No-frill carrier IndiGo has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order that it cannot claim monopoly over Terminal-1 (T-1) of the IGI Airport here, which cannot be given exclusively to it.

The airline&#39;s appeal against the February 13 order of the division bench of the High Court has been filed and is likely to be taken up for hearing on February 23.

A larger bench of the High Court had upheld the decision of the single judge order observing that the decision of Delhi International Airport Ltd&#39;s (DIAL) to partially shift IndiGo operations from T-1 to T-2 cannot be said to be unreasonable only because it may operate harshly against that airline.

&quot;If we may twist the American idiom, &#39;my way or the highway&#39; to fit the present context, then IndiGo cannot be heard to say that it is either their way or the runway.

&quot;IndiGo are tending to forget that this part relocation from T-1 to T-2 proposed by DIAL is only a temporary measure and once T-1 is renovated and commences its operations after capacity building, all the airlines can operate from there full throttle and take wings,&quot; a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli had said while upholding the order of a single judge accepting DIAL&#39;s decision.

The High Court had turned down the suggestion of IndiGo that T-1 be dedicated exclusively for its use and low-cost carrier SpiceJet be asked to move its entire operations to T-2, and had said this sprang from IndiGo&#39;s own commercial considerations and not made in the larger public good.

It had said SpiceJet was as much a business rival of IndiGo as GoAir was a competitor of these two private carriers. IndiGo may be on top of the heap if the volume of passenger traffic is seen, but this would not entitle it to claim monopoly over T-1 to the exclusion of the rest, it had added.

The decision had come on IndiGo&#39;s plea challenging its single judge order of December 20 last year, upholding DIAL&#39;s October 21, 2017 decision to partially shift the operations of Indigo, GoAir and SpiceJet from T-1 to T-2 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport here.

The airline's appeal against the February 13 order of the division bench of the High Court has been filed and is likely to be taken up for hearing on February 23

No-frill carrier IndiGo has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order that it cannot claim monopoly over Terminal-1 (T-1) of the IGI Airport here, which cannot be given exclusively to it. The airline's appeal against the February 13 order of the division bench of the High Court has been filed and is likely to be taken up for hearing on February 23. A larger bench of the High Court had upheld the decision of the single judge order observing that the decision of Delhi International Airport Ltd's (DIAL) to partially shift IndiGo operations from T-1 to T-2 cannot be said to be unreasonable only because it may operate harshly against that airline. "If we may twist the American idiom, 'my way or the highway' to fit the present context, then IndiGo cannot be heard to say that it is either their way or the runway. "IndiGo are tending to forget that this part relocation from T-1 to T-2 proposed by DIAL is only a temporary measure and once T-1 is renovated and commences its operations after capacity building, all the airlines can operate from there full throttle and take wings," a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli had said while upholding the order of a single judge accepting DIAL's decision. The High Court had turned down the suggestion of IndiGo that T-1 be dedicated exclusively for its use and low-cost carrier SpiceJet be asked to move its entire operations to T-2, and had said this sprang from IndiGo's own commercial considerations and not made in the larger public good. It had said SpiceJet was as much a business rival of IndiGo as GoAir was a competitor of these two private carriers. IndiGo may be on top of the heap if the volume of passenger traffic is seen, but this would not entitle it to claim monopoly over T-1 to the exclusion of the rest, it had added. The decision had come on IndiGo's plea challenging its single judge order of December 20 last year, upholding DIAL's October 21, 2017 decision to partially shift the operations of Indigo, GoAir and SpiceJet from T-1 to T-2 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport here.

IndiGo moves Supreme Court against High Court order asking it to partially move from T1 to T 2

The Supreme Court&nbsp;will hear Wednesday the petition filed by actor Priya Prakasha Varrier. The actor&#39;s plea seeks quashing of the FIR registered against the hit song &#39;Manikya Malaraya Poovi&#39; from the movie &#39;Oru Adaar Love&#39; in which she is seen winking at a co-star.

The FIR, filed in Telangana,&nbsp;had alleged the&nbsp;lyrics of the song were &quot;offensive&quot; and had &quot;violated the religious sentiment of a particular community&quot;.

Varrier&#39;s petition was filed on Monday, with her lawyer urging the court to hear it urgently.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/priya-prakash-varrier-moves-supreme-court-against-case-filed-against-oru-adaar-love-33377">Priya Prakash Varrier moves Supreme Court over case filed against Oru </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/priya-prakash-varrier-moves-supreme-court-against-case-filed-against-oru-adaar-love-33377">Adaar</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/priya-prakash-varrier-moves-supreme-court-against-case-filed-against-oru-adaar-love-33377">&nbsp;Love</a>

Varrier&#39;s petition asks the Supreme Court to stay the filing of any criminal proceedings against her.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Also read:<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/priya-prakash-varrier-on-being-the-internets-latest-crush-the-fame-is-too-much-for-me-to-handle-32767" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Priya Prakash Varrier on being the Internet&#39;s latest crush</a>

Varrier became an overnight internet sensation after a clip from the song went viral on social media. 
&nbsp;&nbsp;

Varrier's petition asks the Supreme Court to stay the filing of any criminal proceedings against her

The Supreme Court will hear Wednesday the petition filed by actor Priya Prakasha Varrier. The actor's plea seeks quashing of the FIR registered against the hit song 'Manikya Malaraya Poovi' from the movie 'Oru Adaar Love' in which she is seen winking at a co-star. The FIR, filed in Telangana, had alleged the lyrics of the song were "offensive" and had "violated the religious sentiment of a particular community". Varrier's petition was filed on Monday, with her lawyer urging the court to hear it urgently. Also read: Priya Prakash Varrier moves Supreme Court over case filed against Oru Adaar Love Varrier's petition asks the Supreme Court to stay the filing of any criminal proceedings against her. Also read: Priya Prakash Varrier on being the Internet's latest crush Varrier became an overnight internet sensation after a clip from the song went viral on social media.

Supreme Court to hear Priya Prakash Varrier plea against FIR on Wednesday

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear after four weeks a plea seeking implementation of an Aadhaar-based voting system in elections in order to curtail bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of the election law.

The petition was filed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud which kept the matter for hearing in March.

The plea, filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has sought direction to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to implement an &#39;Aadhaar-based election voting system&#39; to ensure maximum participation in election and curtail fake, bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of section 17-18 of the Representation of People Act, 1950.

It sought a direction to the Centre through Ministry of Law and Justice to take appropriate steps to link movable and immovable property documents of citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation and &#39;benami&#39; transactions.

The plea claimed that duplicate voting was prevalent in the country as the current system has not been able to control booth capturing and bogus voting.

&quot;The current system is better but not the best. Aadhaar based election-voting system has more authentication of voters, better security of voting process, it can protect the voted data and most importantly, the voter can cast his vote from any corner of the country,&quot; the plea said.

The proposed Aadhaar-based voting system involves fingerprint of the voter which is saved in the government&#39;s database with an individual&#39;s Aadhaar number, the petition said.

The petition was filed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud which kept the matter for hearing in March.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear after four weeks a plea seeking implementation of an Aadhaar-based voting system in elections in order to curtail bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of the election law. The petition was filed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud which kept the matter for hearing in March. The plea, filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has sought direction to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to implement an 'Aadhaar-based election voting system' to ensure maximum participation in election and curtail fake, bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of section 17-18 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. It sought a direction to the Centre through Ministry of Law and Justice to take appropriate steps to link movable and immovable property documents of citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation and 'benami' transactions. The plea claimed that duplicate voting was prevalent in the country as the current system has not been able to control booth capturing and bogus voting. "The current system is better but not the best. Aadhaar based election-voting system has more authentication of voters, better security of voting process, it can protect the voted data and most importantly, the voter can cast his vote from any corner of the country," the plea said. The proposed Aadhaar-based voting system involves fingerprint of the voter which is saved in the government's database with an individual's Aadhaar number, the petition said.

Supreme Court to hear plea for Aadhaar-based voting system

Farmers in Mandya in the Cauvery delta region of Karnataka are celebrating after the Supreme Court announced on Friday that the state will get 14.75 TMC or thousand million cubic feet more water in addition to the 270 TMC awarded by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) in 2007.&nbsp;

The verdict will also quench the thirst of Bengaluru which will get more water to meet its drinking needs.

The judgement was hailed by the farmers who termed it as fair in addressing the needs of farmers as well as Bengaluru

The verdict comes just months before Karnataka goes to polls and has been claimed as a big victory by the ruling Congress.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court acknowledged Bengaluru as a global city and allotted it 4.75 TMC out of the state&#39;s increased share.&nbsp;

Bengaluru is politically important for the Congress as it has 28 assembly seats and the increased share of water, which is expected to solve this fast-growing city&#39;s drinking water woes, could prove to be beneficial for the Siddaramaiah government.

The government received a lot of flak over increasing pollution, bad roads, frothing and foaming lakes, allegations of corruption, steel flyover in Bengaluru in the last few months.&nbsp;

Karnataka&#39;s gain is, however, Tamil Nadu&#39;s loss. The apex court modified the 2007 tribunal order to reduce Tamil Nadu&#39;s share from 192 TMC to 177.25 TMC. The tribunal&#39;s allocation of 30 TMC to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry remains unchanged.

In its judgement, the bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra stated that no single state can claim exclusive ownership of its water.&nbsp;

Misra also insisted on a body to oversee sharing of Cauvery waters after rejecting arguments by Karnataka and the centre against the Cauvery Management Board.&nbsp;

The court has directed the centre to set up the Board within six weeks to supervise the flow of waters to Tamil Nadu.

The verdict will also quench the thirst of Bengaluru

Farmers in Mandya in the Cauvery delta region of Karnataka are celebrating after the Supreme Court announced on Friday that the state will get 14.75 TMC or thousand million cubic feet more water in addition to the 270 TMC awarded by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) in 2007. The verdict will also quench the thirst of Bengaluru which will get more water to meet its drinking needs. The judgement was hailed by the farmers who termed it as fair in addressing the needs of farmers as well as Bengaluru The verdict comes just months before Karnataka goes to polls and has been claimed as a big victory by the ruling Congress. The Supreme Court acknowledged Bengaluru as a global city and allotted it 4.75 TMC out of the state's increased share. Bengaluru is politically important for the Congress as it has 28 assembly seats and the increased share of water, which is expected to solve this fast-growing city's drinking water woes, could prove to be beneficial for the Siddaramaiah government. The government received a lot of flak over increasing pollution, bad roads, frothing and foaming lakes, allegations of corruption, steel flyover in Bengaluru in the last few months. Karnataka's gain is, however, Tamil Nadu's loss. The apex court modified the 2007 tribunal order to reduce Tamil Nadu's share from 192 TMC to 177.25 TMC. The tribunal's allocation of 30 TMC to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry remains unchanged. In its judgement, the bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra stated that no single state can claim exclusive ownership of its water. Misra also insisted on a body to oversee sharing of Cauvery waters after rejecting arguments by Karnataka and the centre against the Cauvery Management Board. The court has directed the centre to set up the Board within six weeks to supervise the flow of waters to Tamil Nadu.

Cauvery water dispute: Karnataka farmers term Supreme Court's judgement fair

After postponing its release date twice, Neeraj Pandey directed Aiyaary it does not seem to be coming out of trouble.

Few hours before the movie&#39;s release, Adarsh society filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking a ban on the release.&nbsp;

However, on Friday Supreme Court refused to stay the release of the film while dismissing the plea.

The court dismissed the plea saying that movies don&#39;t influence the court&#39;s judgment.

The court was further reported&nbsp;saying it could not restrict the artistic freedom of filmmaker.

The decision was taken by the bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

The member of the Adarsh colony has alleged that the movie&nbsp;may affect the trial of the case of Adarsh scam.

Featuring, Sidharth Malhotra, Manoj Bajpayee and Naseeruddin Shah, Aiyaary was released on Friday and so far been receiving mixed reviews from the critics.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aiyaary-review-a-half-baked-lazy-attempt-at-making-a-thriller-33072">Aiyaary review: A half-baked, lazy attempt at making a thriller</a>

The movies is a crime thriller and said to be based on Adarsh Housing Society scam of 2010.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/adarsh-scam-bombay-high-court-rejects-governors-sanction-to-prosecute-ashok-chavan-27435">Adarsh scam: Bombay High Court rejects Governor&#39;s sanction to prosecute Ashok Chavan</a> 
&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Few hours before the movie's release, Adarsh society filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking a ban on the release

After postponing its release date twice, Neeraj Pandey directed Aiyaary it does not seem to be coming out of trouble. Few hours before the movie's release, Adarsh society filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking a ban on the release. However, on Friday Supreme Court refused to stay the release of the film while dismissing the plea. The court dismissed the plea saying that movies don't influence the court's judgment. The court was further reported saying it could not restrict the artistic freedom of filmmaker. The decision was taken by the bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The member of the Adarsh colony has alleged that the movie may affect the trial of the case of Adarsh scam. Featuring, Sidharth Malhotra, Manoj Bajpayee and Naseeruddin Shah, Aiyaary was released on Friday and so far been receiving mixed reviews from the critics. Also read: Aiyaary review: A half-baked, lazy attempt at making a thriller The movies is a crime thriller and said to be based on Adarsh Housing Society scam of 2010. Also read: Adarsh scam: Bombay High Court rejects Governor's sanction to prosecute Ashok Chavan

Supreme Court refuses to stay release of Aiyaary

The Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cauvery-verdict-bus-services-between-karnataka-tamil-nadu-curtailed-33040">today delivered its verdict on</a>&nbsp;the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

The Supreme Court<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/siddaramaiah-refuses-to-release-cauvery-water-to-tamil-nadu-29432">&nbsp;judge directed Karnataka to</a>&nbsp;get additional 14.75&nbsp; thousand million cubic&nbsp;(TMC) water and Tamil Nadu to now get 177.25 TMC&nbsp;water instead of 192 TMC.

Following is the chronology of events in the decades-old Cauvery water dispute matter in which the Supreme Court today held that Karnataka will get 284.75 tmcft and Tamil Nadu 404.25 tmcft Cauvery water:

The original agreement, which was signed between the Madras Presidency and the princely State of Mysore in 1924, had lapsed in 1974.

