The Supreme Court today sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and the CBI on a plea of the special judge, who convicted Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Tawar in the Aarushi murder case in 2013, against his criticism in the Allahabad High Court verdict.

Special CBI judge Shyam Lal, now retired, alleged that the high court while acquitting the Talwars in the case on October 12, 2017, made &quot;disparaging remarks&quot; and &quot;unwarranted comments&quot; and sought their expunction.

A bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, the CBI and the Allahabad High Court and sought their response in four weeks.

Senior advocate S R Singh, appearing for the retired judge, said that the strictures passed against him are ultimately going to affect his reputation as an impartial and transparent judge and should be expuncted.

Singh said that the remarks in the judgement were neither warranted nor were in conformity with the settled law of apex court.

In his plea, Shyam Lal said that he is not aggrieved against the judgement of the acquittal of Talwars but he is aggrieved by the observations made by a member judge of the division bench of the high court, in his separate concurring judgement dated October 12, 2017.

The high court judge in his separate but concurring judgement had said, &quot;The trial judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn the conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled by vitriolic reasoning.

&quot;Thus, basing the finding of conviction without caring to see that it being a case based on circumstantial evidence things cannot be presumed and stuffed in a manner like the present one by adhering to self-created postulates then to roam inside the circle with all fanciful whim.&quot;

The high court verdict further said that the trial judge took evidence and the circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a &quot;mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question&quot;.

It also said the point is that &quot;the trial judge cannot act like a maths teacher who is solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking the certain figure for granted&quot;.

&quot;... Like a film director, the trial Judge has tried to thrust coherence among facts inalienably scattered here and there but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened&quot;, the verdict had said with various other comments.

Lal, while posted as special CBI judge at Ghaziabad, had on November 25, 2013, convicted the Talwar couple for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and had sentenced them to life sentence.

&quot;While allowing criminal appeals (of Talwars) no adverse comments have been made against the petitioner (Shyam Lal) in the main judgement but the second judge in his concurring judgement has made certain adverse remarks which seriously affect the reputation of the petitioner as independent and impartial judge,&quot; his plea said.

Lal claimed in his petition that during his 28 years of &quot;unblemished service&quot; before retiring on November 30, 2013, he dealt with high profile cases like that of Surendra Koli vs. State, properly known as &#39;Nithari case&#39;, graft case of former Uttar Pradesh chief secretary Neera Yadav, among others.&nbsp;

Special CBI judge alleged that the high court made 'disparaging remarks' and 'unwarranted comments' and sought their expunction

The Supreme Court today sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and the CBI on a plea of the special judge, who convicted Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Tawar in the Aarushi murder case in 2013, against his criticism in the Allahabad High Court verdict. Special CBI judge Shyam Lal, now retired, alleged that the high court while acquitting the Talwars in the case on October 12, 2017, made "disparaging remarks" and "unwarranted comments" and sought their expunction. A bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, the CBI and the Allahabad High Court and sought their response in four weeks. Senior advocate S R Singh, appearing for the retired judge, said that the strictures passed against him are ultimately going to affect his reputation as an impartial and transparent judge and should be expuncted. Singh said that the remarks in the judgement were neither warranted nor were in conformity with the settled law of apex court. In his plea, Shyam Lal said that he is not aggrieved against the judgement of the acquittal of Talwars but he is aggrieved by the observations made by a member judge of the division bench of the high court, in his separate concurring judgement dated October 12, 2017. The high court judge in his separate but concurring judgement had said, "The trial judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn the conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled by vitriolic reasoning. "Thus, basing the finding of conviction without caring to see that it being a case based on circumstantial evidence things cannot be presumed and stuffed in a manner like the present one by adhering to self-created postulates then to roam inside the circle with all fanciful whim." The high court verdict further said that the trial judge took evidence and the circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a "mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question". It also said the point is that "the trial judge cannot act like a maths teacher who is solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking the certain figure for granted". "... Like a film director, the trial Judge has tried to thrust coherence among facts inalienably scattered here and there but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened", the verdict had said with various other comments. Lal, while posted as special CBI judge at Ghaziabad, had on November 25, 2013, convicted the Talwar couple for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and had sentenced them to life sentence. "While allowing criminal appeals (of Talwars) no adverse comments have been made against the petitioner (Shyam Lal) in the main judgement but the second judge in his concurring judgement has made certain adverse remarks which seriously affect the reputation of the petitioner as independent and impartial judge," his plea said. Lal claimed in his petition that during his 28 years of "unblemished service" before retiring on November 30, 2013, he dealt with high profile cases like that of Surendra Koli vs. State, properly known as 'Nithari case', graft case of former Uttar Pradesh chief secretary Neera Yadav, among others.

Aarushi case: Ex-CBI judge moves Supreme Court against his criticism by High Court

The Supreme Court slammed the Kejriwal government and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over the&nbsp;introduction of amendments in the Delhi Master Plan, 2021.

The Kejriwal government previously noted that the proposed amendments are likely to provide relief to the traders.&nbsp;

The apex 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;

The court sought an answer from the state government if any new measures were taken to tackle air pollution. It also asked whether an environmental impact assessment was conducted before proposing amendments to the master plan.

The bench has demanded an affidavit giving details on whether issues like safety of buildings, traffic congestion, parking and availability of civic amenities were taken into account before proposing the amendment.&nbsp;

Over 100 establishments have been shut in the sealing drive ordered against the misuse of residential properties for commercial use and non-payment of &#39;conversion charge&#39;.&nbsp;

The court will hear the case again in a couple of weeks.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The court sought an answer from the state government if any new measures were taken to tackle air pollution

The Supreme Court slammed the Kejriwal government and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over the introduction of amendments in the Delhi Master Plan, 2021. The Kejriwal government previously noted that the proposed amendments are likely to provide relief to the traders. The apex 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. The court sought an answer from the state government if any new measures were taken to tackle air pollution. It also asked whether an environmental impact assessment was conducted before proposing amendments to the master plan. The bench has demanded an affidavit giving details on whether issues like safety of buildings, traffic congestion, parking and availability of civic amenities were taken into account before proposing the amendment. Over 100 establishments have been shut in the sealing drive ordered against the misuse of residential properties for commercial use and non-payment of 'conversion charge'. The court will hear the case again in a couple of weeks. (With inputs from agencies)

Delhi sealing drive: Supreme Court slams Kejriwal government over changes in Master Plan 

The Supreme Court postponed Thursday the hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to March 14.

The court, which was expected to start &quot;final hearings&quot; in the matter today, asked for English translations of all documents placed before it. The parties involved have been given two weeks to furnish the documents.&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/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> Matter: Supreme Court fixes 14 March as the next date of hearing, as some of the documents &amp; translations are yet to be filed before it. <a href="https://t.co/6FCQdVAAL9">pic.twitter.com/6FCQdVAAL9</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/961529782113656833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The matter is being heard by a special bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The court clarified Thursday that it had never intended to hear the matter on a &quot;day to day&quot; basis.&nbsp;

The bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said it would deal with the instant matter as a &quot;pure land dispute&quot; and indicated that impleadment applications of those which were not before the High Court would be dealt with later.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

(With inputs from PTI)

The court also clarified Thursday that it never intended to hear the matter on a 'day-to-day basis'

The Supreme Court postponed Thursday the hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to March 14. The court, which was expected to start "final hearings" in the matter today, asked for English translations of all documents placed before it. The parties involved have been given two weeks to furnish the documents. #Ayodhya Matter: Supreme Court fixes 14 March as the next date of hearing, as some of the documents & translations are yet to be filed before it. pic.twitter.com/6FCQdVAAL9 — ANI (@ANI) February 8, 2018 × The matter is being heard by a special bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The court clarified Thursday that it had never intended to hear the matter on a "day to day" basis. The bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said it would deal with the instant matter as a "pure land dispute" and indicated that impleadment applications of those which were not before the High Court would be dealt with later. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court asks for English translations of documents, postpones Ayodhya dispute hearing to March 14

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the West Bengal government for its stand against the Centre&#39;s Aadhaar scheme, saying what was wrong in having &#39;one-nation, one-identity&#39; for all Indians through the measure. 
 
The Mamata Banerjee government, which had on Tuesday challenged the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 Act, told a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that Indianness has nothing to do with a particular kind of identity. 
 
The state government has attacked the scheme on grounds including that it would lead to &#39;one-nation, one-identity&#39;. 
 
&quot;Yes, we all are citizens of this country and Indianness has nothing to do with this kind of identity,&quot; it told the bench which also comprised justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. 
 
