to be trialled as an adult since the punishment for the same is a maximum term of five years. No stretch of the imagination could justify the argument that the juvenile there was not aware of his actions. The changing paradigm of society makes it imperative to have the focus more on the offence rather than the offender, especially for the offences which inherently call for a punitive action. The rights of a victim cannot be brushed aside merely because they are in dispute with the age of the offender. It is hoped that coming years would bring with them a tilt towards reality rather than abstraction. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why India's juvenile law fails to control crime

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