*May 1990: SC directs Centre to constitute Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT), a demand made by Tamil Nadu since 1970.

*June 2: Centre notifies CWDT.

*Jan 1991: CWDT rejects TN government&#39;s plea for interim relief. TN appeals the rejection in SC.

*April : SC directs the CWDT to entertain TN&#39;s petition for interim relief.

*June: CWDT announces interim award. Karnataka ordered to release 205 tmcft. Karnataka passes an Ordinance to nullify the order. SC intervenes, strikes down Karnataka&#39;s ordinance and upholds the interim award of the CWDT. Karnataka refuses to oblige.

*Dec 11: Interim award is published in the Government of India gazette.

*Aug 1998: Centre constitutes Cauvery River Authority (CRA) to ensure implementation of CWDT interim award.

*Sep 8, 2002: CRA, chaired by the then Prime Minister A B Vajpayee, directs Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs (0.8 tmcft) of Cauvery water to TN.

*Feb 5, 2007: CWDT gives final award after 17 years. Tribunal holds as valid the two agreements of 1892 and 1924 executed between the Madras Presidency and the princely State of Mysore on the apportionment of water to TN.

*Sep 19, 2012: At the seventh CRA, then PM Manmohan Singh directs Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to TN at Biligundlu dam.

*Sep 28: SC slams Karnataka government for not complying with PM&#39;s direction at the CRA.

*March 19, 2013: TN moves SC to give directions to Water Ministry for constitution of Cauvery Management Board (CMB).

*May 10: SC directs Centre to set up panel to supervise Cauvery water release.

*May 28: TN moves SC, seeks Rs 2,480 cr damages from Karnataka for not following orders of the CWDT.

*June 12: Cauvery Supervisory Committee (CSC) terms the TN&#39;s plea for directions to Karnataka for release of Cauvery water as per the CWDT award as not &ldquo;feasible&rdquo;.

*June 14: TN decides to file contempt plea against Karnataka for its stand on the Cauvery Supervisory Committee.

*June 26: TN moves SC for constitution of CMB.

*June 28: TN files contempt petition in the SC against Karnataka.

*Nov 18, 2015: Karnataka objects to TN&rsquo;s plea to release Cauvery water. Karnataka government tells SC that TN&rsquo;s demand for release of 45.32 tmcft of Cauvery water proceeds from a wholly erroneous premise that the water year of 2015-16 in the Cauvery basin is a &ldquo;normal year&rdquo; and not a &ldquo;distress year&rdquo;.

*Sep 2, 2016: SC asks Karnataka to consider taking steps to release Cauvery water to TN.

*Sep 5: SC directs Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to TN for next 10 days.

*Sep 7: Karnataka begins releasing Cauvery water to TN as per SC order. *Sep 11: Karnataka files plea to modify SC order directing it to share water with TN.

*Sep 12: SC refuses plea by Karnataka to freeze the September 5 order. SC, however, reduces the quantum of daily water release ordered earlier, from 15,000 cusecs to 12,000 cusecs.

*Sep 19: CSC orders Karnataka to release 3,000 cubic feet of water per second (cusecs) for the rest of the month.

*July 14, 2017: SC says it would take a balanced view, keeping in mind the interests of the people of both the States. Karnataka sought a reduction in the quantum of Cauvery water it should release to TN from 192 tmcft to 132 tmcft.

*Sep 20: SC reserves verdict.

* Feb 16, 2018: SC pronounces final verdict, directs Karnataka to release 404.25 tmcft annually to TN which was earlier awarded 419 tmcft water by CWDT. Karnataka to now get enhanced 14.75 tmcft, i.E. 284.75 tmcft water. SC says its verdict on Cauvery water allocation will continue for next 15 years.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today delivered its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala

The Supreme Court today delivered its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. The Supreme Court judge directed Karnataka to get additional 14.75 thousand million cubic (TMC) water and Tamil Nadu to now get 177.25 TMC water instead of 192 TMC. Following is the chronology of events in the decades-old Cauvery water dispute matter in which the Supreme Court today held that Karnataka will get 284.75 tmcft and Tamil Nadu 404.25 tmcft Cauvery water: The original agreement, which was signed between the Madras Presidency and the princely State of Mysore in 1924, had lapsed in 1974. *May 1990: SC directs Centre to constitute Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT), a demand made by Tamil Nadu since 1970. *June 2: Centre notifies CWDT. *Jan 1991: CWDT rejects TN government's plea for interim relief. TN appeals the rejection in SC. *April : SC directs the CWDT to entertain TN's petition for interim relief. *June: CWDT announces interim award. Karnataka ordered to release 205 tmcft. Karnataka passes an Ordinance to nullify the order. SC intervenes, strikes down Karnataka's ordinance and upholds the interim award of the CWDT. Karnataka refuses to oblige. *Dec 11: Interim award is published in the Government of India gazette. *Aug 1998: Centre constitutes Cauvery River Authority (CRA) to ensure implementation of CWDT interim award. *Sep 8, 2002: CRA, chaired by the then Prime Minister A B Vajpayee, directs Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs (0.8 tmcft) of Cauvery water to TN. *Feb 5, 2007: CWDT gives final award after 17 years. Tribunal holds as valid the two agreements of 1892 and 1924 executed between the Madras Presidency and the princely State of Mysore on the apportionment of water to TN. *Sep 19, 2012: At the seventh CRA, then PM Manmohan Singh directs Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to TN at Biligundlu dam. *Sep 28: SC slams Karnataka government for not complying with PM's direction at the CRA. *March 19, 2013: TN moves SC to give directions to Water Ministry for constitution of Cauvery Management Board (CMB). *May 10: SC directs Centre to set up panel to supervise Cauvery water release. *May 28: TN moves SC, seeks Rs 2,480 cr damages from Karnataka for not following orders of the CWDT. *June 12: Cauvery Supervisory Committee (CSC) terms the TN's plea for directions to Karnataka for release of Cauvery water as per the CWDT award as not “feasible”. *June 14: TN decides to file contempt plea against Karnataka for its stand on the Cauvery Supervisory Committee. *June 26: TN moves SC for constitution of CMB. *June 28: TN files contempt petition in the SC against Karnataka. *Nov 18, 2015: Karnataka objects to TN’s plea to release Cauvery water. Karnataka government tells SC that TN’s demand for release of 45.32 tmcft of Cauvery water proceeds from a wholly erroneous premise that the water year of 2015-16 in the Cauvery basin is a “normal year” and not a “distress year”. *Sep 2, 2016: SC asks Karnataka to consider taking steps to release Cauvery water to TN. *Sep 5: SC directs Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to TN for next 10 days. *Sep 7: Karnataka begins releasing Cauvery water to TN as per SC order. *Sep 11: Karnataka files plea to modify SC order directing it to share water with TN. *Sep 12: SC refuses plea by Karnataka to freeze the September 5 order. SC, however, reduces the quantum of daily water release ordered earlier, from 15,000 cusecs to 12,000 cusecs. *Sep 19: CSC orders Karnataka to release 3,000 cubic feet of water per second (cusecs) for the rest of the month. *July 14, 2017: SC says it would take a balanced view, keeping in mind the interests of the people of both the States. Karnataka sought a reduction in the quantum of Cauvery water it should release to TN from 192 tmcft to 132 tmcft. *Sep 20: SC reserves verdict. * Feb 16, 2018: SC pronounces final verdict, directs Karnataka to release 404.25 tmcft annually to TN which was earlier awarded 419 tmcft water by CWDT. Karnataka to now get enhanced 14.75 tmcft, i.E. 284.75 tmcft water. SC says its verdict on Cauvery water allocation will continue for next 15 years.

1990-2018: How Supreme Court, state governments handled Cauvery water dispute

The Supreme Court <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cauvery-verdict-bus-services-between-karnataka-tamil-nadu-curtailed-33040">today delivered its verdict on</a> the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

The Supreme Court<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/siddaramaiah-refuses-to-release-cauvery-water-to-tamil-nadu-29432"> judge directed Karnataka to</a> get additional 14.75&nbsp; thousand million cubic(TMC) water and Tamil Nadu to now get 177.25 TMC&nbsp;water instead of 192 TMC.

SC directed Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC&nbsp;of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam.

Bengaluru will get additional 4.2 TMC&nbsp;water, India&#39;s highest court said. There is no change in allocation for Kerala and Puducherry, the court declared.

The apex court also allowed Tami Nadu to draw an additional 10 TMC&nbsp;&#39;groundwater&#39; from a total of 20 TMC&nbsp;beneath the Cauvery basin.

It said the increase in share of Cauvery water for Karnataka by 14.75 tmcft is because of the 10 tmcft groundwater and 4.75 tmcft drinking water requirement for Bengaluru residents.

The pre-Independence verdict is valid, the top court said in its verdict, adding that no state can claim&nbsp;&quot;exclusivity&nbsp;over rivers.&quot;&nbsp;

The court said there should be &quot;no deviance&quot;&nbsp;of the order by any state.

The Court also directed the Cauvery water dispute management to be set up. The Supreme Court order will remain in force for the next 15 years.

Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade had urged the court to initiate a &ldquo;fundamental change&rdquo; in the water sharing arrangement.&nbsp;

The Cauvery water dispute was decided unanimously by CWDT in 2007, after determining the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 tmcft for environmental protection.

The Supreme Court today delivered its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

The Supreme Court today delivered its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. The Supreme Court judge directed Karnataka to get additional 14.75 thousand million cubic(TMC) water and Tamil Nadu to now get 177.25 TMC water instead of 192 TMC. SC directed Karnataka to release 177.25 TMC of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam. Bengaluru will get additional 4.2 TMC water, India's highest court said. There is no change in allocation for Kerala and Puducherry, the court declared. The apex court also allowed Tami Nadu to draw an additional 10 TMC 'groundwater' from a total of 20 TMC beneath the Cauvery basin. It said the increase in share of Cauvery water for Karnataka by 14.75 tmcft is because of the 10 tmcft groundwater and 4.75 tmcft drinking water requirement for Bengaluru residents. The pre-Independence verdict is valid, the top court said in its verdict, adding that no state can claim "exclusivity over rivers." The court said there should be "no deviance" of the order by any state. The Court also directed the Cauvery water dispute management to be set up. The Supreme Court order will remain in force for the next 15 years. Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade had urged the court to initiate a “fundamental change” in the water sharing arrangement. The Cauvery water dispute was decided unanimously by CWDT in 2007, after determining the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 tmcft for environmental protection.

Supreme Court verdict on Cauvery dispute: Karnataka to get additional water, no change for Kerala

In a landmark verdict today, the Supreme Court has reduced the allocation of the Cauvery Waters for Tamil Nadu from 192 TMC, as allocated by the Cauvery Water Tribunal Award in 2007, to 177.25 TMC annually.&nbsp; This thousand million cubic feet of water is to be released from Billigundulu, the last measuring station in Karnataka on the Cauvery, to Mettur Dam, which is the first measuring station in Tamil Nadu on the Cauvery river. It is a historic judgment.&nbsp;

The judgment is historical on two counts: first, it marks the culmination of the centuries-old inter-state water dispute that has been an epitome of hostile hydropolitics. Second, it sent a signal to the agricultural economy to efficiently use water and practise crop diversification. The principle followed here, though apparently seems like &ldquo;robbing Peter to pay Paul&rdquo; (by reducing 14.75 TMC water for Tamil Nadu and providing the same to Karnataka for its burgeoning urban water use), recognises a bigger global phenomenon of intersectoral water conflicts: agriculture versus urban water demand.&nbsp;

In a 2009 paper co-authored with Jayanta Bandyopadhyay in Water Policy, I argued that around 85% of the waters of the Cauvery basin go for agriculture, with paddy emerging as the most dominant crop in the basin. While the Tamil Nadu delta has been historically cultivating paddy, Karnataka started developing their irrigation potential in the 1960s onwards.&nbsp;

The minimum support prices (MSP) of rice between the 80s and 90s were increasing at a faster rate vis-&agrave;-vis the drier alternative crop, namely, Ragi. Farmers, therefore, were incentivised to shift to water-consuming crop, for instance, from Ragi to paddy. However, the data over the last 10 years reveals that there has been an overall decline in acreage in the basin, and more so in the Karnataka part, in response to a reversal in the MSP movement. But, the traditional sugarcane agriculture in the delta regions still continues.&nbsp;

Who owns the Cauvery water?

There are three extreme principles of water allocation based on divergent definitions of property rights: Harmon, History and Hobbes. The Harmon doctrine states the primary rights of water are bestowed on those who own land at the source of the water. History confers primary rights to historical users of water irrespective of their geographical location. Hobbes identifies rights as the final result of awards obtained through negotiations.&nbsp;

Tamil Nadu, given the long history of water use especially in the delta regions, has been advocating its position in terms of History. While the basin area&#39;s contribution to the river flow should also be an important variable to be taken into consideration, the principle of prescriptive rights given in the 1924 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore also translates to the principle of prior appropriation or the doctrine of history as the basis of property rights definition.

On the other hand, Karnataka has always maintained that a downstream state cannot make a claim when there is a scarcity of water and inadequacy in the upstream areas. At the same time, upstream development should not be compromised because of downstream concerns. This implies that Karnataka has been exercising the Harmon doctrine for its property rights.

The divergent definitions of property rights are amplified by the fact that the subject of water falls in the State list, subject to the provisions of 56 (i) of the Indian Constitution. Even the provisions of the Interstate Water Dispute (ISWD) Act of 1956 and its subsequent amendment in 2002 merely talk of setting up tribunals for adjudications and declaring awards. In view of global standards on water governance, this is insufficient. One can perceive that Hobbesian modes of negotiations are failing. Besides, it has exposed the failings of a state-led, &lsquo;decentralised&rsquo; approach.

Interestingly, much in departure to this existing thinking of water being State subject, thereby, leading to divergent definitions of property rights, the Supreme Court has observed that water of the Cauvery river was a &ldquo;national asset and no single state could claim ownership over it&rdquo;.