The court questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, on what he thought about the concept of &#39;one-nation, one-identity&#39;. 
 
&quot;We are proud Indians and are passionately Indians, but everything is wrong with Aadhaar. Indianness has nothing to do with identity. Let us not go into this debate as it is more political than legal. We are more than this Aadhaar. That&#39;s all,&quot; Mr Sibal responded<iframe frameborder="0" height="0" id="google_ads_iframe_/1068322/NDTV_News_ROS_Native_Outstream_0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/1068322/NDTV_News_ROS_Native_Outstream_0" scrolling="no" srcdoc="" title="3rd party ad content" width="100%"></iframe>The senior advocate, who resumed arguments, read out the Aadhaar Act to say that it was a wrongly drafted law with respect to &#39;alternatives&#39;, because there was no scope of authentication of identity of an individual except Aadhaar. 
 
The Aadhaar Act deals with no scope of other alternatives to establish identity of an individual, Mr Sibal said, adding banks say that they do not want any other information or card and ask only for Aadhaar number. 
 
Giving an illustration, he said the United Kingdom, which initially started a biometric authentication mechanism, scrapped it because the system was vulnerable. 
 
&quot;I am not saying that the State will misuse my Aadhaar information, but how does this Aadhaar make everyone vulnerable? This vulnerability is where the violation of my right comes in,&quot; he said. 
 
Mr Sibal argued that his first submission is about the centralisation of data and said that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) claims that it is secure because it is federated -- that is the database is broken and stored in multiple locations. 
 
He cited a recent Reserve Bank of India report circulated among its staffers, which identified Central ID Repository is a &quot;single target&quot; for internal/external/indigenous/foreign attacks and also a &quot;single point of failure&quot;. 
 
The bench said that theoretically every centralised database can be hacked, but this does not necessarily mean that it is vulnerable. 
 
&quot;It is acknowledgement of the fact that you need to take extra care and safeguards should be there to protect it,&quot; Justice Chandrachud said. 
 
Mr Sibal replied, &quot;I need to be assured that my data is protected but in a digital world, there can be no such assurance and once my property (biometric information) is lost then in the physical world you may retrieve it but in the virtual world you cannot. This is the future world we are heading into,&quot; he said and added, &quot;In the digital world one knows more about you than one knows about himself&quot;. 
 
The bench replied, &quot;In the digital world it is not necessarily true what is advertised&quot;. 
 
Mr Sibal said Aadhaar impacts federalism and exclusions caused due to it violates the right to equal treatment. 
 
&quot;It disproportionately impacts people who are aged, those who are engaged in manual labour and disabled people,&quot; he said.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue tomorrow. 
 
Yesterday, the West Bengal government used Prime Minister Narendra Modi&#39;s recent speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos that one who controls data would control the world, to assail the ambitious Aadhaar scheme, saying the Centre would control personal information of citizens to have a grip over them.

The state government has attacked the scheme on grounds including that it would lead to 'one-nation, one-identity'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the West Bengal government for its stand against the Centre's Aadhaar scheme, saying what was wrong in having 'one-nation, one-identity' for all Indians through the measure. The Mamata Banerjee government, which had on Tuesday challenged the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 Act, told a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that Indianness has nothing to do with a particular kind of identity. The state government has attacked the scheme on grounds including that it would lead to 'one-nation, one-identity'. "Yes, we all are citizens of this country and Indianness has nothing to do with this kind of identity," it told the bench which also comprised justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The court questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, on what he thought about the concept of 'one-nation, one-identity'. "We are proud Indians and are passionately Indians, but everything is wrong with Aadhaar. Indianness has nothing to do with identity. Let us not go into this debate as it is more political than legal. We are more than this Aadhaar. That's all," Mr Sibal respondedThe senior advocate, who resumed arguments, read out the Aadhaar Act to say that it was a wrongly drafted law with respect to 'alternatives', because there was no scope of authentication of identity of an individual except Aadhaar. The Aadhaar Act deals with no scope of other alternatives to establish identity of an individual, Mr Sibal said, adding banks say that they do not want any other information or card and ask only for Aadhaar number. Giving an illustration, he said the United Kingdom, which initially started a biometric authentication mechanism, scrapped it because the system was vulnerable. "I am not saying that the State will misuse my Aadhaar information, but how does this Aadhaar make everyone vulnerable? This vulnerability is where the violation of my right comes in," he said. Mr Sibal argued that his first submission is about the centralisation of data and said that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) claims that it is secure because it is federated -- that is the database is broken and stored in multiple locations. He cited a recent Reserve Bank of India report circulated among its staffers, which identified Central ID Repository is a "single target" for internal/external/indigenous/foreign attacks and also a "single point of failure". The bench said that theoretically every centralised database can be hacked, but this does not necessarily mean that it is vulnerable. "It is acknowledgement of the fact that you need to take extra care and safeguards should be there to protect it," Justice Chandrachud said. Mr Sibal replied, "I need to be assured that my data is protected but in a digital world, there can be no such assurance and once my property (biometric information) is lost then in the physical world you may retrieve it but in the virtual world you cannot. This is the future world we are heading into," he said and added, "In the digital world one knows more about you than one knows about himself". The bench replied, "In the digital world it is not necessarily true what is advertised". Mr Sibal said Aadhaar impacts federalism and exclusions caused due to it violates the right to equal treatment. "It disproportionately impacts people who are aged, those who are engaged in manual labour and disabled people," he said. The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue tomorrow. Yesterday, the West Bengal government used Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos that one who controls data would control the world, to assail the ambitious Aadhaar scheme, saying the Centre would control personal information of citizens to have a grip over them.

What's wrong with 'one nation, one identity' idea: Supreme Court asks West Bengal government

The Supreme Court is&nbsp;to commence hearing today on a batch of cross-petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.

Today&#39;s hearing assumes significance in the wake of the rejection by a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the vehement submission by Sunni Waqf Board and others that the pleas be heard after the next general elections.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had made clear on December 5 last year, that it would begin final hearing on the petitions from February 8 and had asked the parties to file the requisite pleadings in the meantime.

Senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan had contended that the civil appeals be either referred to a five or seven-judge bench or posted in 2019 keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the case and its ramifications on the country&#39;s secular fabric and polity.

The top court had asked the advocates on records (AoRs), dealing with as many 14 civil appeals against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the land dispute, to ensure that all requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total 14 appeals filed against the High Court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties &mdash; the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

(With inputs from Agencies)

Three judges of the Supreme Court are likely to start "final hearings" on a bunch of 13 petitions over the 2.7 acres disputed Ayodhya site that is claimed by both Hindus and Muslims

The Supreme Court is to commence hearing today on a batch of cross-petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board. Today's hearing assumes significance in the wake of the rejection by a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the vehement submission by Sunni Waqf Board and others that the pleas be heard after the next general elections. The bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had made clear on December 5 last year, that it would begin final hearing on the petitions from February 8 and had asked the parties to file the requisite pleadings in the meantime. Senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan had contended that the civil appeals be either referred to a five or seven-judge bench or posted in 2019 keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the case and its ramifications on the country's secular fabric and polity. The top court had asked the advocates on records (AoRs), dealing with as many 14 civil appeals against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the land dispute, to ensure that all requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total 14 appeals filed against the High Court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. (With inputs from Agencies)

Supreme Court to start final hearings in Ayodhya case today

The Centre today told the Supreme Court that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was a &quot;demand-driven scheme&quot; and it has not curtailed the demand for funds by the states under it.

Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and N V Ramana that there were no instances where the Centre has either capped number of days of employment under the Act or not released funds to the states.

&quot;We have paid increased amount (to the states). The MGNREGA is a demand-driven scheme and at no stage, the demand (of the states for funds) has been curtailed by the Union of India,&quot; he submitted.

Venugopal put forwards the arguments while countering the submissions of advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO-turned-political party Swaraj Abhiyan.

Bhushan claimed in the court that the Centre has no authority in law to reduce the &quot;person days&quot; from the projection made by the states under the Act and due of lack of funds, the states were unable to give employement to the people.

&quot;The Act provides for 100 days of employement (in a year). It is a statutory obligation,&quot; he said, adding, &quot;They are denying statutory rights to the people.&quot;

At the outset, the AG told the bench that according to the provision of the Act, a Central Employment Guarantee Council was there and the petitioner could make a representation before the body since a large number of issues were raised in the plea.

When the bench asked Bhushan about it, he said issues raised were &quot;purely legal&quot; and the apex court should deal with them.

&quot;If you (petitioner) are saying there are purely legal issues, we will hear them but no further affidavit should be filed. Or you give a representation before the council. They will give us a report and we will see,&quot; it said.

When the AG said that the petitioner should appear before the council, Bhushan claimed, &quot;That body is filled with politically affiliated persons.&quot;

Venugopal contended, &quot;The petitioner is now a political party and thus making a political attack.&quot;

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 13 and said that it would go into the legal issues only.

During the hearing, the bench asked the AG as to how funds were allotted to the states under the Act.

A senior government official, who was present in the court, explained to the bench about the process of fund- allocation to the states and said there was no paucity of funds under the Act.

The official also said that in the financial year 2017- 18, initially Rs 48,000 crore was allotted under the Act but when the states demanded more funds, the Ministry of Finance allotted an additional Rs 7,000 crore.

The AG said that in 2016-17 financial year, 20 states crossed the agreed budget and the Centre provided the funds to them.

The Centre had in December last year refuted the claims of the petitioner that there was a delay on the government&#39;s part in releasing funds under the Act.

The court, which is hearing the plea which has sought relief measures in drought-hit states in the country, had earlier said that state food commissions, as mandated under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, should be set up even in states not hit by drought.

The plea has alleged that parts of 12 states-- Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh-- were hit by drought and authorities were not providing adequate relief.&nbsp;

'We have paid increased amount (to the states). The MGNREGA is a demand-driven scheme and at no stage, the demand (of the states for funds) has been curtailed by the Union of India,' the Centre said Thursday

The Centre today told the Supreme Court that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was a "demand-driven scheme" and it has not curtailed the demand for funds by the states under it. Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and N V Ramana that there were no instances where the Centre has either capped number of days of employment under the Act or not released funds to the states. "We have paid increased amount (to the states). The MGNREGA is a demand-driven scheme and at no stage, the demand (of the states for funds) has been curtailed by the Union of India," he submitted. Venugopal put forwards the arguments while countering the submissions of advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO-turned-political party Swaraj Abhiyan. Bhushan claimed in the court that the Centre has no authority in law to reduce the "person days" from the projection made by the states under the Act and due of lack of funds, the states were unable to give employement to the people. "The Act provides for 100 days of employement (in a year). It is a statutory obligation," he said, adding, "They are denying statutory rights to the people." At the outset, the AG told the bench that according to the provision of the Act, a Central Employment Guarantee Council was there and the petitioner could make a representation before the body since a large number of issues were raised in the plea. When the bench asked Bhushan about it, he said issues raised were "purely legal" and the apex court should deal with them. "If you (petitioner) are saying there are purely legal issues, we will hear them but no further affidavit should be filed. Or you give a representation before the council. They will give us a report and we will see," it said. When the AG said that the petitioner should appear before the council, Bhushan claimed, "That body is filled with politically affiliated persons." Venugopal contended, "The petitioner is now a political party and thus making a political attack." The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 13 and said that it would go into the legal issues only. During the hearing, the bench asked the AG as to how funds were allotted to the states under the Act. A senior government official, who was present in the court, explained to the bench about the process of fund- allocation to the states and said there was no paucity of funds under the Act. The official also said that in the financial year 2017- 18, initially Rs 48,000 crore was allotted under the Act but when the states demanded more funds, the Ministry of Finance allotted an additional Rs 7,000 crore. The AG said that in 2016-17 financial year, 20 states crossed the agreed budget and the Centre provided the funds to them. The Centre had in December last year refuted the claims of the petitioner that there was a delay on the government's part in releasing funds under the Act. The court, which is hearing the plea which has sought relief measures in drought-hit states in the country, had earlier said that state food commissions, as mandated under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, should be set up even in states not hit by drought. The plea has alleged that parts of 12 states-- Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh-- were hit by drought and authorities were not providing adequate relief.

Have not curtailed demand for NREGA funds by states: Govt to SC

The father of Army Major Aditya Kumar, booked by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in the firing incident in Shopian, has moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR against his son. 
 
Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh said his son, a Major in the 10 Garhwal Rifles, has been &quot;wrongly and arbitrarily&quot; named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA, which was isolated by an &quot;unruly and deranged&quot; mob pelting stones causing damage to military vehicles.

The plea, filed through advocate Aishwarya Bhati, said the intention of his son was to save Army personnel and property and the fire was inflicted &quot;only to impair and provide a safe escape from a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity&quot;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh said his son, a Major in the 10 Garhwal Rifles, has been &#39;wrongly and arbitrarily&#39; named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA, which was isolated by an &#39;unruly and deranged&#39; mob pelting stones causing damage to military vehicles</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh said his son, a Major in the 10 Garhwal Rifles, has been 'wrongly and arbitrarily' named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA, which was isolated by an 'unruly and deranged' mob pelting stones causing damage to military vehicles" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The unruly mob was requested to disperse and not obstruct military in performance of their duties and not to damage government property but when the situation reached beyond control, a warning was issued to disperse, the plea said.

As the unruly behaviour of the &quot;unlawful assembly&quot; reached peak and when they got hold of a Junior Commissioned Officer and were in the process of lynching him to death, warning shots were fired fire to disperse the violent mob and protect public property, it submitted.

Singh also referred to last year&#39;s incident of a mob lynching of DSP Mohd Ayub Pandith to apprise the top court about the situation in the state and the condition in which Army officials were working to control violent mobs in Kashmir.

&quot;The petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition for quashing of FIR, directly before this court in view of the extremely hostile situation on the ground, whereby an FIR has been registered by local police against the son of the petitioner, who is a service Army officer and was performing bonafide duties as directed by the Union of India.

&quot;The manner in which the lodging of the FIR has been portrayed and projected by the political leadership and administrative higher-ups of the State, reflects the extremely hostile atmosphere in the State. In these circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other viable option but to approach this court under Article 32 of the Constitution for protection of Fundamental Rights of his son and himself, enshrined under Article 14 &amp; 21 of the Constitution,&quot; the plea said.

The petitioner has sought directions to issue guidelines to protect rights of soldiers and adequate compensation so that no Army personnel is harassed by initiation of criminal proceedings for bonafide actions in exercise of their duties.

It has also sought registration of FIR against persons involved in the terrorist activities which had caused damage to property of the government.

The FIR was registered against the personnel of 10, Garhwal unit of the Army including Major Kumar under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code.

Two civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village in Shopian, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident.&nbsp;

The father of Army Major Aditya Kumar, booked by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in the firing incident in Shopian, has moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR against his son. Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh said his son, a Major in the 10 Garhwal Rifles, has been "wrongly and arbitrarily" named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA, which was isolated by an "unruly and deranged" mob pelting stones causing damage to military vehicles. The plea, filed through advocate Aishwarya Bhati, said the intention of his son was to save Army personnel and property and the fire was inflicted "only to impair and provide a safe escape from a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity". Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh said his son, a Major in the 10 Garhwal Rifles, has been 'wrongly and arbitrarily' named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy on bonafide military duty in an area under the AFSPA, which was isolated by an 'unruly and deranged' mob pelting stones causing damage to military vehicles × The unruly mob was requested to disperse and not obstruct military in performance of their duties and not to damage government property but when the situation reached beyond control, a warning was issued to disperse, the plea said. As the unruly behaviour of the "unlawful assembly" reached peak and when they got hold of a Junior Commissioned Officer and were in the process of lynching him to death, warning shots were fired fire to disperse the violent mob and protect public property, it submitted. Singh also referred to last year's incident of a mob lynching of DSP Mohd Ayub Pandith to apprise the top court about the situation in the state and the condition in which Army officials were working to control violent mobs in Kashmir. "The petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition for quashing of FIR, directly before this court in view of the extremely hostile situation on the ground, whereby an FIR has been registered by local police against the son of the petitioner, who is a service Army officer and was performing bonafide duties as directed by the Union of India. "The manner in which the lodging of the FIR has been portrayed and projected by the political leadership and administrative higher-ups of the State, reflects the extremely hostile atmosphere in the State. In these circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other viable option but to approach this court under Article 32 of the Constitution for protection of Fundamental Rights of his son and himself, enshrined under Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution," the plea said. The petitioner has sought directions to issue guidelines to protect rights of soldiers and adequate compensation so that no Army personnel is harassed by initiation of criminal proceedings for bonafide actions in exercise of their duties. It has also sought registration of FIR against persons involved in the terrorist activities which had caused damage to property of the government. The FIR was registered against the personnel of 10, Garhwal unit of the Army including Major Kumar under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code. Two civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village in Shopian, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident.