A holistic understanding is needed

The verdict, therefore, presents an unprecedented benchmark in Indian water governance by seeking a departure from age-old policies. There are many solutions for managing agricultural water, such as crop-diversification through minimum support price, regime change in favour of drier crops, promoting water-use-efficiency through technical and institutional measures, imports of agricultural crops from water-rich regions, among others. But, the basic human needs should be met first.&nbsp;

However, there is one more thing that remains to be taken care of, i.e. the cause of the ecosystems. The CWT award in 2007 was thoroughly based on reductionist &ldquo;arithmetic hydrology&rdquo;, and not on holistic eco-hydrology. The arithmetic by way of which this 50% dependability of water is arrived at depends on past precedence of estimates conducted by engineers like K.L. Rao.&nbsp;

The CWT seemed to be oblivious to the challenges by possible impacts of global warming and climate change that can result in variability in water availability. That award reserved the &ldquo;quantity &hellip; for environmental protection&rdquo; and &ldquo;quantity determined for inevitable escapages to the sea&rdquo; as 10 TMC and 4 TMC respectively, none of which adhere to any scientific assessment of the ecosystem-based water usages in the basin.&nbsp;

The present verdict does not have the cause of the ecosystem in its scope. But, ecological scientists must advocate for a more scientific approach for the cause of the ecosystems for life in the basin. The resolution mechanism worked out by the Cauvery Water Tribunal has been based on myopic number-games for sharing the waters, without much consideration about the broader institutions, economics, ecology, hydrology, and holistic understanding of the conflicts. There is a need to correct that.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Much in departure to this existing thinking of water being State subject, thereby, leading to divergent definitions of property rights, the Supreme Court has observed that water of the Cauvery river was a “national asset and no single state could claim ownership over it”.

In a landmark verdict today, the Supreme Court has reduced the allocation of the Cauvery Waters for Tamil Nadu from 192 TMC, as allocated by the Cauvery Water Tribunal Award in 2007, to 177.25 TMC annually. This thousand million cubic feet of water is to be released from Billigundulu, the last measuring station in Karnataka on the Cauvery, to Mettur Dam, which is the first measuring station in Tamil Nadu on the Cauvery river. It is a historic judgment. The judgment is historical on two counts: first, it marks the culmination of the centuries-old inter-state water dispute that has been an epitome of hostile hydropolitics. Second, it sent a signal to the agricultural economy to efficiently use water and practise crop diversification. The principle followed here, though apparently seems like “robbing Peter to pay Paul” (by reducing 14.75 TMC water for Tamil Nadu and providing the same to Karnataka for its burgeoning urban water use), recognises a bigger global phenomenon of intersectoral water conflicts: agriculture versus urban water demand. In a 2009 paper co-authored with Jayanta Bandyopadhyay in Water Policy, I argued that around 85% of the waters of the Cauvery basin go for agriculture, with paddy emerging as the most dominant crop in the basin. While the Tamil Nadu delta has been historically cultivating paddy, Karnataka started developing their irrigation potential in the 1960s onwards. The minimum support prices (MSP) of rice between the 80s and 90s were increasing at a faster rate vis-à-vis the drier alternative crop, namely, Ragi. Farmers, therefore, were incentivised to shift to water-consuming crop, for instance, from Ragi to paddy. However, the data over the last 10 years reveals that there has been an overall decline in acreage in the basin, and more so in the Karnataka part, in response to a reversal in the MSP movement. But, the traditional sugarcane agriculture in the delta regions still continues. Who owns the Cauvery water? There are three extreme principles of water allocation based on divergent definitions of property rights: Harmon, History and Hobbes. The Harmon doctrine states the primary rights of water are bestowed on those who own land at the source of the water. History confers primary rights to historical users of water irrespective of their geographical location. Hobbes identifies rights as the final result of awards obtained through negotiations. Tamil Nadu, given the long history of water use especially in the delta regions, has been advocating its position in terms of History. While the basin area's contribution to the river flow should also be an important variable to be taken into consideration, the principle of prescriptive rights given in the 1924 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore also translates to the principle of prior appropriation or the doctrine of history as the basis of property rights definition. On the other hand, Karnataka has always maintained that a downstream state cannot make a claim when there is a scarcity of water and inadequacy in the upstream areas. At the same time, upstream development should not be compromised because of downstream concerns. This implies that Karnataka has been exercising the Harmon doctrine for its property rights. The divergent definitions of property rights are amplified by the fact that the subject of water falls in the State list, subject to the provisions of 56 (i) of the Indian Constitution. Even the provisions of the Interstate Water Dispute (ISWD) Act of 1956 and its subsequent amendment in 2002 merely talk of setting up tribunals for adjudications and declaring awards. In view of global standards on water governance, this is insufficient. One can perceive that Hobbesian modes of negotiations are failing. Besides, it has exposed the failings of a state-led, ‘decentralised’ approach. Interestingly, much in departure to this existing thinking of water being State subject, thereby, leading to divergent definitions of property rights, the Supreme Court has observed that water of the Cauvery river was a “national asset and no single state could claim ownership over it”. A holistic understanding is needed The verdict, therefore, presents an unprecedented benchmark in Indian water governance by seeking a departure from age-old policies. There are many solutions for managing agricultural water, such as crop-diversification through minimum support price, regime change in favour of drier crops, promoting water-use-efficiency through technical and institutional measures, imports of agricultural crops from water-rich regions, among others. But, the basic human needs should be met first. However, there is one more thing that remains to be taken care of, i.e. the cause of the ecosystems. The CWT award in 2007 was thoroughly based on reductionist “arithmetic hydrology”, and not on holistic eco-hydrology. The arithmetic by way of which this 50% dependability of water is arrived at depends on past precedence of estimates conducted by engineers like K.L. Rao. The CWT seemed to be oblivious to the challenges by possible impacts of global warming and climate change that can result in variability in water availability. That award reserved the “quantity … for environmental protection” and “quantity determined for inevitable escapages to the sea” as 10 TMC and 4 TMC respectively, none of which adhere to any scientific assessment of the ecosystem-based water usages in the basin. The present verdict does not have the cause of the ecosystem in its scope. But, ecological scientists must advocate for a more scientific approach for the cause of the ecosystems for life in the basin. The resolution mechanism worked out by the Cauvery Water Tribunal has been based on myopic number-games for sharing the waters, without much consideration about the broader institutions, economics, ecology, hydrology, and holistic understanding of the conflicts. There is a need to correct that. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Cauvery is a national river, no state owns it

The Supreme Court warned courts against passing any order which may include bias for or against a community while cancelling the bail of three men in a murder case.

The Supreme Court order came last week in connection with the murder of Mohsin Shaikh, an engineer in a private firm in Pune. Mohsin was killed in June, 2014, during clashes after circuation of some objectionable pictures of Bal Thackeray and Maratha king Shivaji.

The accused - members of a fringe group - had first applied for bail before a sessions court in Pune which rejected their application. In its order, the sessions court said that the accused were present in a meeting where a &quot;conspiracy was hatched to kill members of a certain community&quot;.

The accused then moved the Bombay High Court which directed their release saying, &quot;The meeting was held half an hour prior to the assault. The accused otherwise had no other motice such as personal enmity against the innocent deceased Mohsin. The fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the accused. Moreover, the accused do not have criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder.&quot;

The Supreme Court overturned that order last week, cancelling the bail of the accused. &quot;We have no doubt that a court, fully conscious of the plural composition of the country, while called upon to deal with rights of various communities, cannot make such observations which may appear to be coloured with a bias for or against a community,&quot; a bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageshwar Rao said.

&quot;It is possible that the learned Judge wanted to rule out a personal motive against the victim, but only emphasise communal hatred. It is also possible that the learned Single Judge may not have intended to hurt the feelings of any particular community or support the feelings of another community but the words are clearly vulnerable to such criticism,&quot; the bench added.

The bench directed the accused to appear before the high court on February 16 and apply for bail. It has given six weeks for the bail application to be decided.

The Supreme Court order came last week in connection with the murder of Mohsin Shaikh, an engineer in a private firm in Pune.

The Supreme Court warned courts against passing any order which may include bias for or against a community while cancelling the bail of three men in a murder case. The Supreme Court order came last week in connection with the murder of Mohsin Shaikh, an engineer in a private firm in Pune. Mohsin was killed in June, 2014, during clashes after circuation of some objectionable pictures of Bal Thackeray and Maratha king Shivaji. The accused - members of a fringe group - had first applied for bail before a sessions court in Pune which rejected their application. In its order, the sessions court said that the accused were present in a meeting where a "conspiracy was hatched to kill members of a certain community". The accused then moved the Bombay High Court which directed their release saying, "The meeting was held half an hour prior to the assault. The accused otherwise had no other motice such as personal enmity against the innocent deceased Mohsin. The fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the accused. Moreover, the accused do not have criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder." The Supreme Court overturned that order last week, cancelling the bail of the accused. "We have no doubt that a court, fully conscious of the plural composition of the country, while called upon to deal with rights of various communities, cannot make such observations which may appear to be coloured with a bias for or against a community," a bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageshwar Rao said. "It is possible that the learned Judge wanted to rule out a personal motive against the victim, but only emphasise communal hatred. It is also possible that the learned Single Judge may not have intended to hurt the feelings of any particular community or support the feelings of another community but the words are clearly vulnerable to such criticism," the bench added. The bench directed the accused to appear before the high court on February 16 and apply for bail. It has given six weeks for the bail application to be decided.

2014 Pune engineer murder: Supreme Court cancels bail of accused, warns courts against bias

The Supreme Court is likely to deliver the verdict&nbsp;on decades-old Cauvery water dispute between south Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

On September 20, 2017, the final day of the hearings in the appeals, Tamil Nadu appealed to the Bench &mdash; comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar &mdash; to not reduce it to the state of a beggar before Karnataka.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud then reserved the verdict on the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing of water.

Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, urged the court to initiate a &ldquo;fundamental change&rdquo; in the water sharing arrangement. &ldquo;Several years have gone by... the river is perennial, but the litigation should not be,&rdquo; it submitted.

Naphade made it a point to express scepticism about the Central government&#39;s initiative in resolving the decades-long Cauvery dispute. Tamil Nadu said it wanted a judicial order and did not want to depend on a Centre that took six years to publish the Tribunal award in the gazette in 2013.

The decades-old Cauvery water dispute was decided unanimously by CWDT in 2007, after determining the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 tmcft for environmental protection.

The final award makes a yearly allocation of 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 tmcft to Karnataka, 30 tmcft to Kerala and 7 tmcft to Puducherry.

The top court had earlier clarified that any other forum could touch the matter relating to the Cauvery river basin only after it gives its verdict.

The apex court had in January said the verdict would be pronounced within a month, adding that the matter has already created enough confusion for decades.

The top court during the course of pendency of appeals of the neighbouring states against the arbitral award of 2007, had passed several orders directing Karnataka to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu.

On September 30, 2016, the Supreme Court had pulled up Karnataka for its repeated &quot;defiance&quot; in flouting its orders for releasing Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu and said no one would know when the &quot;wrath of the law&quot; would fall on it.

Later, Karnataka had moved a review petition in the apex court against its three orders on on the issue and direction to the Centre to create the Cauvery Water Management Board (CWMB), saying &quot;grave miscarriage of justice&quot; had been caused to it following the three apex court orders of September 20, 27 and 30, by which it was directed to release water.

Tamil Nadu had earlier also alleged that Kerala was drawing water in excess of what has been allocated to it by the tribunal.

The apex court had on December 9, 2016 upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by the riparian states saying it has the &quot;jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal&quot;.

The Court had rejected the Centre&#39;s objection that the CWDT award amounted to a final decree and it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals against the award.

(With PTI inputs)

The top court had earlier clarified that any other forum could touch the matter relating to the Cauvery river basin only after it gives its verdict.

The Supreme Court is likely to deliver the verdict on decades-old Cauvery water dispute between south Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. On September 20, 2017, the final day of the hearings in the appeals, Tamil Nadu appealed to the Bench — comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar — to not reduce it to the state of a beggar before Karnataka. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud then reserved the verdict on the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing of water. Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, urged the court to initiate a “fundamental change” in the water sharing arrangement. “Several years have gone by... the river is perennial, but the litigation should not be,” it submitted. Naphade made it a point to express scepticism about the Central government's initiative in resolving the decades-long Cauvery dispute. Tamil Nadu said it wanted a judicial order and did not want to depend on a Centre that took six years to publish the Tribunal award in the gazette in 2013. The decades-old Cauvery water dispute was decided unanimously by CWDT in 2007, after determining the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 tmcft for environmental protection. The final award makes a yearly allocation of 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 tmcft to Karnataka, 30 tmcft to Kerala and 7 tmcft to Puducherry. The top court had earlier clarified that any other forum could touch the matter relating to the Cauvery river basin only after it gives its verdict. The apex court had in January said the verdict would be pronounced within a month, adding that the matter has already created enough confusion for decades. The top court during the course of pendency of appeals of the neighbouring states against the arbitral award of 2007, had passed several orders directing Karnataka to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu. On September 30, 2016, the Supreme Court had pulled up Karnataka for its repeated "defiance" in flouting its orders for releasing Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu and said no one would know when the "wrath of the law" would fall on it. Later, Karnataka had moved a review petition in the apex court against its three orders on on the issue and direction to the Centre to create the Cauvery Water Management Board (CWMB), saying "grave miscarriage of justice" had been caused to it following the three apex court orders of September 20, 27 and 30, by which it was directed to release water. Tamil Nadu had earlier also alleged that Kerala was drawing water in excess of what has been allocated to it by the tribunal. The apex court had on December 9, 2016 upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by the riparian states saying it has the "jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal". The Court had rejected the Centre's objection that the CWDT award amounted to a final decree and it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals against the award. (With PTI inputs)

Cauvery water dispute: Supreme Court likely to pronounce verdict today

The Supreme Court will today hear the matter regarding the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-sealing-drive-supreme-court-slams-kejriwal-government-over-changes-in-master-plan-32346"> ongoing sealing drive</a> in the national capital.

The top court had previously criticised the Delhi Development Authority after it proposed changing some rules in the city&rsquo;s Master Plan 2021.

A Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee had ordered the sealing of commercial establishments flouting provisions of the 2021 Master Plan.

The sealing drive began on January 7 in Khan Market.

Till now, over 1,500 commercial establishments have been sealed across the city in the sealing drive ordered against the misuse of residential properties for commercial use and non-payment of &#39;conversion charge&#39;.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had previously in a hearing criticised the Delhi Development Authority after it proposed changing some rules in the city&rsquo;s Master Plan, 2021.

&ldquo;Everybody in Delhi is just keeping their eyes closed and waiting for disaster to happen,&rdquo; said a bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta. &quot;You [civic bodies] have learnt nothing from Uphaar fire tragedy and incidents in Bawana and Kamala Mills.&quot;

On February 9, the top court directed the Delhi government and the DDA to apprise it whether an environmental impact assessment was conducted before proposing amendments in the Delhi master plan, 2021.

The court asked the state government if the traffic conditions, fire safety and the safety of buildings in the city were taken into consideration before proposing the amendments.&nbsp;

According to the master plan, traders using properties for mixed purposes, have to pay a one-time conversion charge at the rate notified by the Delhi Government.

The ongoing sealing drive, which was restricted to local markets, will now be extended to residential areas.

Earlier, the top court-appointed monitoring committee on directed three civic bodies - South, East and North Delhi - to identify residential buildings where stilt parking is illegally being used for commercial activities.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee had ordered the sealing of commercial establishments flouting provisions of the 2021 Master Plan

The Supreme Court will today hear the matter regarding the ongoing sealing drive in the national capital. The top court had previously criticised the Delhi Development Authority after it proposed changing some rules in the city’s Master Plan 2021. A Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee had ordered the sealing of commercial establishments flouting provisions of the 2021 Master Plan. The sealing drive began on January 7 in Khan Market. Till now, over 1,500 commercial establishments have been sealed across the city in the sealing drive ordered against the misuse of residential properties for commercial use and non-payment of 'conversion charge'. The Supreme Court had previously in a hearing criticised the Delhi Development Authority after it proposed changing some rules in the city’s Master Plan, 2021. “Everybody in Delhi is just keeping their eyes closed and waiting for disaster to happen,” said a bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta. "You [civic bodies] have learnt nothing from Uphaar fire tragedy and incidents in Bawana and Kamala Mills." On February 9, the top court directed the Delhi government and the DDA to apprise it whether an environmental impact assessment was conducted before proposing amendments in the Delhi master plan, 2021. The court asked the state government if the traffic conditions, fire safety and the safety of buildings in the city were taken into consideration before proposing the amendments. According to the master plan, traders using properties for mixed purposes, have to pay a one-time conversion charge at the rate notified by the Delhi Government. The ongoing sealing drive, which was restricted to local markets, will now be extended to residential areas. Earlier, the top court-appointed monitoring committee on directed three civic bodies - South, East and North Delhi - to identify residential buildings where stilt parking is illegally being used for commercial activities. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court to hear Delhi sealing drive matter

A day after the Members of Parliament were blocked from entering the Parliament, the MPs were thrown out of the Parliament today by the military.&nbsp;

Maldives&#39; President Abdulla Yameen previously quashed the Supreme Court&#39;s directive to release nine prisoners calling the directive &quot;unconstitutional&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;If a Supreme Court ruling erodes the democratic principle of separating powers, then the government and the president has an obligation to address it&quot;, Yameen shared in an official statement.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Maldives: The military personnel in Male threw all Members of Parliament (MPs) out of the Parliament building premises earlier today. <a href="https://t.co/Z4NP7rtyoK">pic.twitter.com/Z4NP7rtyoK</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/963782601738768384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 14, 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 called for an immediate release of former president Mohamed Nasheed along with eight other opposition leaders. The apex court also demanded their fresh trials noting the previous proceedings to have violated the constitution and international law.

The former president and other eight leaders face charges ranging from terrorism to treason and corruption.

President Abdulla Yameen declared a state of emergency in the country and ordered the arrest of Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Maldives police recently noted to have launched an investigation into the attempt to &quot;overthrow the government&quot; of Maldives.

Police said it had brought former president Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Al Ustaz Abdhullah Saeed, Supreme Court judge Ali Hameed among others into custody to investigate the case.

Meanwhile, Maldives police recently noted to have launched an investigation into the attempt to 'overthrow the government' of Maldives

A day after the Members of Parliament were blocked from entering the Parliament, the MPs were thrown out of the Parliament today by the military. Maldives' President Abdulla Yameen previously quashed the Supreme Court's directive to release nine prisoners calling the directive "unconstitutional". "If a Supreme Court ruling erodes the democratic principle of separating powers, then the government and the president has an obligation to address it", Yameen shared in an official statement. Maldives: The military personnel in Male threw all Members of Parliament (MPs) out of the Parliament building premises earlier today. pic.twitter.com/Z4NP7rtyoK — ANI (@ANI) February 14, 2018 × The Supreme Court called for an immediate release of former president Mohamed Nasheed along with eight other opposition leaders. The apex court also demanded their fresh trials noting the previous proceedings to have violated the constitution and international law. The former president and other eight leaders face charges ranging from terrorism to treason and corruption. President Abdulla Yameen declared a state of emergency in the country and ordered the arrest of Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed. Meanwhile, Maldives police recently noted to have launched an investigation into the attempt to "overthrow the government" of Maldives. Police said it had brought former president Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Al Ustaz Abdhullah Saeed, Supreme Court judge Ali Hameed among others into custody to investigate the case.

Maldives Army throws MPs out of Parliament

India&#39;s status as a technological power house in the world would remain on paper if the state does not take advantage of its resources to benefit the children or track the missing ones, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court, while stressing the need for use of technology in Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) and Child Welfare Committees (CWC), said it was &quot;disheartened&quot; that there was an acute shortage of computers and peripherals in these bodies.

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said the use of technology would help in dealing with crucial issues like tracing and tracking of missing children, rescuing those working in hazardous industries and victims of child sexual abuse.

&quot;It is well-known that our country is a technological power-house and if we are unable to take advantage of the resources available with us and fully utilise the benefits of technology through computers and the internet for the benefit of children, our status as a technological power house would be in jeopardy and would remain only on paper,&quot; the bench said.

It said the data regarding children could be easily collected by using computers and the internet.

&quot;This would be of great assistance in planning and management of resources and MWCD (Ministry of Women and Child Development) and others concerned with child rights must take full advantage of this,&quot; the bench said.

The apex court also said that the Centre and states needed to look into this aspect and provide necessary software and hardware to JJBs and CWCs for their functioning.

&quot;Similarly, the use of video conferencing could also be considered in appropriate cases where some inconvenience to the juvenile in conflict with law necessitates the use of video conferencing facilities,&quot; it said.

The top court complimented the MWCD for bringing out an online central monitoring system in this regard but said it was &quot;unfortunate&quot; that there was not much active cooperation of the states in updating the information on this system.

It asked the states to update the information on the online monitoring system &quot;once a quarter&quot;, adding &quot;surely that cannot be a difficult task&quot;.

&quot;Needless to say, updating information is extremely important so that there can be efficient planning which will ultimately lead to better management of issues concerning children,&quot; the bench said.

It directed the MWCD to continue to make creative use of information and communication technology not only for the purpose of collecting data but also for other issues connected with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

&quot;With the utilisation of technology to the fullest extent, administrative efficiency will improve considerably, which in turn will have a positive impact on the lives of children,&quot; it said.

The court said this in a judgement in which it passed a slew of directions for implementation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

The verdict came on a PIL seeking implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and its rules. The petition has raised the issue of alleged apathy by the governments in implementing the welfare measure.&nbsp;

India's status as a technological powerhouse will remain on paper if the state does not take advantage of its resources to benefit children, the court said

India's status as a technological power house in the world would remain on paper if the state does not take advantage of its resources to benefit the children or track the missing ones, the Supreme Court has said. The apex court, while stressing the need for use of technology in Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) and Child Welfare Committees (CWC), said it was "disheartened" that there was an acute shortage of computers and peripherals in these bodies. A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said the use of technology would help in dealing with crucial issues like tracing and tracking of missing children, rescuing those working in hazardous industries and victims of child sexual abuse. "It is well-known that our country is a technological power-house and if we are unable to take advantage of the resources available with us and fully utilise the benefits of technology through computers and the internet for the benefit of children, our status as a technological power house would be in jeopardy and would remain only on paper," the bench said. It said the data regarding children could be easily collected by using computers and the internet. "This would be of great assistance in planning and management of resources and MWCD (Ministry of Women and Child Development) and others concerned with child rights must take full advantage of this," the bench said. The apex court also said that the Centre and states needed to look into this aspect and provide necessary software and hardware to JJBs and CWCs for their functioning. "Similarly, the use of video conferencing could also be considered in appropriate cases where some inconvenience to the juvenile in conflict with law necessitates the use of video conferencing facilities," it said. The top court complimented the MWCD for bringing out an online central monitoring system in this regard but said it was "unfortunate" that there was not much active cooperation of the states in updating the information on this system. It asked the states to update the information on the online monitoring system "once a quarter", adding "surely that cannot be a difficult task". "Needless to say, updating information is extremely important so that there can be efficient planning which will ultimately lead to better management of issues concerning children," the bench said. It directed the MWCD to continue to make creative use of information and communication technology not only for the purpose of collecting data but also for other issues connected with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. "With the utilisation of technology to the fullest extent, administrative efficiency will improve considerably, which in turn will have a positive impact on the lives of children," it said. The court said this in a judgement in which it passed a slew of directions for implementation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The verdict came on a PIL seeking implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and its rules. The petition has raised the issue of alleged apathy by the governments in implementing the welfare measure.

Use technology for welfare of children, Supreme Court tells government

A proposed TV advertisement featuring Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to mark three years of the AAP government is stuck, with officers in a fix over a reference in it to &quot;seen and unseen forces&quot;.

In the video advertisement, the chief minister talks about works done by the AAP government in health, education and other sectors in the last three years and the hurdles it has faced since coming to power.

The AAP government completes three years in office on February 14.

Kejriwal, in video which has been pending for clearance, says, &quot;When you walk on the path of truth and honesty, all seen and unseen forces of the universe help you.&quot;

Sources said that the chief minister held a high-level meeting with Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash and other senior IAS officers and enquired about the status of the proposed advertisement which was to be aired from today.

Sources said that the heads of various departments have denied certification to the the particular line in the advertisement, citing the Supreme Court guidelines as they were &quot;unclear about which department would clear it&quot;.

As per the guidelines of the Supreme Court, all facts should be checked and cleared by the respective departments mentioned in the advertisement before being published or aired, officials said.

In today&#39;s meeting, the chief minister expressed displeasure over the attitude of officers in clearing the advertisement, sources said.&nbsp;

In the video advertisement, the chief minister talks about works done by the AAP government in health, education and other sectors in the last three years and the hurdles it has faced since coming to power

A proposed TV advertisement featuring Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to mark three years of the AAP government is stuck, with officers in a fix over a reference in it to "seen and unseen forces". In the video advertisement, the chief minister talks about works done by the AAP government in health, education and other sectors in the last three years and the hurdles it has faced since coming to power. The AAP government completes three years in office on February 14. Kejriwal, in video which has been pending for clearance, says, "When you walk on the path of truth and honesty, all seen and unseen forces of the universe help you." Sources said that the chief minister held a high-level meeting with Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash and other senior IAS officers and enquired about the status of the proposed advertisement which was to be aired from today. Sources said that the heads of various departments have denied certification to the the particular line in the advertisement, citing the Supreme Court guidelines as they were "unclear about which department would clear it". As per the guidelines of the Supreme Court, all facts should be checked and cleared by the respective departments mentioned in the advertisement before being published or aired, officials said. In today's meeting, the chief minister expressed displeasure over the attitude of officers in clearing the advertisement, sources said.

Kejriwal govt's 3rd anniversary ad stuck over 'seen and unseen forces' reference

The Supreme Court has asked the Modi government to take a stand on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and communicate its decision within three months.&nbsp;

The Tamil Nadu government had previously remitted jail sentences of the seven convicts.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Supreme Court asks Central Government to take a stand and make it clear within three months whether it agreed with the move of the Tamil Nadu government to remit jail sentences of seven convicts in the case, or else convey what it wants
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955695097005289472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The central government has been asked to communicate if it stands by the Tamil Nadu government&#39;s decision or has anything else to communicate on the matter.&nbsp;

The Tamil Nadu government had written a letter to the Modi government seeking relief for the seven convicts in May 2016.

&nbsp;

The Tamil Nadu government had previously remitted jail sentences of the seven convicts

The Supreme Court has asked the Modi government to take a stand on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and communicate its decision within three months. The Tamil Nadu government had previously remitted jail sentences of the seven convicts. Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Supreme Court asks Central Government to take a stand and make it clear within three months whether it agreed with the move of the Tamil Nadu government to remit jail sentences of seven convicts in the case, or else convey what it wants — ANI (@ANI) January 23, 2018 × The central government has been asked to communicate if it stands by the Tamil Nadu government's decision or has anything else to communicate on the matter. The Tamil Nadu government had written a letter to the Modi government seeking relief for the seven convicts in May 2016.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Supreme Court asks Modi government to communicate final word on 7 convicts

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to modify its earlier order on the stay on the ban on the film &quot;Padmaavat&quot;.

The top court also directed the states to &quot;ensure that law and order prevails.&quot;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said people must understand that orders of the top court have to be &quot;abided with&quot;.

&quot;People must understand that the Supreme Court has passed an order. They must abide by it. It is the obligation of the states to maintain law and order,&quot; the bench, which also comprised of Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said. 
 
&quot;We are not inclined to modify our order,&quot; the bench said while dismissing the plea. 
 
It asked the states to follow its order and gave them the liberty to approach it again &quot;if the situation arises&quot;.

&quot;What is implicit in your argument is that you are incapable of maintaining law and order in your state,&quot; Supreme Court judge A.M Khanwilkar told lawyers for the state governments at the hearing.&nbsp;

&quot;You first implement our order and then if there is any violence then we can examine it on case to case basis.&quot; 
 
The Rajasthan and the Madhya Pradesh governments had <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/stay-on-padmaavat-ban-rajasthan-madhya-pradesh-ask-supreme-court-to-reconsider-order-30308">yesterday moved&nbsp;the top court</a> seeking a modification of its order.