Shopian firing that left 3 dead: Army Major's father asks SC to quash FIR

The United States today called on Maldives President Abdulla Yameen to ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions in the country.

&quot;The US calls on President Yameen, the army, and police to comply with the rule of law, implement the Supreme Court&#39;s lawful ruling, ensure the full and proper functioning of the Parliament, and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions of Maldives,&quot; a State Department spokesperson told PTI.

He was responding to questions on the current situation in Maldives.

The spokesperson, however, did not weigh in on former Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed seeking military intervention from India.

Nasheed yesterday had asked India to play its role of &quot;liberators&quot; and intervene militarily to resolve the ongoing political turmoil in Maldives.

&quot;We are troubled by reports that Yameen has declared a state of emergency, which gives sweeping powers to security forces to arrest and detain suspects, bans public gatherings, imposes travel restrictions, and suspends parts of the Maldivian Constitution,&quot; he said.

Asserting that the US stands with the people of Maldives, the State Department spokesperson said Yameen, the army and police should respect the Maldives&#39; international human rights obligations and commitments.

Meanwhile, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra&#39;ad Zeid Al Hussein said the declaration of the state of emergency in the Maldives and the resulting suspension of constitutional guarantees have swept away the checks and balances and separation of powers necessary in any functioning democracy.

He warned that this could potentially lead to a greater number of violations of the rights of people in the Island country.

&quot;The suspension of several functions of the judiciary and Parliament, and the restrictions on a series of constitutional rights create a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the President,&quot; he said.

The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) said it remains deeply concerned over the escalating tensions and the resultant law and order situation in Maldives.

In a statement, it called on all parties to respect the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and to take into account the overall interest of their country to avoid any untoward incident, which could undermine the peace and stability in the country.

The OIC also stressed the need for a peaceful settlement of the ongoing political crisis in line with the constitutional provisions. 
&nbsp;

Maldives, which has seen a number of political crisis since the ouster of its first democratically-elected president Nasheed in 2012, plunged into a political chaos on Thursday last when the apex court ordered the release of nine imprisoned opposition politicians, maintaining that their trials were &quot;politically motivated and flawed&quot;.

The nine political leaders included Nasheed.

The Yameen government refused to implement the ruling, prompting a wave of protests in Maldives capital, Male.

Following clashes and protests, the Yameen government imposed the emergency, evoking concerns from the international community.

However, on Tuesday night the Maldives&#39; Supreme Court revoked the order to release nine high-profile political prisoners.

Nasheed yesterday had asked India to play its role of "liberators" and intervene militarily to resolve the ongoing political turmoil in Maldives.

The United States today called on Maldives President Abdulla Yameen to ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions in the country. "The US calls on President Yameen, the army, and police to comply with the rule of law, implement the Supreme Court's lawful ruling, ensure the full and proper functioning of the Parliament, and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions of Maldives," a State Department spokesperson told PTI. He was responding to questions on the current situation in Maldives. The spokesperson, however, did not weigh in on former Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed seeking military intervention from India. Nasheed yesterday had asked India to play its role of "liberators" and intervene militarily to resolve the ongoing political turmoil in Maldives. "We are troubled by reports that Yameen has declared a state of emergency, which gives sweeping powers to security forces to arrest and detain suspects, bans public gatherings, imposes travel restrictions, and suspends parts of the Maldivian Constitution," he said. Asserting that the US stands with the people of Maldives, the State Department spokesperson said Yameen, the army and police should respect the Maldives' international human rights obligations and commitments. Meanwhile, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al Hussein said the declaration of the state of emergency in the Maldives and the resulting suspension of constitutional guarantees have swept away the checks and balances and separation of powers necessary in any functioning democracy. He warned that this could potentially lead to a greater number of violations of the rights of people in the Island country. "The suspension of several functions of the judiciary and Parliament, and the restrictions on a series of constitutional rights create a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the President," he said. The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) said it remains deeply concerned over the escalating tensions and the resultant law and order situation in Maldives. In a statement, it called on all parties to respect the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and to take into account the overall interest of their country to avoid any untoward incident, which could undermine the peace and stability in the country. The OIC also stressed the need for a peaceful settlement of the ongoing political crisis in line with the constitutional provisions. Maldives, which has seen a number of political crisis since the ouster of its first democratically-elected president Nasheed in 2012, plunged into a political chaos on Thursday last when the apex court ordered the release of nine imprisoned opposition politicians, maintaining that their trials were "politically motivated and flawed". The nine political leaders included Nasheed. The Yameen government refused to implement the ruling, prompting a wave of protests in Maldives capital, Male. Following clashes and protests, the Yameen government imposed the emergency, evoking concerns from the international community. However, on Tuesday night the Maldives' Supreme Court revoked the order to release nine high-profile political prisoners.

US calls on Maldives to restore rights of people and institutions

The Supreme Court has allowed the Bombay high court receiver and the official liquidator to sell Sahara&#39;s Aamby Valley project piecemeal.&nbsp;

The move was prompted after the advocate for receiver communicated to the SC their difficulty in selling Aamby Valley despite publicity and advertisements.

The receiver communicated to the apex court the fact that it will be easier to sell the project in parcels - for example, one parcel could be the international school, another the convention centre and so on.&nbsp;

The apex court has also allowed the sale of movable properties like Mercedes cars and other vehicles at Aamby valley by the end of March.&nbsp;

According to reports, companies like the Mahindra Ltd. and the Piramal Ltd. have shown interest in buying the project. It is not known if the companies want to buy the entire project or parts of it.&nbsp;

Sahara Group&rsquo;s Aamby Valley project is under liquidation initiated by the Supreme Court.

The liquidation has&nbsp;been initiated in order to recover investors&rsquo; funds from the Sahara conglomerate.

 
&nbsp;

Sahara Group’s Aamby Valley project is under liquidation initiated by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has allowed the Bombay high court receiver and the official liquidator to sell Sahara's Aamby Valley project piecemeal. The move was prompted after the advocate for receiver communicated to the SC their difficulty in selling Aamby Valley despite publicity and advertisements. The receiver communicated to the apex court the fact that it will be easier to sell the project in parcels - for example, one parcel could be the international school, another the convention centre and so on. The apex court has also allowed the sale of movable properties like Mercedes cars and other vehicles at Aamby valley by the end of March. According to reports, companies like the Mahindra Ltd. and the Piramal Ltd. have shown interest in buying the project. It is not known if the companies want to buy the entire project or parts of it. Sahara Group’s Aamby Valley project is under liquidation initiated by the Supreme Court. The liquidation has been initiated in order to recover investors’ funds from the Sahara conglomerate.

Supreme Court allows piecemeal sale of Sahara's Aamby Valley

The Supreme Court has quashed all iron ore mining permits in Goa, one of the country`s top producing states for the steel making raw material, an environmental group that petitioned the government to halt the mining said on Wednesday.

Mining in the southwestern state of Goa, which produces low-quality iron ore, will stop after March 15 and the government will need to issue new licenses, Claude Alvares, who heads the environmental group Goa Foundation, told Reuters by telephone from outside the court in New Delhi.

&quot;From the 16th of next month, mining companies in the state will be bereft of any leases,&quot; said Alvares, who was in the court when the judgment was read out. &quot;They are back to zero. Ownership is back to the government. They will have to auction the leases.&quot;

Reuters has not reviewed a copy of the court`s ruling, which is yet to be published on its website.

Prashant Bhushan, the lawyer for the Goa Foundation, confirmed the ruling on his verified account on Twitter. &quot;Kudos to Supreme Court for cancelling all 88 iron ore mining leases,&quot; he wrote.

Billionaire Anil Agarwal`s Vedanta Resources is the biggest iron ore miner in the state.

Court action against illegal mining shut the industry in Goa for more than two years from 2012. Goa had exported about 50 million tonnes of iron ore a year before the ban was imposed. The Supreme Court later limited production in the state to 20 million tonnes a year.

The latest ban would affect not only Vedanta but also several small unlisted companies run by local business families. A Vedanta spokeswoman said &quot;it would be inappropriate to comment without reading the judgement copy&quot;.

Vedanta expected to produce around 5.5 million tonnes of iron ore from Goa this fiscal year ending March 31. India`s iron ore production totalled 192 million tonnes during the last fiscal year.

Most of Goa`s iron ore is exported to China as Indian steel companies do not have the technology to process it.

Chinese iron ore demand has slowed after steel production curbs enacted since the middle of November to curb industrial emissions as part of the country`s fight against smog. The curbs are in place until the middle of March.

Mining companies in Goa earlier lobbied to get the export duty on iron ore reduced given a large stockpile of already-mined ore in the state.&nbsp;

Goa is one of the country's top producers of the steel-making raw material

The Supreme Court has quashed all iron ore mining permits in Goa, one of the country`s top producing states for the steel making raw material, an environmental group that petitioned the government to halt the mining said on Wednesday. Mining in the southwestern state of Goa, which produces low-quality iron ore, will stop after March 15 and the government will need to issue new licenses, Claude Alvares, who heads the environmental group Goa Foundation, told Reuters by telephone from outside the court in New Delhi. "From the 16th of next month, mining companies in the state will be bereft of any leases," said Alvares, who was in the court when the judgment was read out. "They are back to zero. Ownership is back to the government. They will have to auction the leases." Reuters has not reviewed a copy of the court`s ruling, which is yet to be published on its website. Prashant Bhushan, the lawyer for the Goa Foundation, confirmed the ruling on his verified account on Twitter. "Kudos to Supreme Court for cancelling all 88 iron ore mining leases," he wrote. Billionaire Anil Agarwal`s Vedanta Resources is the biggest iron ore miner in the state. Court action against illegal mining shut the industry in Goa for more than two years from 2012. Goa had exported about 50 million tonnes of iron ore a year before the ban was imposed. The Supreme Court later limited production in the state to 20 million tonnes a year. The latest ban would affect not only Vedanta but also several small unlisted companies run by local business families. A Vedanta spokeswoman said "it would be inappropriate to comment without reading the judgement copy". Vedanta expected to produce around 5.5 million tonnes of iron ore from Goa this fiscal year ending March 31. India`s iron ore production totalled 192 million tonnes during the last fiscal year. Most of Goa`s iron ore is exported to China as Indian steel companies do not have the technology to process it. Chinese iron ore demand has slowed after steel production curbs enacted since the middle of November to curb industrial emissions as part of the country`s fight against smog. The curbs are in place until the middle of March. Mining companies in Goa earlier lobbied to get the export duty on iron ore reduced given a large stockpile of already-mined ore in the state.

Supreme Court cancels all iron ore mining licences in Goa

The Centre is in the process of linking driving licences with Aadhaar number to weed out fake licences, and a software for this covering all states on a real time basis is under preparation, the Supreme Court was told on Wednesday.

A bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta was informed about it by a court-appointed committee on road safety headed by former Supreme Court judge justice KS Radhakrishnan.

This assumes significance as a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra is currently hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and the enabling 2016 law.

The committee, in its report filed in the top court, said it had held a meeting on November 28 last year with the joint secretary of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to discuss several issues, including procurement of fake licences and how to eliminate it.

&ldquo;On the issue of fake licences, joint secretary, MoRTH informed that NIC (national informatics centre) is now preparing &lsquo;Sarthi-4&rsquo; under which all the licences would be linked to Aadhaar,&rdquo; the report said.

&ldquo;This software will cover all the states on real time basis and it will not be possible for anyone to get duplicate or fake licence anywhere in the country,&rdquo; it said.

The advocate representing the committee, told the bench that the panel was scheduled to have a meeting with the MoRTH and other authorities concerned on February 22-23 to discuss compliance of directions given by the apex court earlier.

Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the ministry, told the bench that fatalities in road accidents in India have gone down by around three percent in 2017 as compared to 2016.

The bench said it was &ldquo;heartening to know&rdquo; that number of fatalities and injuries in road accidents have come down.

In its report, the committee said it had asked states and union territories (UTs) to forward road accident data for entire 2017.

&ldquo;The committee has since received data from all the states/UTs, except Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Daman and Diu which indicates that in the states/UTs which have submitted data, there has been a reduction of 4,558 fatalities (i.e. 3.0 per cent) and 24,023 injuries (i.e. 5.0 per cent) in 2017 as compared to 2016,&rdquo; the report said.

The committee told the court that through its November 24 last year letter, it had asked all the states to set up a road safety fund which would be non-lapsable, and to have a steady flow of funds by diversion of &ldquo;significant&rdquo; portion of fines collected from traffic violations.

It said some states have already set up road safety fund and the committee was pursuing the issue with remaining states in order to ensure full compliance of the apex court&rsquo;s order which had said that the fund should be established by March 31, 2018.

The report said at the November 28 last year meeting, it was discussed that since driving licences were now in the form of a smart card, its punching in cases of default was likely to damage the data stored in it.

&ldquo;Joint Secretary MoRTH pointed out that presently NIC is in the process of developing central computerised data base and all the states would be covered under the same.

&ldquo;This data base is likely to be effective from October 1, 2018,&rdquo; it said, adding, that all the offences committed by the driver would be recorded in this data base and there would be no necessity for punching of driving licences.

The committee further said that 20-25 per cent fatalities on roads occur due to non-existence of pedestrian facilities, like footpaths, over-head passes, and under-passes and so it has asked the states to provide pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines.

The court, while posting the matter for hearing on April 23, said that the committee should ensure compliance of its directions given earlier.

The apex court had in November last year issued a slew of directions on road safety and asked all states and UTs to set up a trauma centre in each district of the country and make safety norms part of school curriculum.

It had also directed that road safety education and counselling be made a part of school curriculum by the state boards by April 1, 2018, and at least one trauma care centre be set up in every district with an ambulance.

The court had issued its directions on a PIL raising the issue of road safety in the country.

The court was told that software for the purpose, which would cover all states on a real time basis, is under preparation

The Centre is in the process of linking driving licences with Aadhaar number to weed out fake licences, and a software for this covering all states on a real time basis is under preparation, the Supreme Court was told on Wednesday. A bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta was informed about it by a court-appointed committee on road safety headed by former Supreme Court judge justice KS Radhakrishnan. This assumes significance as a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra is currently hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and the enabling 2016 law. The committee, in its report filed in the top court, said it had held a meeting on November 28 last year with the joint secretary of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to discuss several issues, including procurement of fake licences and how to eliminate it. “On the issue of fake licences, joint secretary, MoRTH informed that NIC (national informatics centre) is now preparing ‘Sarthi-4’ under which all the licences would be linked to Aadhaar,” the report said. “This software will cover all the states on real time basis and it will not be possible for anyone to get duplicate or fake licence anywhere in the country,” it said. The advocate representing the committee, told the bench that the panel was scheduled to have a meeting with the MoRTH and other authorities concerned on February 22-23 to discuss compliance of directions given by the apex court earlier. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for the ministry, told the bench that fatalities in road accidents in India have gone down by around three percent in 2017 as compared to 2016. The bench said it was “heartening to know” that number of fatalities and injuries in road accidents have come down. In its report, the committee said it had asked states and union territories (UTs) to forward road accident data for entire 2017. “The committee has since received data from all the states/UTs, except Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Daman and Diu which indicates that in the states/UTs which have submitted data, there has been a reduction of 4,558 fatalities (i.e. 3.0 per cent) and 24,023 injuries (i.e. 5.0 per cent) in 2017 as compared to 2016,” the report said. The committee told the court that through its November 24 last year letter, it had asked all the states to set up a road safety fund which would be non-lapsable, and to have a steady flow of funds by diversion of “significant” portion of fines collected from traffic violations. It said some states have already set up road safety fund and the committee was pursuing the issue with remaining states in order to ensure full compliance of the apex court’s order which had said that the fund should be established by March 31, 2018. The report said at the November 28 last year meeting, it was discussed that since driving licences were now in the form of a smart card, its punching in cases of default was likely to damage the data stored in it. “Joint Secretary MoRTH pointed out that presently NIC is in the process of developing central computerised data base and all the states would be covered under the same. “This data base is likely to be effective from October 1, 2018,” it said, adding, that all the offences committed by the driver would be recorded in this data base and there would be no necessity for punching of driving licences. The committee further said that 20-25 per cent fatalities on roads occur due to non-existence of pedestrian facilities, like footpaths, over-head passes, and under-passes and so it has asked the states to provide pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Indian Road Congress (IRC) guidelines. The court, while posting the matter for hearing on April 23, said that the committee should ensure compliance of its directions given earlier. The apex court had in November last year issued a slew of directions on road safety and asked all states and UTs to set up a trauma centre in each district of the country and make safety norms part of school curriculum. It had also directed that road safety education and counselling be made a part of school curriculum by the state boards by April 1, 2018, and at least one trauma care centre be set up in every district with an ambulance. The court had issued its directions on a PIL raising the issue of road safety in the country.