The two states don&#39;t want the film to be released.

Earlier this month, the top court had stayed the ban on the screening of &quot;Padmaavat&quot;.

The court had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film.

The court had said that a state cannot ban a movie on the expectation that it will lead to law and order troubles and that it was the states&#39; job to ensure peace.

The movie&#39;s producers -- Bhansali Productions and Viacom18 Motion Pictures -- had approached the Supreme Court after four states, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Gujarat, had banned the release.&nbsp;

The Sanjay Leela Bhansali-directed film, which co-stars Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor, is up for release on January 25.

Meanwhile in another developmentt, the Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association of India (COAEI) today wrote to the Home ministry and sought sufficient security outside theaters showing &quot;Padmaavat&quot;. The association has also advised theaters that they should show the film after ensuring proper security.

The movie has received the clearance of the Central Board of Film Certification after some modifications including changing the title&#39;s name from &quot;Padmavati&quot; to &quot;Padmaavat&quot;.

The Rajput Karni Sena and several BJP leaders have opposed the film on the grounds that it violates Rajput sentiments, a claim that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has repeatedly denied.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Rajasthan and the Madhya Pradesh governments had yesterday moved the top court seeking a modification of its order which had put a stay on the ban on the film

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to modify its earlier order on the stay on the ban on the film "Padmaavat". The top court also directed the states to "ensure that law and order prevails." A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said people must understand that orders of the top court have to be "abided with". "People must understand that the Supreme Court has passed an order. They must abide by it. It is the obligation of the states to maintain law and order," the bench, which also comprised of Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said. "We are not inclined to modify our order," the bench said while dismissing the plea. It asked the states to follow its order and gave them the liberty to approach it again "if the situation arises". "What is implicit in your argument is that you are incapable of maintaining law and order in your state," Supreme Court judge A.M Khanwilkar told lawyers for the state governments at the hearing. "You first implement our order and then if there is any violence then we can examine it on case to case basis." The Rajasthan and the Madhya Pradesh governments had yesterday moved the top court seeking a modification of its order. The two states don't want the film to be released. Earlier this month, the top court had stayed the ban on the screening of "Padmaavat". The court had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film. The court had said that a state cannot ban a movie on the expectation that it will lead to law and order troubles and that it was the states' job to ensure peace. The movie's producers -- Bhansali Productions and Viacom18 Motion Pictures -- had approached the Supreme Court after four states, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Gujarat, had banned the release. The Sanjay Leela Bhansali-directed film, which co-stars Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor, is up for release on January 25. Meanwhile in another developmentt, the Cinema Owners and Exhibitors Association of India (COAEI) today wrote to the Home ministry and sought sufficient security outside theaters showing "Padmaavat". The association has also advised theaters that they should show the film after ensuring proper security. The movie has received the clearance of the Central Board of Film Certification after some modifications including changing the title's name from "Padmavati" to "Padmaavat". The Rajput Karni Sena and several BJP leaders have opposed the film on the grounds that it violates Rajput sentiments, a claim that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has repeatedly denied. (With inputs from agencies)

Lifting of 'Padmaavat' ban: Supreme Court refuses to modify earlier order

Protests against the movie Padmaavat -- the movie is scheduled for release on January 25 -- are gathering pace around the country.&nbsp;

The two states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh approached the Supreme Court Tuesday to rethink its stay on their ban of the movie. The movie had been banned by two other states -- Gujarat and Haryana, but the court had last week ordered the bans to be lifted.&nbsp;

The court had said then that if the movie Bandit Queen (on the life of dacoit-turned-politician Phoolan Devi) could be <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917" target="_blank">released, then why not </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917" target="_blank">Padmaavat</a>.&nbsp;

In Jaipur meanwhile, the Rajput Karna Sena staged a protest against the movie, saying, &quot;We are confident that no cinema hall will screen the film and if someone does they should be ready to bear the consequences.&quot;&nbsp;

&quot;Consider it a warning or request,&quot; the self-styled Sena added. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rajput Karni Sena staged protest in Jaipur against screening of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a>, say &#39; We are confident that no cinema hall will screen the film &amp; if someone does they should be ready to bear the consequences. Consider it a warning or request&#39;. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rajasthan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rajasthan</a> <a href="https://t.co/IJosg8jQo7">pic.twitter.com/IJosg8jQo7</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955328111725363201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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 Chittor meanwhile, Rajput women took out a &quot;Chetavani rally&quot;. They said they would commit jauhar (mass sati) should the movie be released.&nbsp;

And ANI reported that a youth in Bhilwara had climbed a 350-foot-tall mobile tower along with a bottle of petrol. ANI added that the protester was saying he &quot;will come down only when Padmaavat is banned in the country&quot;.&nbsp;

Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar said Monday that any cinema hall screening the movie would be given security but that &quot;if someone decides not to screen the film it will be good.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If someone decides not to screen the film it will be good but if someone screens the film, they will be provided security. It is our duty to comply with Supreme Court&#39;s order: Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a> <a href="https://t.co/0ZpfKOFG86">pic.twitter.com/0ZpfKOFG86</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955322116622073856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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>

&quot;It is our duty to comply with the Supreme Court order,&quot; he added.&nbsp;

Police in Haryana said a mall in Kurukshetra had been vandalised on Sunday evening in protest against the movie. They said a group of 20 to 22 miscreants had attacked the mall with swords and hammers.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We suspect this act was against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a>. 20-22 people suddenly entered the mall at 6:48 pm, vandalised it &amp; escaped without saying a word. We have identified a few of them. Further Investigation is underway: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Haryana?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Haryana</a> Police <a href="https://t.co/ThAwR6S63d">pic.twitter.com/ThAwR6S63d</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955320870800572416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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>

Protesters had also blocked roads and set buses on fire in Gujarat on Sunday evening, again in protest against the movie.

Senior state minister Bhupendrasinh Chudasama said afterwards that such protests were &quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/violent-protests-in-gujarat-against-padmaavat-minister-calls-it-natural-30310" target="_blank">natural</a>&quot; and that the government was looking for a legal opinion following the Supreme Court&#39;s order.

'We are confident that no cinema hall will screen the film and if someone does they should be ready to bear the consequences,' the Rajput Karni Sena said

Protests against the movie Padmaavat -- the movie is scheduled for release on January 25 -- are gathering pace around the country. The two states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh approached the Supreme Court Tuesday to rethink its stay on their ban of the movie. The movie had been banned by two other states -- Gujarat and Haryana, but the court had last week ordered the bans to be lifted. The court had said then that if the movie Bandit Queen (on the life of dacoit-turned-politician Phoolan Devi) could be released, then why not Padmaavat. In Jaipur meanwhile, the Rajput Karna Sena staged a protest against the movie, saying, "We are confident that no cinema hall will screen the film and if someone does they should be ready to bear the consequences." "Consider it a warning or request," the self-styled Sena added. Rajput Karni Sena staged protest in Jaipur against screening of #Padmaavat, say ' We are confident that no cinema hall will screen the film & if someone does they should be ready to bear the consequences. Consider it a warning or request'. #Rajasthan pic.twitter.com/IJosg8jQo7 — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × In Chittor meanwhile, Rajput women took out a "Chetavani rally". They said they would commit jauhar (mass sati) should the movie be released. And ANI reported that a youth in Bhilwara had climbed a 350-foot-tall mobile tower along with a bottle of petrol. ANI added that the protester was saying he "will come down only when Padmaavat is banned in the country". Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar said Monday that any cinema hall screening the movie would be given security but that "if someone decides not to screen the film it will be good." If someone decides not to screen the film it will be good but if someone screens the film, they will be provided security. It is our duty to comply with Supreme Court's order: Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar #Padmaavat pic.twitter.com/0ZpfKOFG86 — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × "It is our duty to comply with the Supreme Court order," he added. Police in Haryana said a mall in Kurukshetra had been vandalised on Sunday evening in protest against the movie. They said a group of 20 to 22 miscreants had attacked the mall with swords and hammers. We suspect this act was against #Padmaavat. 20-22 people suddenly entered the mall at 6:48 pm, vandalised it & escaped without saying a word. We have identified a few of them. Further Investigation is underway: #Haryana Police pic.twitter.com/ThAwR6S63d — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × Protesters had also blocked roads and set buses on fire in Gujarat on Sunday evening, again in protest against the movie. Senior state minister Bhupendrasinh Chudasama said afterwards that such protests were "natural" and that the government was looking for a legal opinion following the Supreme Court's order.

As Rajasthan, MP go to Supreme Court, protests against Padmaavat gather pace

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/73-of-wealth-in-india-rests-with-richest-1-oxfam-report-30281">Richest 1% own 73% of India&#39;s wealth: Report</a>

According to an international study published by the Oxfam group, close to 73% of India&#39;s wealth was cornered by India&#39;s richest 1%.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-led-bench-of-supreme-court-to-hear-justice-loya-death-case-today-30275">CJI-led bench of Supreme Court to hear Justice Loya death case today</a>

The Supreme Court will today hear pleas filed by three petitioners seeking probe by a Special Investigation Tribunal (SIT) into the alleged mysterious death of CBI judge Justice BH Loya in 2014.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-to-leave-for-davos-today-for-world-economic-forum-30284">PM Modi to leave for Davos today for World Economic Forum</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today leave for Davos, Switzerland for the 48th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/turkish-troops-tanks-enter-syria-to-fight-kurdish-militia-30274">Turkish troops, tanks enter Syria to fight Kurdish militia</a>

Turkish troops and tanks entered Syria on Sunday to push an offensive against Kurdish militia as rockets hit border towns in apparent retaliation and the United States urged Ankara to show restraint.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-senate-postpones-vote-on-ending-shutdown-to-noon-monday-30288">US Senate postpones vote on ending shutdown to noon Monday</a>

The US Senate adjourned late Sunday without reaching a deal on re-opening government, as the Republican leadership postponed a vote on ending the shutdown until noon on Monday.

Richest 1% own 73% of India's wealth: Report According to an international study published by the Oxfam group, close to 73% of India's wealth was cornered by India's richest 1%. CJI-led bench of Supreme Court to hear Justice Loya death case today The Supreme Court will today hear pleas filed by three petitioners seeking probe by a Special Investigation Tribunal (SIT) into the alleged mysterious death of CBI judge Justice BH Loya in 2014. PM Modi to leave for Davos today for World Economic Forum Prime Minister Narendra Modi today leave for Davos, Switzerland for the 48th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. Turkish troops, tanks enter Syria to fight Kurdish militia Turkish troops and tanks entered Syria on Sunday to push an offensive against Kurdish militia as rockets hit border towns in apparent retaliation and the United States urged Ankara to show restraint. US Senate postpones vote on ending shutdown to noon Monday The US Senate adjourned late Sunday without reaching a deal on re-opening government, as the Republican leadership postponed a vote on ending the shutdown until noon on Monday.

WION Morning News Brief, January 22, 2018

Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the sectarian view on personal choice and creative expression in the context of Padmavaat and Hadiya cases by restoring faith in the principle of individual right. Both controversies are different in origin but are linked by a common thread. Both issues are a result of muscular cultural nationalism which India is witnessing since 2014 in the name of political redemption and cultural renaissance. Both controversies are also laced with patriarchy and communitarian view of the power, gender and justice.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;The muscular cultural nationalism worked at two levels in both cases. In the case of Padmavat (which is a case of literature), the controversy became, allegedly, a matter of honour for the Rajput community. It also became an attempt to correct the history in context of the present politics. Even the defeat at the hand of Khilji becomes a moral victory. A victory of character which surpasses the physical and historical fact of defeat.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;In the case of Hadiya, interfaith marriage between two individuals became a conspiracy to change the demographic reality of India. It became an act of subversion, conspiracy by a section of the community, allowing the state to separate the couple. The discourse did not differentiate between criminal conspiracy by few and love marriage between the two.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Both simultaneously undermine individual right in the context of the argument that no liberty is absolute. Both issues represent a sense of political redemption in terms of course correction of body politics in the present as well as claims of cultural renaissance by positing essence in core values related to a particular period, excluding medieval from ancient by stopping the clock of history. Both also represent shift within the discourse of nationalism. In India, the shift has been tangible. It has become cultural and community-centric, shifting from the civic and the constitutional.

&nbsp;

Once the focus shifts from the civic body to the community, it acquires the power to subsume issues unrelated to it. For example, both Hadiya and Padmawati, apart from communitarian in nature is also very patriarchal. I doubt if the man would have been a Hindu and the woman Muslim in Hadiya case, there would have been an issue. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Padmavati becomes problematic on two counts. Rajput valour is both an accepted and a contested fact. It is accepted as a code of honour and contested because Rajputs, like any other royalties, made basic compromises to survive whether it was getting incorporated into Mughal mansabdari system or acquiescing to the British paramountcy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The honour of the Rajput community becomes embedded in Padmavati&rsquo;s body, wherein &lsquo;Talwar&rsquo; and &lsquo;Kangan&rsquo; become symbols of honour, sacrifice and resolve. Most fascinating part is that Rajput becomes interchangeable with Hindu. Rajput becomes a Hindu in the context of a Muslim and posited as the royalty in context of the other Hindu castes. Surprisingly, this sensibility is neither ancient or medieval. It is modern and product of communitarian sensibility, which wants to assert over and above the individual and his rights enshrined in the Constitution.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Both discourses challenge the constitutional power. Padmavaat and the Hadiya coerce constitutional authorities to do their bidding. Padmavaat receives support from popular governments in the name of law and order and Hadiya from investigating agencies as it sees it as a threat to the state. Both do not differentiate between criminal intent and individual acts of choice and creativity.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The debate gets locked between the binary of us and them wherein the majority community feels that all creative expression gets reserved for them and minority community is allowed far greater religious and cultural expression. This sense of injustice subverts constitutional power with the tacit support of the governments sustaining tension at grass root level.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;This politics is also an assault on the justice system. Justice becomes subservient to popular sentiment. Popular sentiment becomes a cheaply available commodity, amplified over the Internet and TV to be milked at right time and place. It subverts judicial pronouncements in the name of cultural expression and asserts the authenticity of the community over the modern nation-state. In the process, the commitment of the Constitution to an individual becomes a contested fact and the responsibility of the nation and law towards the community becomes mandatory. It reflects the subversion of letter and spirit of the law.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;In both the cases, the Court has played a better role than lawmakers who have fallen prey to sectional sentiments. Democracy should represent, accommodate and care for all sections and their sentiment but should never become a hostage to it.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Community wins, individual loses as nation fights over Hadiya and Padmavaat.

Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the sectarian view on personal choice and creative expression in the context of Padmavaat and Hadiya cases by restoring faith in the principle of individual right. Both controversies are different in origin but are linked by a common thread. Both issues are a result of muscular cultural nationalism which India is witnessing since 2014 in the name of political redemption and cultural renaissance. Both controversies are also laced with patriarchy and communitarian view of the power, gender and justice. The muscular cultural nationalism worked at two levels in both cases. In the case of Padmavat (which is a case of literature), the controversy became, allegedly, a matter of honour for the Rajput community. It also became an attempt to correct the history in context of the present politics. Even the defeat at the hand of Khilji becomes a moral victory. A victory of character which surpasses the physical and historical fact of defeat. In the case of Hadiya, interfaith marriage between two individuals became a conspiracy to change the demographic reality of India. It became an act of subversion, conspiracy by a section of the community, allowing the state to separate the couple. The discourse did not differentiate between criminal conspiracy by few and love marriage between the two. Both simultaneously undermine individual right in the context of the argument that no liberty is absolute. Both issues represent a sense of political redemption in terms of course correction of body politics in the present as well as claims of cultural renaissance by positing essence in core values related to a particular period, excluding medieval from ancient by stopping the clock of history. Both also represent shift within the discourse of nationalism. In India, the shift has been tangible. It has become cultural and community-centric, shifting from the civic and the constitutional. Once the focus shifts from the civic body to the community, it acquires the power to subsume issues unrelated to it. For example, both Hadiya and Padmawati, apart from communitarian in nature is also very patriarchal. I doubt if the man would have been a Hindu and the woman Muslim in Hadiya case, there would have been an issue. Padmavati becomes problematic on two counts. Rajput valour is both an accepted and a contested fact. It is accepted as a code of honour and contested because Rajputs, like any other royalties, made basic compromises to survive whether it was getting incorporated into Mughal mansabdari system or acquiescing to the British paramountcy. The honour of the Rajput community becomes embedded in Padmavati’s body, wherein ‘Talwar’ and ‘Kangan’ become symbols of honour, sacrifice and resolve. Most fascinating part is that Rajput becomes interchangeable with Hindu. Rajput becomes a Hindu in the context of a Muslim and posited as the royalty in context of the other Hindu castes. Surprisingly, this sensibility is neither ancient or medieval. It is modern and product of communitarian sensibility, which wants to assert over and above the individual and his rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both discourses challenge the constitutional power. Padmavaat and the Hadiya coerce constitutional authorities to do their bidding. Padmavaat receives support from popular governments in the name of law and order and Hadiya from investigating agencies as it sees it as a threat to the state. Both do not differentiate between criminal intent and individual acts of choice and creativity. The debate gets locked between the binary of us and them wherein the majority community feels that all creative expression gets reserved for them and minority community is allowed far greater religious and cultural expression. This sense of injustice subverts constitutional power with the tacit support of the governments sustaining tension at grass root level. This politics is also an assault on the justice system. Justice becomes subservient to popular sentiment. Popular sentiment becomes a cheaply available commodity, amplified over the Internet and TV to be milked at right time and place. It subverts judicial pronouncements in the name of cultural expression and asserts the authenticity of the community over the modern nation-state. In the process, the commitment of the Constitution to an individual becomes a contested fact and the responsibility of the nation and law towards the community becomes mandatory. It reflects the subversion of letter and spirit of the law. In both the cases, the Court has played a better role than lawmakers who have fallen prey to sectional sentiments. Democracy should represent, accommodate and care for all sections and their sentiment but should never become a hostage to it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Who wins when India fights over Hadiya and Padmavaat?

CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury noted on Tuesday that the opposition is considering pressing for the impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

Yechury called judicial independence and its integrity non-negotiable.

He also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion.&nbsp;

In a fresh twist to the conflict in the Supreme Court -- where four senior Supreme Court judges accused CJI Dipak Misra of judicial impropriety -- CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said that the opposition parties have started discussing ways to mitigate the ongoing judicial crisis.

&quot;Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so need to intervene and its time to play the role of an executive,&quot; Yechury noted.&nbsp;

He also shared that CPM is in the process of discussing the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI with other parties -- such as NCP, RJD SP -- during the Budget session.&nbsp;

He urged the judges to sort their &quot;grudges&quot; on their own.&nbsp;

Yechury called the ongoing Supreme Court tussle a &quot;very dangerous situation&quot; and called out to the Modi government to mediate the matter with the assistance of the parliament and the legislative authorities.&nbsp;

&quot;We are trying that in next 2-3 days we take some decision and move forward,&quot; he noted.&nbsp;

The passing of the impeachment motion will require a majority of two-thirds support -- a task that looks difficult to achieve as the BJP has cornered itself from participating in the move.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Yechury also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion

CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury noted on Tuesday that the opposition is considering pressing for the impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra. Yechury called judicial independence and its integrity non-negotiable. He also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion. In a fresh twist to the conflict in the Supreme Court -- where four senior Supreme Court judges accused CJI Dipak Misra of judicial impropriety -- CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said that the opposition parties have started discussing ways to mitigate the ongoing judicial crisis. "Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so need to intervene and its time to play the role of an executive," Yechury noted. He also shared that CPM is in the process of discussing the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI with other parties -- such as NCP, RJD SP -- during the Budget session. He urged the judges to sort their "grudges" on their own. Yechury called the ongoing Supreme Court tussle a "very dangerous situation" and called out to the Modi government to mediate the matter with the assistance of the parliament and the legislative authorities. "We are trying that in next 2-3 days we take some decision and move forward," he noted. The passing of the impeachment motion will require a majority of two-thirds support -- a task that looks difficult to achieve as the BJP has cornered itself from participating in the move. (With inputs from agencies)

Opposition parties may call for CJI's impeachment: Sitaram Yechury

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Sunday said that the party will approach the Supreme Court if necessary after President Ram Nath Kovind&nbsp;approved the recommendation by the Election Commission (EC) to disqualify 20 AAP MLAs for allegedly holding offices of profit,&nbsp;

Earlier the Delhi CM blamed the centre for imposing a fake case on his&nbsp;MLAs. &quot; They (BJP led centre) have put a false case on our 20 MLAs. The did not find anything even after conducting a CBI.They do not find anyone corrupt in the country&nbsp;except me. Everyone else in the country is honest,&quot; Kejriwal told reporters in Delhi.

They disqualified our MLAs after they did not get anything,&quot; he added.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Humare 20 MLAs pe jhoote case kar diye, mere upar CBI ki raid kara di aur tab bhi inko kuch nahi mila. Inko poore desh mein Kejriwal hi corrupt mila, baaki sab imaandaar hain. Jab kuch nahi hua toh inhone humare 20 MLAs ko disqualify kar diya:Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in Najafgarh <a href="https://t.co/bUYoXh0RYB">pic.twitter.com/bUYoXh0RYB</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955058860036833280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

He also tweeted saying that he was bestowed upon with 67 seats because of his &#39;&#39;honesty&#39;&#39;.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
ऊपर वाले ने 67 सीट कुछ सोच कर ही दी थी। 
 
हर क़दम पर ऊपर वाला आम आदमी पार्टी के साथ है, नहीं तो हमारी औक़ात ही क्या थी। बस सच्चाई का मार्ग मत छोड़ना।
&mdash; Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArvindKejriwal/status/955058919092633606?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Election Commission on Friday asked President Kovind to disqualify 20 AAP MLAs&nbsp;for being parliamentary secretaries.

The disqualification will not endanger the Arvind Kejriwal government but its numbers will come down to 45 in the 70-seat Delhi Assembly. The party would still enjoy a comfortable majority in the assembly.

Former finance minister Yashwant Sinha termed the disqualification of AAP MLAs &quot; miscarriage of natural justice&quot;.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
President&#39;s order disqualifying the 20 AAP MLAs is complete miscarriage of natural justice. No hearing, no waiting for High Court&#39;s order. It is Tughluqshahi of the worst order.
&mdash; Yashwant Sinha (@YashwantSinha) <a href="https://twitter.com/YashwantSinha/status/955046056282042369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

 
 
 
&nbsp;

Earlier the Delhi CM blamed the centre for imposing a fake case on his MLAs.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Sunday said that the party will approach the Supreme Court if necessary after President Ram Nath Kovind approved the recommendation by the Election Commission (EC) to disqualify 20 AAP MLAs for allegedly holding offices of profit, Earlier the Delhi CM blamed the centre for imposing a fake case on his MLAs. " They (BJP led centre) have put a false case on our 20 MLAs. The did not find anything even after conducting a CBI.They do not find anyone corrupt in the country except me. Everyone else in the country is honest," Kejriwal told reporters in Delhi. They disqualified our MLAs after they did not get anything," he added. Humare 20 MLAs pe jhoote case kar diye, mere upar CBI ki raid kara di aur tab bhi inko kuch nahi mila. Inko poore desh mein Kejriwal hi corrupt mila, baaki sab imaandaar hain. Jab kuch nahi hua toh inhone humare 20 MLAs ko disqualify kar diya:Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in Najafgarh pic.twitter.com/bUYoXh0RYB — ANI (@ANI) January 21, 2018 × He also tweeted saying that he was bestowed upon with 67 seats because of his ''honesty''. ऊपर वाले ने 67 सीट कुछ सोच कर ही दी थी। हर क़दम पर ऊपर वाला आम आदमी पार्टी के साथ है, नहीं तो हमारी औक़ात ही क्या थी। बस सच्चाई का मार्ग मत छोड़ना। — Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) January 21, 2018 × Election Commission on Friday asked President Kovind to disqualify 20 AAP MLAs for being parliamentary secretaries. The disqualification will not endanger the Arvind Kejriwal government but its numbers will come down to 45 in the 70-seat Delhi Assembly. The party would still enjoy a comfortable majority in the assembly. Former finance minister Yashwant Sinha termed the disqualification of AAP MLAs " miscarriage of natural justice". President's order disqualifying the 20 AAP MLAs is complete miscarriage of natural justice. No hearing, no waiting for High Court's order. It is Tughluqshahi of the worst order. — Yashwant Sinha (@YashwantSinha) January 21, 2018 ×

Will approach SC if required: Kejriwal on disqualification of MLAs

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said today the state government would approach the Supreme Court to stop the release of the controversial film &quot;Padmaavat&quot;.

Speaking to reporters after a programme here, Chouhan said: &quot;We would once again knock on the apex court&#39;s doors.&quot;

He didn&#39;t elaborate.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917" target="_blank">When Bandit Queen can be released, why not </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917" target="_blank">Padmaavat</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917" target="_blank">, says Supreme Court</a>

In November, after meeting Rajput community leaders, Chouhan had announced that the film would not be allowed to release in the state.

The Supreme Court has stayed the orders/notifications issued by the Rajasthan and Gujarat governments prohibiting the screening of &quot;Padmaavat&quot;, and restrained other state governments from issuing similar orders.&nbsp;

'We would once again knock on the apex court's doors,' Shivraj Singh Chouhan said

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said today the state government would approach the Supreme Court to stop the release of the controversial film "Padmaavat". Speaking to reporters after a programme here, Chouhan said: "We would once again knock on the apex court's doors." He didn't elaborate. Also read: When Bandit Queen can be released, why not Padmaavat, says Supreme Court In November, after meeting Rajput community leaders, Chouhan had announced that the film would not be allowed to release in the state. The Supreme Court has stayed the orders/notifications issued by the Rajasthan and Gujarat governments prohibiting the screening of "Padmaavat", and restrained other state governments from issuing similar orders.

Padmaavat release row: Madhya Pradesh CM says will move Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has sought CBI&#39;s response on a plea seeking the recall of its 1999 judgement that upheld the conviction of seven accused.

A two-member bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R&nbsp;Banumathi has asked the CBI to communicate its response to the plea.&nbsp;

The plea was filed by AG Perarivalan -- one of the convicts serving a life term in prison.&nbsp;

Perarivalan&#39;s plea -- to recall the 1999 judgement -- came after the Superintendent of Police, who investigated the case, said in an affidavit that he had not recorded Perarivalan&#39;s statement.

Perarivalan&#39;s statement noted that he was not aware of the purpose of the batteries supplied by him.

Perarivalan was accused of supplying batteries that were used in assassinating Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-casesupreme-court-asks-modi-government-to-communicate-final-word-on-7-convicts-30477">The Supreme Court also asked the Modi government to take a definitive stand</a> on the case within three months.

The Tamil Nadu government had written a letter to the Modi government seeking relief for the seven convicts in May 2016.

The Modi government has been asked to communicate if it stands by the Tamil Nadu government&#39;s decision or has anything else to communicate on the matter.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A two-member bench has asked the CBI to communicate its response to a filed by one of the accused

The Supreme Court has sought CBI's response on a plea seeking the recall of its 1999 judgement that upheld the conviction of seven accused. A two-member bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R Banumathi has asked the CBI to communicate its response to the plea. The plea was filed by AG Perarivalan -- one of the convicts serving a life term in prison. Perarivalan's plea -- to recall the 1999 judgement -- came after the Superintendent of Police, who investigated the case, said in an affidavit that he had not recorded Perarivalan's statement. Perarivalan's statement noted that he was not aware of the purpose of the batteries supplied by him. Perarivalan was accused of supplying batteries that were used in assassinating Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. The Supreme Court also asked the Modi government to take a definitive stand on the case within three months. The Tamil Nadu government had written a letter to the Modi government seeking relief for the seven convicts in May 2016. The Modi government has been asked to communicate if it stands by the Tamil Nadu government's decision or has anything else to communicate on the matter. (With inputs from agencies)

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Supreme Court asks CBI to respond on plea

Gurugram Police on Saturday detained Karni Sena chief Thakur Kushalpal in connection with the incidents of violence as a protest against the recently released &#39;Padmaavat&#39;.