Will link driving licences with Aadhaar to weed out fakes, Centre tells Supreme Court

Maldives President Abdulla Yameen declared a 15-day state of emergency in the honeymoon islands on Monday before heavily armed troops stormed the country&#39;s top court and a former leader was arrested in a deepening political crisis.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/security-forces-storm-maldives-supreme-court-reports-31894">Security forces storm Maldives Supreme Court</a>

The tiny tourist archipelago in the Indian Ocean has been plunged into chaos, with the president pitted against the Supreme Court after he refused to comply with its Thursday order to release nine political dissidents.

The standoff comes amid a years-long government crackdown on dissent that has battered the image of the upmarket holiday paradise, with the president jailing almost all the political opposition since he came to power in 2013.

On Monday, Maldives police arrested Yameen`s estranged half-brother and former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who had sided with the main opposition.

The 80-year-old &mdash; president for 30 years until the country`s first democratic elections in 2008 &mdash; was taken from his home in the capital Male around midnight on Monday, according to a tweet from his daughter Yumna Maumoon.

&quot;I have not done anything to be arrested,&quot; Gayoom said in a video message to supporters posted on Twitter.

&quot;I urge you to remain steadfast in your resolve too. We will not give up on the reform work we are doing.&quot;

Heavily armed troops and police special operations units had earlier stormed the Supreme Court building where Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and others were sheltering, the court said on Twitter, though their fate was not immediately clear.

Hundreds of people had gathered outside the courts complex and police used pepper spray to disperse the crowds.

The court`s shock move on Thursday had also ordered the government to restore the seats of 12 legislators sacked for defecting from Yameen`s party.

The opposition now has the majority in the assembly &mdash; meaning they could potentially impeach the president.

But the government, which has ordered police and troops to resist any attempt to arrest or impeach Yameen, said the court was not above the law.

&quot;The Supreme Court ruling stands in defiance of the highest authority in the country: the constitution,&quot; spokesman Ibrahim Hussain Shihab said in a statement.

&quot;The Supreme Court must remember that it too is bound by law.&quot;

He said the government would &quot;facilitate calm&quot; and ensure the safety of all citizens and tourists &quot;throughout this unusual period&quot;.In a blow to the regime, the court`s Thursday decision also paved the way for exiled former president Mohamed Nasheed &mdash; the first to be democratically elected but who was controversially convicted of terrorism in 2015 &mdash; to run for president this year.

Yameen, who has faced several unsuccessful opposition attempts to impeach him for alleged corruption, responded by shuttering parliament and on Monday his aide Azima Shukoor announced the state of emergency on national television.

&quot;The reason for the declaration is that the Supreme Court`s ruling was obstructing the functioning of the government,&quot; Azima said. 
The emergency declaration gives sweeping powers to security forces to arrest and detain individuals, curtails the powers of the judiciary and bars parliament from impeaching Yameen.

But it must be officially conveyed to parliament within two days, according to officials.

Nasheed, who has expressed fears of unrest, said the declaration amounted to martial law as an opposition legislator called it a &quot;desperate move&quot;.

&quot;(This) is tantamount to a declaration of martial law in the Maldives,&quot; Nasheed said while urging regional superpower India to intervene.Opposition legislators have also called on the international community to pressure Yameen.

The United States said it was &quot;troubled and disappointed&quot; at reports the leader had declared a state of emergency while calling on him to comply with the rule of law.

&quot;Despite being elected in 2013 with the support of a broad coalition, President Yameen has systematically alienated his coalition, jailed or exiled every major opposition political figure, deprived elected Members of Parliament of their right to represent their voters in the legislature, revised laws to erode human rights... and weakened the institutions of government,&quot; the State Department said in a statement.

India meanwhile asked its nationals to defer all non-essential travel to the archipelago, saying that the situation in the country was a matter of concern.

The United Nations, Australia, Britain, Canada, India and the US previously welcomed the court`s decision, while UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres at the weekend called for &quot;restraint&quot; as the crisis escalated.

Police also arrested former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom at his residence along with his son-in-law

Maldives President Abdulla Yameen declared a 15-day state of emergency in the honeymoon islands on Monday before heavily armed troops stormed the country's top court and a former leader was arrested in a deepening political crisis. Also read: Security forces storm Maldives Supreme Court The tiny tourist archipelago in the Indian Ocean has been plunged into chaos, with the president pitted against the Supreme Court after he refused to comply with its Thursday order to release nine political dissidents. The standoff comes amid a years-long government crackdown on dissent that has battered the image of the upmarket holiday paradise, with the president jailing almost all the political opposition since he came to power in 2013. On Monday, Maldives police arrested Yameen`s estranged half-brother and former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who had sided with the main opposition. The 80-year-old — president for 30 years until the country`s first democratic elections in 2008 — was taken from his home in the capital Male around midnight on Monday, according to a tweet from his daughter Yumna Maumoon. "I have not done anything to be arrested," Gayoom said in a video message to supporters posted on Twitter. "I urge you to remain steadfast in your resolve too. We will not give up on the reform work we are doing." Heavily armed troops and police special operations units had earlier stormed the Supreme Court building where Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and others were sheltering, the court said on Twitter, though their fate was not immediately clear. Hundreds of people had gathered outside the courts complex and police used pepper spray to disperse the crowds. The court`s shock move on Thursday had also ordered the government to restore the seats of 12 legislators sacked for defecting from Yameen`s party. The opposition now has the majority in the assembly — meaning they could potentially impeach the president. But the government, which has ordered police and troops to resist any attempt to arrest or impeach Yameen, said the court was not above the law. "The Supreme Court ruling stands in defiance of the highest authority in the country: the constitution," spokesman Ibrahim Hussain Shihab said in a statement. "The Supreme Court must remember that it too is bound by law." He said the government would "facilitate calm" and ensure the safety of all citizens and tourists "throughout this unusual period".In a blow to the regime, the court`s Thursday decision also paved the way for exiled former president Mohamed Nasheed — the first to be democratically elected but who was controversially convicted of terrorism in 2015 — to run for president this year. Yameen, who has faced several unsuccessful opposition attempts to impeach him for alleged corruption, responded by shuttering parliament and on Monday his aide Azima Shukoor announced the state of emergency on national television. "The reason for the declaration is that the Supreme Court`s ruling was obstructing the functioning of the government," Azima said. The emergency declaration gives sweeping powers to security forces to arrest and detain individuals, curtails the powers of the judiciary and bars parliament from impeaching Yameen. But it must be officially conveyed to parliament within two days, according to officials. Nasheed, who has expressed fears of unrest, said the declaration amounted to martial law as an opposition legislator called it a "desperate move". "(This) is tantamount to a declaration of martial law in the Maldives," Nasheed said while urging regional superpower India to intervene.Opposition legislators have also called on the international community to pressure Yameen. The United States said it was "troubled and disappointed" at reports the leader had declared a state of emergency while calling on him to comply with the rule of law. "Despite being elected in 2013 with the support of a broad coalition, President Yameen has systematically alienated his coalition, jailed or exiled every major opposition political figure, deprived elected Members of Parliament of their right to represent their voters in the legislature, revised laws to erode human rights... and weakened the institutions of government," the State Department said in a statement. India meanwhile asked its nationals to defer all non-essential travel to the archipelago, saying that the situation in the country was a matter of concern. The United Nations, Australia, Britain, Canada, India and the US previously welcomed the court`s decision, while UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres at the weekend called for "restraint" as the crisis escalated.

Maldives declares state of emergency as Yameen tightens grip on power, India warns travellers

Maldives&#39; President Abdulla Yameen has called the Supreme Court&#39;s order unconstitutional. Yameen quashed the Supreme Court&#39;s directive to release nine prisoners noting that there were several obstacles to enforcing the apex court&#39;s ruling which the government was not able to communicate with the court.&nbsp;

In an official statement, Yameen also noted that the justices cannot be held accountable.&nbsp;

He shared that although the law is of the paramount significance, no one should be beyond the reach of having themselves subject to investigation.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Yameen also shared that the Supreme Court should not be subject to pressure from other state powers.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Yameen also shared that the Supreme Court should not be subject to pressure from other state powers. " target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Yameen also shared that the Supreme Court should not be subject to pressure from other state powers.&nbsp;

Yameen noted that the Supreme Court has been intervening on matters that have conventionally been and legally are the mandate of the government.&nbsp;

An investigation into corruption allegations involving Judicial Administrator Hassan Saeed was seized by the Supreme Court, noted Yameen. The Supreme Court had also deliberated on keeping Yameen&#39;s Attorney General and Police Commissioner in office, positions that the president appoints.&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/Maldives?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Maldives</a> president says emergency decree is to investigate &quot;this plot, this coup&quot; of Supreme Court ruling, reports AP
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/960830771320819714?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 6, 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>

Yameen noted that everyone must be held accountable for their actions and if the majority of the Parliament wishes for his impeachment, he would stand by it.&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="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Supreme Court may also issue a directive to impeach the president, which is likely to be resisted by the government.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Supreme Court may also issue a directive to impeach the president, which is likely to be resisted by the government. " target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The ongoing tussle between the country&#39;s apex court and the president may trigger a constitutional crisis in the country. Yameen&#39;s control over the nation is also been undermined.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday called for an immediate release of former president Mohamed Nasheed along with eight other opposition leaders. The 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.

Meanwhile, President Abdulla Yameen has declared a state of emergency in the country. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed have been arrested.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed have been arrested." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;The President has been compelled to declare a state of emergency due to the risk currently posed to national security,&quot; the statement issued on Monday said.&nbsp;

Top justice and former president arrested&nbsp;

According to reports, Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed have been arrested. President Abdulla Yameen ordered security forces to seize control of the court and arrest the chief justice among others.&nbsp;

The president of the Maldives also accused judges of plotting to overthrow him, hours after he declared a state of emergency and ordered the arrest of the chief justice.

&quot;I had to declare a national emergency because there was no other way to investigate these judges,&quot; President Abdulla Yameen said in a televised address to the nation. &quot;We had to find out how thick the plot or coup was.&quot;

The exiled leader of the Maldives opposition Mohamed Nasheed has called out to the US and India to help remove the president from office, saying he had &quot;illegally&quot; declared martial law.

&quot;President (Abdulla) Yameen has illegally declared martial law and overrun the state. We must remove him from power. The people of the Maldives have a legitimate request to world governments, especially to India and the United States,&quot; Nasheed said in a statement released by his party in the Maldivian capital Male.

&quot;On behalf of Maldivian people, we humbly request: India to send an envoy, backed by its military, to release judges &amp; pol. detainees... We request a physical presence,&quot; Nasheed, who is currently in Colombo, said in a Twitter post.

He also urged the United States to block financial transactions of Yameen`s government.

World reacts&nbsp;

India, the United States and Britain have urged Yameen to honour the rule of law and free the detainees.

The United States has expressed its support to the people of the Maldives and said the government must respect the law and democratic values.&quot;America stands with the people of Maldives. The Maldivian government and military must respect the rule of law, freedom of expression, and democratic institutions. The world is watching,&quot; the U.S. National Security Council tweeted.

China has expressed hope that the Maldivian government will be able to resolve the political crisis internally through dialogue with the opposition.&nbsp;

&quot;Any Indian involvement would risk raising tensions further in the archipelago of 400,000 people and intensify the rivalry with China.&nbsp; 
Aside from the intervention in 1988, India has generally tried to avoid meddling in the Maldives` internal affairs, although it has continued to provide military and economic assistance,&quot; states a Reuters report.&nbsp;

In an official statement, Yameen also noted that the justices cannot be held accountable

Maldives' President Abdulla Yameen has called the Supreme Court's order unconstitutional. Yameen quashed the Supreme Court's directive to release nine prisoners noting that there were several obstacles to enforcing the apex court's ruling which the government was not able to communicate with the court. In an official statement, Yameen also noted that the justices cannot be held accountable. He shared that although the law is of the paramount significance, no one should be beyond the reach of having themselves subject to investigation. Yameen also shared that the Supreme Court should not be subject to pressure from other state powers. × Yameen also shared that the Supreme Court should not be subject to pressure from other state powers. Yameen noted that the Supreme Court has been intervening on matters that have conventionally been and legally are the mandate of the government. An investigation into corruption allegations involving Judicial Administrator Hassan Saeed was seized by the Supreme Court, noted Yameen. The Supreme Court had also deliberated on keeping Yameen's Attorney General and Police Commissioner in office, positions that the president appoints. #Maldives president says emergency decree is to investigate "this plot, this coup" of Supreme Court ruling, reports AP — ANI (@ANI) February 6, 2018 × Yameen noted that everyone must be held accountable for their actions and if the majority of the Parliament wishes for his impeachment, he would stand by it. "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. The Supreme Court may also issue a directive to impeach the president, which is likely to be resisted by the government. × The ongoing tussle between the country's apex court and the president may trigger a constitutional crisis in the country. Yameen's control over the nation is also been undermined. The Supreme Court on Thursday called for an immediate release of former president Mohamed Nasheed along with eight other opposition leaders. The 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. Meanwhile, President Abdulla Yameen has declared a state of emergency in the country. Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed have been arrested. × "The President has been compelled to declare a state of emergency due to the risk currently posed to national security," the statement issued on Monday said. Top justice and former president arrested According to reports, Former President of Maldives Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed, Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed and Judicial administrator Hassan Saeed have been arrested. President Abdulla Yameen ordered security forces to seize control of the court and arrest the chief justice among others. The president of the Maldives also accused judges of plotting to overthrow him, hours after he declared a state of emergency and ordered the arrest of the chief justice. "I had to declare a national emergency because there was no other way to investigate these judges," President Abdulla Yameen said in a televised address to the nation. "We had to find out how thick the plot or coup was." The exiled leader of the Maldives opposition Mohamed Nasheed has called out to the US and India to help remove the president from office, saying he had "illegally" declared martial law. "President (Abdulla) Yameen has illegally declared martial law and overrun the state. We must remove him from power. The people of the Maldives have a legitimate request to world governments, especially to India and the United States," Nasheed said in a statement released by his party in the Maldivian capital Male. "On behalf of Maldivian people, we humbly request: India to send an envoy, backed by its military, to release judges & pol. detainees... We request a physical presence," Nasheed, who is currently in Colombo, said in a Twitter post. He also urged the United States to block financial transactions of Yameen`s government. World reacts India, the United States and Britain have urged Yameen to honour the rule of law and free the detainees. The United States has expressed its support to the people of the Maldives and said the government must respect the law and democratic values."America stands with the people of Maldives. The Maldivian government and military must respect the rule of law, freedom of expression, and democratic institutions. The world is watching," the U.S. National Security Council tweeted. China has expressed hope that the Maldivian government will be able to resolve the political crisis internally through dialogue with the opposition. "Any Indian involvement would risk raising tensions further in the archipelago of 400,000 people and intensify the rivalry with China. Aside from the intervention in 1988, India has generally tried to avoid meddling in the Maldives` internal affairs, although it has continued to provide military and economic assistance," states a Reuters report.

Maldives: Top justices arrested, President Yameen accuses judges of plotting to overthrow him

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Centre for filing an 845-page affidavit containing incomplete information about solid waste management across the country and said the apex court is not a &quot;garbage collector&quot;.

The top court declined to take the affidavit on record and said the government cannot dump &quot;junk&quot; before it.

&quot;What are you trying to do? Are you trying to impress us? We are not impressed. You are trying to dump everything on us. We are not going to accept it,&quot; a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said.

&quot;Don&#39;t do this. Whatever junk you have, you dump it before us. We are not garbage collectors. Be absolutely clear about this,&quot; the bench said.

The bench directed the Centre to file a chart within three weeks indicating whether the states and union territories have constituted state-level advisory boards in accordance with the provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules 2016.

It also directed the government to state in its chart the date the advisory boards were constituted in the states and UTs, names of members of the boards and also details of any meetings conducted by them.

At the outset, the counsel appearing for the Centre said they would file an 845-page affidavit in the matter during the course of the day.

However, when the bench posed certain queries, the counsel was unable to answer them properly.

The counsel informed the court that they have received information from 22 states about constitution of state-level advisory boards and have compiled data received from the respective states.

&quot;There is no point in filing affidavits if they contain nothing. We are not taking this affidavit on record ... You have not seen it and you want us to see this affidavit,&quot; the bench observed.

The court had on December 12 last year asked the Centre to follow up on the matter of solid waste management with all states and UTs and furnish details before it.

The court had earlier expressed grave concern over the deaths due to vector-borne diseases like dengue and chikungunya and said lack of waste management was the cause of several lives being lost across the country.

It referred to the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 and said the duties of various ministries, like the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Urban Development, were specified in it.