<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/Gurugram?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Gurugram</a> Karni Sena Chief Thakur Kushalpal detained by police in connection of incidents of violence in the city <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/957176517724839936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Karni Sena&nbsp;is protesting against the film since it started filming with claims that the film presents distorted historical facts.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-fallout-censor-board-chief-prasoon-joshi-skips-zee-jaipur-literature-festival-30895">Censor board chief Prasoon Joshi skips Zee Jaipur Literature Festival after </a>&#39;P<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-fallout-censor-board-chief-prasoon-joshi-skips-zee-jaipur-literature-festival-30895">admaavat</a>&#39;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-fallout-censor-board-chief-prasoon-joshi-skips-zee-jaipur-literature-festival-30895">&nbsp;fallout</a>

On Wednesday, a mob of 60 people attacked a bus full of school kids and teachers in Gurugram in protest against the release of &quot;Padmaavat&quot;.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-how-sanjay-leela-bhansali-plays-to-the-gallery-with-padmaavat-30890">How Sanjay Leela Bhansali plays to the gallery with </a>&#39;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-how-sanjay-leela-bhansali-plays-to-the-gallery-with-padmaavat-30890">Padmaavat</a>&#39;

On January 25, the police took into custody 23 people for the stone pelting and charged them with rioting and attempt to murder.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;mob attackers were reportedly from the Rajput Karni Sena.

A&nbsp;special investigation team has been formed under the supervision of DCP South Ashol Bakshi to probe the case.

Also read: S<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-padmaavat-row-supreme-court-to-hear-contempt-plea-against-no-show-in-4-states-30717">upreme Court to hear contempt petition against 4 states for no-show</a>

Haryana BJP media coordinator&nbsp;Suraj Pal Amu who warned the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-padmaavat-is-released-the-country-will-fall-apart-suraj-pal-amu-29932"> country will fall if &#39;Padamaavat&#39;</a>&nbsp;g<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-padmaavat-is-released-the-country-will-fall-apart-suraj-pal-amu-29932">ets a release </a>was also arrested and is in judicial custody&nbsp;till January 29.

The national secretary of the Shree Karni Sena, Suraj Pal Amu,&nbsp;has also been arrested.

&quot;Padmaavat&quot;&nbsp;finally released on January 25 under heavy security.

In Haryana some movie halls decided not to show the movie, PVR cinemas of Gurugram&#39;s ambience mall was one of them.

However, the entire controversy worked in favour of the film as viewers came in big numbers to watch the film in curiosity behind the uproar.

Next week, the Supreme court will be hearing a case against Karni Sena for the ruckus they have created in different parts of the country after a contempt petition was filed against them.

 
&nbsp;

Karni Sena is protesting against the film since it started filming with claims that film presents distorted historical facts

Gurugram Police on Saturday detained Karni Sena chief Thakur Kushalpal in connection with the incidents of violence as a protest against the recently released 'Padmaavat'. #Gurugram Karni Sena Chief Thakur Kushalpal detained by police in connection of incidents of violence in the city #Padmaavat — ANI (@ANI) January 27, 2018 × Karni Sena is protesting against the film since it started filming with claims that the film presents distorted historical facts. Also read: Censor board chief Prasoon Joshi skips Zee Jaipur Literature Festival after 'Padmaavat' fallout On Wednesday, a mob of 60 people attacked a bus full of school kids and teachers in Gurugram in protest against the release of "Padmaavat". Also read: How Sanjay Leela Bhansali plays to the gallery with 'Padmaavat' On January 25, the police took into custody 23 people for the stone pelting and charged them with rioting and attempt to murder. The mob attackers were reportedly from the Rajput Karni Sena. A special investigation team has been formed under the supervision of DCP South Ashol Bakshi to probe the case. Also read: Supreme Court to hear contempt petition against 4 states for no-show Haryana BJP media coordinator Suraj Pal Amu who warned the country will fall if 'Padamaavat' gets a release was also arrested and is in judicial custody till January 29. The national secretary of the Shree Karni Sena, Suraj Pal Amu, has also been arrested. "Padmaavat" finally released on January 25 under heavy security. In Haryana some movie halls decided not to show the movie, PVR cinemas of Gurugram's ambience mall was one of them. However, the entire controversy worked in favour of the film as viewers came in big numbers to watch the film in curiosity behind the uproar. Next week, the Supreme court will be hearing a case against Karni Sena for the ruckus they have created in different parts of the country after a contempt petition was filed against them.

Padmaavat row: Karni Sena chief Thakur Kushalpal detained by Gurugram police

Senior lawyer and representative of &quot;Padmaavat&quot;&nbsp;producers in supreme court Harish Salve said that he received threatening calls on Friday.

The Delhi Police have registered a police complaint against unknown persons for threatening Salve, ANI reported.

Security has been beefed up at Salve&#39;s office following the incident. Salve said that he received a threatening call&nbsp;from a person who identified himself as a member of Karni Sena.

Also read: &#39;I will be grateful to him for a lifetime&#39;, says Bhansali after Akshay postpones &#39;PadMan&#39;

However, Karni Sena has denBoardhe reports.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-police-chief-assures-hassle-free-release-of-padmaavat-in-delhi-30069">Delhi Police chief assures hassle-free release of &#39; </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-police-chief-assures-hassle-free-release-of-padmaavat-in-delhi-30069">Padmaavat</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-police-chief-assures-hassle-free-release-of-padmaavat-in-delhi-30069">&#39; in Delhi</a>

On Thursday Supreme Court ruled in Padmaavat&#39;s&nbsp;favour and said that the movie cannot be banned in India after it received a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-watch-padmaavat-dialogue-promo-ranveer-singh-as-khilji-looks-fierce-30077">Watch &#39;</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-watch-padmaavat-dialogue-promo-ranveer-singh-as-khilji-looks-fierce-30077">Padmaavat</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-watch-padmaavat-dialogue-promo-ranveer-singh-as-khilji-looks-fierce-30077">&#39; dialogue promo: Ranveer Singh as Khilji looks fierce</a>

The apex court decision&nbsp;resulted in Karni Sena vandalising a cinema hall in Bihar.&nbsp;

Earlier banned in four states, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana, &quot;Padmaavat&quot;&nbsp;producers filed a petition in Supreme court to challenge the ban.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-cancel-cbfc-certificate-to-padmaavat-30051">Supreme Court rejects plea to cancel CBFC certificate to &#39; </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-cancel-cbfc-certificate-to-padmaavat-30051">Padmaavat</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-cancel-cbfc-certificate-to-padmaavat-30051">&#39;</a>

Several fringe groups in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are continuing their protest against the film and are threatening to halt its release.

The Delhi Police have registered a police complaint against unknown persons for threatening Salve

Senior lawyer and representative of "Padmaavat" producers in supreme court Harish Salve said that he received threatening calls on Friday. The Delhi Police have registered a police complaint against unknown persons for threatening Salve, ANI reported. Security has been beefed up at Salve's office following the incident. Salve said that he received a threatening call from a person who identified himself as a member of Karni Sena. Also read: 'I will be grateful to him for a lifetime', says Bhansali after Akshay postpones 'PadMan' However, Karni Sena has denBoardhe reports. Also read: Delhi Police chief assures hassle-free release of ' Padmaavat' in Delhi On Thursday Supreme Court ruled in Padmaavat's favour and said that the movie cannot be banned in India after it received a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Also read: Watch 'Padmaavat' dialogue promo: Ranveer Singh as Khilji looks fierce The apex court decision resulted in Karni Sena vandalising a cinema hall in Bihar. Earlier banned in four states, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana, "Padmaavat" producers filed a petition in Supreme court to challenge the ban. Also read: Supreme Court rejects plea to cancel CBFC certificate to ' Padmaavat' Several fringe groups in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are continuing their protest against the film and are threatening to halt its release.

'Padmaavat' row: Harish Salve gets threating calls

The apex court will hear the petitions filed against Karni Sena leaders on January 29.&nbsp;

A couple of petitions were filed to seek contempt proceedings against Karni Sena leaders -- Lokendra Singh Kalvi, its National President Suraj Pal and a member Karam Singh -- for obstructing the release of the film and meddling with the and order.&nbsp;

Pune-based social activist Tehseen Poonawala and a Mumbai lawyer Vineet Dhandha have initiated the petitions.

The petitioners brought to the judicial notice the fact that Karni Sena&#39;s actions violated SC&#39;s order of staying the ban on the film&#39;s release.

The three-member bench includes Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;Supreme Court will also hear the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-padmaavat-row-supreme-court-to-hear-contempt-plea-against-no-show-in-4-states-30717">contempt pleas against 4 states for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-padmaavat-row-supreme-court-to-hear-contempt-plea-against-no-show-in-4-states-30717">no-show</a>.&nbsp;

A couple of petitions were filed to seek contempt proceedings against Karni Sena leaders

The apex court will hear the petitions filed against Karni Sena leaders on January 29. A couple of petitions were filed to seek contempt proceedings against Karni Sena leaders -- Lokendra Singh Kalvi, its National President Suraj Pal and a member Karam Singh -- for obstructing the release of the film and meddling with the and order. Pune-based social activist Tehseen Poonawala and a Mumbai lawyer Vineet Dhandha have initiated the petitions. The petitioners brought to the judicial notice the fact that Karni Sena's actions violated SC's order of staying the ban on the film's release. The three-member bench includes Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The Supreme Court will also hear the contempt pleas against 4 states for no-show.

Padmaavat row: Supreme Court to hear contempt pleas against Karni Sena next week

Freedom fighters had cherished many aspirations and dreams during the arduous course of the freedom struggle. Upon realisation of this dream, they were passionate about making a fresh start in the form and system of a government substantially different from that of alien rulers. Consequently, the arrival of political freedom gave impetus to the drafting of our own Constitution which was objectified on this day of January 26, 1950. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Constitution of India was, therefore, not a mere a set of fundamental principles that formed the basis of governance; but it codified and reflected certain basic ideals, philosophy and goals that were cherished by our founding fathers. Federalism, separation of powers, constitutionalism, rule of law is at the heart of Constitution. Besides, there are other fundamental principles which contribute meaningfully toward the achievement of liberty, order, and justice.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

First, the Constitution of India was based on the belief that a legitimate Constitution is that which originates with, and is controlled by we the people and, thus, a Constitution is more than a body of substantive rules and principles. Thomas Paine explained this the best when he said, &ldquo;a Constitution is not the act of a government, but of people&nbsp;constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.&rdquo; This principle is very well entrenched in the Preamble of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is ordained and established not by the government, but by &ldquo;We the People of India.&rdquo;&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Second, our Constitution subscribes to the view that the government must in all respects be politically accountable to the governed. This is accomplished through the election process and with the members of the House of Representatives being directly accountable to the electorate. Though sloping towards union, the States have an effective role by virtue of the Upper House, Electoral College to elect the President, and the amendment process.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Third, the Constitution rested on the proposition that all governments are limited government. A Constitution is a legal, not just a political, limitation on government. It is considered by the Supreme Court, the antithesis of arbitrariness. Instead of advocating parliamentary supremacy, the Indian Constitution affirms that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fourth, the Constitution embraced the view that in order to ensure constitutionalism i.e. idea of limited government, the powers of government must be defined, distributed and divided. This tendency toward &ldquo;tyranny in the head&rdquo; shall be prevented, or at least discouraged, through a separation of powers among the three branches of the government. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fifth, the Constitution of India was premised on the unassailable assumption that the rights and liberties of the people would be protected because the powers of government are limited. The drafters were over conscious and, thus, immunised the power process by inserting negative clauses (Fundamental Rights), inhibiting the government from assuming any such powers along with positive directional clauses (Directive Principles) to take affirmative action.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, our Constitution was deficient in certain matters. As in the western conception of rights, Indian Constitution emphasised only rights rather than duties, in spite of the fact that these duties of citizens are encapsulated in the preamble to the Constitution. Duties, such as the duty to uphold the constitution and its ideals, duty to uphold sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, duty to promote harmony and brotherhood amongst all people must now be given substance rather than declarations of ornamental significance.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Otherwise, it would be impossible for a democratic community like India to ever flourish where the citizens are not enthusiastic to be active participants in the process of governance by assuming responsibilities and discharging citizenship duties with utmost integrity and honesty. Another duty of supreme importance which must be performed is the duty to practice tolerance, otherwise, constitutional democracy will be under threat, while the cherished freedom of expression and dissent will be held captive by fanatic mobs.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

I wish to recap on the virtuous occasion of 69th Republic Day, the finest lines of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in National Anthem Case: &ldquo;our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

India Constitution rests on the proposition that all governments are limited government; the government must in all respects be politically accountable to the governed.

Freedom fighters had cherished many aspirations and dreams during the arduous course of the freedom struggle. Upon realisation of this dream, they were passionate about making a fresh start in the form and system of a government substantially different from that of alien rulers. Consequently, the arrival of political freedom gave impetus to the drafting of our own Constitution which was objectified on this day of January 26, 1950. Constitution of India was, therefore, not a mere a set of fundamental principles that formed the basis of governance; but it codified and reflected certain basic ideals, philosophy and goals that were cherished by our founding fathers. Federalism, separation of powers, constitutionalism, rule of law is at the heart of Constitution. Besides, there are other fundamental principles which contribute meaningfully toward the achievement of liberty, order, and justice. First, the Constitution of India was based on the belief that a legitimate Constitution is that which originates with, and is controlled by we the people and, thus, a Constitution is more than a body of substantive rules and principles. Thomas Paine explained this the best when he said, “a Constitution is not the act of a government, but of people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.” This principle is very well entrenched in the Preamble of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is ordained and established not by the government, but by “We the People of India.” Second, our Constitution subscribes to the view that the government must in all respects be politically accountable to the governed. This is accomplished through the election process and with the members of the House of Representatives being directly accountable to the electorate. Though sloping towards union, the States have an effective role by virtue of the Upper House, Electoral College to elect the President, and the amendment process. Third, the Constitution rested on the proposition that all governments are limited government. A Constitution is a legal, not just a political, limitation on government. It is considered by the Supreme Court, the antithesis of arbitrariness. Instead of advocating parliamentary supremacy, the Indian Constitution affirms that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. Fourth, the Constitution embraced the view that in order to ensure constitutionalism i.e. idea of limited government, the powers of government must be defined, distributed and divided. This tendency toward “tyranny in the head” shall be prevented, or at least discouraged, through a separation of powers among the three branches of the government. Fifth, the Constitution of India was premised on the unassailable assumption that the rights and liberties of the people would be protected because the powers of government are limited. The drafters were over conscious and, thus, immunised the power process by inserting negative clauses (Fundamental Rights), inhibiting the government from assuming any such powers along with positive directional clauses (Directive Principles) to take affirmative action. However, our Constitution was deficient in certain matters. As in the western conception of rights, Indian Constitution emphasised only rights rather than duties, in spite of the fact that these duties of citizens are encapsulated in the preamble to the Constitution. Duties, such as the duty to uphold the constitution and its ideals, duty to uphold sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, duty to promote harmony and brotherhood amongst all people must now be given substance rather than declarations of ornamental significance. Otherwise, it would be impossible for a democratic community like India to ever flourish where the citizens are not enthusiastic to be active participants in the process of governance by assuming responsibilities and discharging citizenship duties with utmost integrity and honesty. Another duty of supreme importance which must be performed is the duty to practice tolerance, otherwise, constitutional democracy will be under threat, while the cherished freedom of expression and dissent will be held captive by fanatic mobs. I wish to recap on the virtuous occasion of 69th Republic Day, the finest lines of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in National Anthem Case: “our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it." (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: On 69th Republic Day, what we need to remember about our Constitution

The Supreme Court, which began hearing the petitions asking for a probe into the death of Justice Loya on Monday, said&nbsp;&quot;we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness.&quot;

The court also transferred to itself two petitions from Bombay High Court relating to the&nbsp;alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya. The court also restrained all high courts from entertaining any petition relating to Loya&#39;s death.&nbsp;

The court also asked all parties to catalogue documents in the matter which have not been filed so far and to submit them.&nbsp;

The court also asked lawyers not to cast aspersions on BJP President Amit Shah.&nbsp;

&quot;As of today, it was a natural death. Do not cast aspersions,&quot; the court said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JudgeLoya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JudgeLoya</a> death case: Supreme Court fixed first week of February for further hearing. The Court said, it would examine all the documents related to the death of Justice Loya.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955357102125432833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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>

&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/JudgeLoya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JudgeLoya</a> death case: Supreme Court transfers two cases of Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955355979394162690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The court termed as&nbsp;&quot;serious&quot; the issues raised in the pleas; saying &quot;we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness&quot;.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court began hearing the petitions asking for a probe into the allegedly mysterious death of the judge on Monday

The Supreme Court, which began hearing the petitions asking for a probe into the death of Justice Loya on Monday, said "we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness." The court also transferred to itself two petitions from Bombay High Court relating to the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya. The court also restrained all high courts from entertaining any petition relating to Loya's death. The court also asked all parties to catalogue documents in the matter which have not been filed so far and to submit them. The court also asked lawyers not to cast aspersions on BJP President Amit Shah. "As of today, it was a natural death. Do not cast aspersions," the court said. #JudgeLoya death case: Supreme Court fixed first week of February for further hearing. The Court said, it would examine all the documents related to the death of Justice Loya. — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × #JudgeLoya death case: Supreme Court transfers two cases of Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × The court termed as "serious" the issues raised in the pleas; saying "we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness".

Justice Loya death case: SC says 'we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness'

The Centre told the apex court that the bill on the protection of Aadhaar details will be ready by March.&nbsp;

The bill is being drafted by a committee of experts headed by retired Justice BN Srikrishna.

The information was released by Attorney General KK Venugopal to the bench of judges including Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AK Sikri, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan.&nbsp;

This bench of judges is hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act as a violation of the right to privacy.

In today&#39;s hearing, petitioner counsel Shyam Divan highlighted the Aadhaar Act provisions to show that under the statue itself the demographic and biometric data of Indian citizens could be shared with private entities.&nbsp;

Earlier the petitioner counsel&nbsp;had argued that the Aadhaar Card may cause the death of citizen&#39;s civil rights.&nbsp;

The hearing will continue on Wednesday.&nbsp;

The bill is being drafted by a committee of experts headed by retired Justice BN Srikrishna

The Centre told the apex court that the bill on the protection of Aadhaar details will be ready by March. The bill is being drafted by a committee of experts headed by retired Justice BN Srikrishna. The information was released by Attorney General KK Venugopal to the bench of judges including Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AK Sikri, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan. This bench of judges is hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act as a violation of the right to privacy. In today's hearing, petitioner counsel Shyam Divan highlighted the Aadhaar Act provisions to show that under the statue itself the demographic and biometric data of Indian citizens could be shared with private entities. Earlier the petitioner counsel had argued that the Aadhaar Card may cause the death of citizen's civil rights. The hearing will continue on Wednesday.

Bill on protection of Aadhaar details will be ready by March: Centre to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has put a stay on the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/shopian-firing-supreme-court-to-hear-plea-filed-by-major-adityas-father-32549" target="_blank">FIR filed against Major Aditya Kumar</a>&nbsp;and other army&nbsp;officials in the Shopian firing.&nbsp;

The court has also issued a notice to the Centre and the state government seeking a reply from them within two weeks.&nbsp;

The court has also directed that no coercive action should be taken against the&nbsp;Major and the army officials.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Court acknowledging the fact that matter requires consideration of highest court of the land has stopped proceedings in FIR. The state or J&amp;K police can&#39;t take action against Major Aditya for what he did in excise of his duty: M Rohatgi on petition filed by Major Aditya&#39;s father <a href="https://t.co/ZWpg3WZS3n">pic.twitter.com/ZWpg3WZS3n</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/962964104335052800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

A plea was filed by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/shopian-firing-majors-father-moves-sc-asks-for-fir-to-be-quashed-32236" target="_blank">Major Aditya&#39;s father</a>&nbsp;Karamveer Singh who sought revocation of the FIR.

Singh&#39;s demands were based on the claims that the soldiers were exercising their rights to defend themselves.&nbsp;

The former chief of Army Staff, General (retd) VP Malik had also demanded the withdrawal of the FIR filed against the&nbsp;army officer.&nbsp;

He said that the FIR was lodged without any&nbsp;inquiry into the incident.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ckPFKlifEjA" width="560"></iframe>

An FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles including Major Aditya Kumar under sections 302&nbsp;(punishment for murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the state&#39;s Ranbir Penal Code after two civilians were killed in a counterattack by the army in response to stone pelting mob in Ganovpora village in Shopian on January 27.&nbsp;

Former chief of Army Staff VP Malik said that the army fired upon the mob in self-defense only after they tried snatching a rifle from them.&nbsp;

He said if a citizen has the right to defend himself, then why not a soldier.

&nbsp;

The court has also issued a notice to the Centre and the state government seeking a reply from them within two weeks

The Supreme Court has put a stay on the FIR filed against Major Aditya Kumar and other army officials in the Shopian firing. The court has also issued a notice to the Centre and the state government seeking a reply from them within two weeks. The court has also directed that no coercive action should be taken against the Major and the army officials. Court acknowledging the fact that matter requires consideration of highest court of the land has stopped proceedings in FIR. The state or J&K police can't take action against Major Aditya for what he did in excise of his duty: M Rohatgi on petition filed by Major Aditya's father pic.twitter.com/ZWpg3WZS3n — ANI (@ANI) February 12, 2018 × A plea was filed by Major Aditya's father Karamveer Singh who sought revocation of the FIR. Singh's demands were based on the claims that the soldiers were exercising their rights to defend themselves. The former chief of Army Staff, General (retd) VP Malik had also demanded the withdrawal of the FIR filed against the army officer. He said that the FIR was lodged without any inquiry into the incident. An FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles including Major Aditya Kumar under sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the state's Ranbir Penal Code after two civilians were killed in a counterattack by the army in response to stone pelting mob in Ganovpora village in Shopian on January 27. Former chief of Army Staff VP Malik said that the army fired upon the mob in self-defense only after they tried snatching a rifle from them. He said if a citizen has the right to defend himself, then why not a soldier.

Shopian firing: Supreme Court stays FIR against Major Aditya Kumar

The act of registering an FIR against Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month&#39;s Shopian firing case shows the appeasing attitude of political hierarchy of Jammu and Kashmir. It shows them in poor light, more importantly, such an act actually lowers the morale of Armed Forces operating in Kashmir. It also shows the unawareness of the officials responsible for the FIR about the provisions of the AFSPA.

&nbsp;

The incident has been covered widely by the media. Let me highlight some important issues which the nation must think in the national interest.

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month&#39;s Shopian firing case does not stand as the military personnel was there not by choice. They were there because the country wanted them to be there; it was their duty to protect the country in a disturbed region.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; The column was attacked by stone pelters with an intent to hurt the forces, hence, criminal force was applied against them. Why the authorities did not register FIR against the stone pelters.

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Major Aditya Kumar and his troops had no enmity with the persons who were killed in the incident.

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; The Army personnel have the right of self-defence too

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; As per the law in vogue, in a &lsquo;Disturbed Area&rsquo;, the officer is duty bound to protect his subordinates and the government property and can use force. The minimum force is to be used but the decision as to how much force is the minimum force is a decision to be taken by the commander on the spot, based on his judgement. &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Army after the due warning is expected to fire for effect and not in the air, unlike police, which can use measures like tear gas or firing in air.

&nbsp;

Under the circumstances in which Maj Aditya and his troops were placed, had they not taken any action, they would have been either lynched or burnt. The officer and men, in my opinion, have acted in self-defence as per powers conferred to them by law.

&nbsp;

It needs to be understood that the Army is the instrument of last resort and if they are scarred by legal actions, then the morale of young officers and men will be affected adversely. If they get overcautious, we have to blame our political hierarchy of pushing them into fortress mentality, wherein they will not come out and protect people due to fear of litigation which is exactly desired by Pakistan and militants. If we are soft towards the militants, no corner of the country will be safe. I do not understand why politicians of Kashmir for their petty gains do not understand this, despite an attack on our Parliament.

&nbsp;

It also needs to be understood that under the AFSPA, the state has to take permission of the Central Government to proceed against the officer, which the Central Government can refuse, which has happened in many such cases earlier. Even if the permission is to be given a set procedure is to be followed.

&nbsp;

I must salute the honourable Supreme Court of India which has put a stay on the FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with this&nbsp; Shopian firing case. The apex court also directed that no coercive action be taken against Major Aditya in connection with the incident in which three civilians were killed and nine others were injured.

&nbsp;

It should also be a matter of concern that Indian Army unlike most armies in the world is known to use minimum force and does not use even high calibre weapons. Nowhere in the world, you can see an example of an armed soldier being beaten by a lady, and the soldier is showing resilience to tolerate it, and taking such ill treatment from people, whom the soldiers have saved in floods a year earlier. Let us not push our soldiers to wall, the consequences can be disastrous, definitely not in the nation&#39;s interest. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The column was attacked by stone pelters with an intent to hurt the forces, hence, a criminal force was applied against them. Why the authorities did not register FIR against the stone pelters?

The act of registering an FIR against Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month's Shopian firing case shows the appeasing attitude of political hierarchy of Jammu and Kashmir. It shows them in poor light, more importantly, such an act actually lowers the morale of Armed Forces operating in Kashmir. It also shows the unawareness of the officials responsible for the FIR about the provisions of the AFSPA. The incident has been covered widely by the media. Let me highlight some important issues which the nation must think in the national interest. • FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month's Shopian firing case does not stand as the military personnel was there not by choice. They were there because the country wanted them to be there; it was their duty to protect the country in a disturbed region. • The column was attacked by stone pelters with an intent to hurt the forces, hence, criminal force was applied against them. Why the authorities did not register FIR against the stone pelters. • Major Aditya Kumar and his troops had no enmity with the persons who were killed in the incident. • The Army personnel have the right of self-defence too • As per the law in vogue, in a ‘Disturbed Area’, the officer is duty bound to protect his subordinates and the government property and can use force. The minimum force is to be used but the decision as to how much force is the minimum force is a decision to be taken by the commander on the spot, based on his judgement. • Army after the due warning is expected to fire for effect and not in the air, unlike police, which can use measures like tear gas or firing in air. Under the circumstances in which Maj Aditya and his troops were placed, had they not taken any action, they would have been either lynched or burnt. The officer and men, in my opinion, have acted in self-defence as per powers conferred to them by law. It needs to be understood that the Army is the instrument of last resort and if they are scarred by legal actions, then the morale of young officers and men will be affected adversely. If they get overcautious, we have to blame our political hierarchy of pushing them into fortress mentality, wherein they will not come out and protect people due to fear of litigation which is exactly desired by Pakistan and militants. If we are soft towards the militants, no corner of the country will be safe. I do not understand why politicians of Kashmir for their petty gains do not understand this, despite an attack on our Parliament. It also needs to be understood that under the AFSPA, the state has to take permission of the Central Government to proceed against the officer, which the Central Government can refuse, which has happened in many such cases earlier. Even if the permission is to be given a set procedure is to be followed. I must salute the honourable Supreme Court of India which has put a stay on the FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with this Shopian firing case. The apex court also directed that no coercive action be taken against Major Aditya in connection with the incident in which three civilians were killed and nine others were injured. It should also be a matter of concern that Indian Army unlike most armies in the world is known to use minimum force and does not use even high calibre weapons. Nowhere in the world, you can see an example of an armed soldier being beaten by a lady, and the soldier is showing resilience to tolerate it, and taking such ill treatment from people, whom the soldiers have saved in floods a year earlier. Let us not push our soldiers to wall, the consequences can be disastrous, definitely not in the nation's interest. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Thank God, we had Supreme Court to protect Major Aditya

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