In 2015, the apex court had on its own taken cognizance of death of a seven-year-old boy due to dengue. He had been allegedly denied treatment by five private hospitals and his distraught parents subsequently committed suicide.

The court came down on the Centre for filing an 845-page affidavit containing incomplete information about solid waste management

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Centre for filing an 845-page affidavit containing incomplete information about solid waste management across the country and said the apex court is not a "garbage collector". The top court declined to take the affidavit on record and said the government cannot dump "junk" before it. "What are you trying to do? Are you trying to impress us? We are not impressed. You are trying to dump everything on us. We are not going to accept it," a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said. "Don't do this. Whatever junk you have, you dump it before us. We are not garbage collectors. Be absolutely clear about this," the bench said. The bench directed the Centre to file a chart within three weeks indicating whether the states and union territories have constituted state-level advisory boards in accordance with the provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. It also directed the government to state in its chart the date the advisory boards were constituted in the states and UTs, names of members of the boards and also details of any meetings conducted by them. At the outset, the counsel appearing for the Centre said they would file an 845-page affidavit in the matter during the course of the day. However, when the bench posed certain queries, the counsel was unable to answer them properly. The counsel informed the court that they have received information from 22 states about constitution of state-level advisory boards and have compiled data received from the respective states. "There is no point in filing affidavits if they contain nothing. We are not taking this affidavit on record ... You have not seen it and you want us to see this affidavit," the bench observed. The court had on December 12 last year asked the Centre to follow up on the matter of solid waste management with all states and UTs and furnish details before it. The court had earlier expressed grave concern over the deaths due to vector-borne diseases like dengue and chikungunya and said lack of waste management was the cause of several lives being lost across the country. It referred to the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 and said the duties of various ministries, like the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Urban Development, were specified in it. In 2015, the apex court had on its own taken cognizance of death of a seven-year-old boy due to dengue. He had been allegedly denied treatment by five private hospitals and his distraught parents subsequently committed suicide.

'We are not garbage collectors,' Supreme Court tells Centre

The Maldives Supreme Court on Tuesday revoked its earlier order to release nine high-profile political prisoners.&nbsp;

The announcement came a day after President Abdulla Yameen declared a state of emergency and arrested two Supreme Court judges.&nbsp;

The court&#39;s three remaining judges said in a statement that they were rescinding the order to release the prisoners &quot;in light of the concerns raised by the President&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;The Supreme Court bench hereby rescinds number 5 of its order to release the individuals,&quot; the order said.

The court&#39;s original decision signed by all five judges of the apex court on February 1 had quashed a terrorism conviction against former president and opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed, among others.

The shock decision of the court in support of the political dissidents was seen as clearing the way for Nasheed to end his self-imposed exile and return to the country to contest elections later this year.

The move also included an order for the government to restore the seats of 12 legislators sacked for defecting from Yameen&#39;s party, giving the opposition a majority in the assembly and meaning they could potentially impeach the president.

Yameen however had refused to comply with the order.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/who-is-going-to-rescue-male-32042" target="_blank">Who is going to rescue the Maldives?</a>

He had on Monday instead imposed a 15-day emergency on the island nation.&nbsp;The state of emergency gave the country&#39;s security forces sweeping power to detain and arrest suspects.&nbsp;

Yameen, in an official statement, called the Supreme Court order unconstitutional. He said that were several obstacles to enforcing the apex court&#39;s ruling which the government was not able to communicate to the court.&nbsp;

He added that the justices were &quot;unaccountable&quot;, and that they were <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/supreme-courts-order-is-unconstitutional-maldives-president-yameen-31993" target="_blank">conspiring to overthrow him</a>.&nbsp;

Nasheed&#39;s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said the U-turn of the Supreme Court was due to pressure brought on the three judges.

&quot;Yameen has used coercion to get the original decision revoked,&quot; AFP reported MDP spokesman Hamid Abdul Ghafoor as saying.

Yameen has presided over an escalating crackdown on dissent since he came to power in 2013, battering the image of the upmarket holiday paradise.

India meanwhile has responded strongly to the crisis saying it is &quot;disturbed&quot; by the imposition of the emergency.&nbsp;

Government sources in India have also said that they are keeping their <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maldives-india-to-keep-troops-ready-32037" target="_blank">troops </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maldives-india-to-keep-troops-ready-32037" target="_blank">on</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maldives-india-to-keep-troops-ready-32037" target="_blank"> the ready</a>. The sources added that this was standard operating procedure.&nbsp;

(With inputs from AFP)

The announcement came a day after President Abdulla Yameen declared a state of emergency and arrested two Supreme Court judges

The Maldives Supreme Court on Tuesday revoked its earlier order to release nine high-profile political prisoners. The announcement came a day after President Abdulla Yameen declared a state of emergency and arrested two Supreme Court judges. The court's three remaining judges said in a statement that they were rescinding the order to release the prisoners "in light of the concerns raised by the President". "The Supreme Court bench hereby rescinds number 5 of its order to release the individuals," the order said. The court's original decision signed by all five judges of the apex court on February 1 had quashed a terrorism conviction against former president and opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed, among others. The shock decision of the court in support of the political dissidents was seen as clearing the way for Nasheed to end his self-imposed exile and return to the country to contest elections later this year. The move also included an order for the government to restore the seats of 12 legislators sacked for defecting from Yameen's party, giving the opposition a majority in the assembly and meaning they could potentially impeach the president. Yameen however had refused to comply with the order. Also read: Who is going to rescue the Maldives? He had on Monday instead imposed a 15-day emergency on the island nation. The state of emergency gave the country's security forces sweeping power to detain and arrest suspects. Yameen, in an official statement, called the Supreme Court order unconstitutional. He said that were several obstacles to enforcing the apex court's ruling which the government was not able to communicate to the court. He added that the justices were "unaccountable", and that they were conspiring to overthrow him. Nasheed's Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said the U-turn of the Supreme Court was due to pressure brought on the three judges. "Yameen has used coercion to get the original decision revoked," AFP reported MDP spokesman Hamid Abdul Ghafoor as saying. Yameen has presided over an escalating crackdown on dissent since he came to power in 2013, battering the image of the upmarket holiday paradise. India meanwhile has responded strongly to the crisis saying it is "disturbed" by the imposition of the emergency. Government sources in India have also said that they are keeping their troops on the ready. The sources added that this was standard operating procedure. (With inputs from AFP)

Maldives Supreme Court revokes order to free prisoners

The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal by Hotel Leela Venture Ltd and asked it to pay Rs. 258 crore to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) as royalty for possession of its property near Mumbai International Airport.

A bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha junked the appeal filed by Hotel Leela challenging an order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court.

The court held that there was no infirmity in the High Court order and the appeal filed by Hotel Leela Venture lacked merit.

&quot;The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of,&quot; the bench said.

The High Court had in November 2016 upheld its single judge&#39;s decision asking Hotel Leela Venture Ltd to pay Rs. 258 crore to the AAI as royalty.

Hotel Leela had moved the division bench challenging the single judge&#39;s July 15, 2016 verdict setting aside the arbitration award in favour of Leela Venture in 2012.

The arbitration award had declared that payment of royalty by Leela had become impossible and therefore the parties may enter into a new contract in relation to possession of the property.&nbsp;

The arbitrator had discharged Leela from liability of paying the royalty.

While dismissing Leela&#39;s plea, the division bench had said, &quot;The award is perverse and is liable to be set aside&quot;.

AAI, which owned 29,000 square metre of land near Mumbai Airport, had leased two parcels measuring 9,000 sq mt each to Leela Scottish Lace Ltd and Leela Venture Limited. The remaining 11,000 sq mt was initially given on a license to Leela.

The dispute relates to the 11,000 sq mt of land, which was leased to Leela in February 1996 for a period of 30 years for adding a wing of 150 rooms to the existing hotel.

Hotel Leela had moved the division bench challenging the single judge's July 15, 2016 verdict setting aside the arbitration award in favour of Leela Venture in 2012

The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal by Hotel Leela Venture Ltd and asked it to pay Rs. 258 crore to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) as royalty for possession of its property near Mumbai International Airport. A bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha junked the appeal filed by Hotel Leela challenging an order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court. The court held that there was no infirmity in the High Court order and the appeal filed by Hotel Leela Venture lacked merit. "The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of," the bench said. The High Court had in November 2016 upheld its single judge's decision asking Hotel Leela Venture Ltd to pay Rs. 258 crore to the AAI as royalty. Hotel Leela had moved the division bench challenging the single judge's July 15, 2016 verdict setting aside the arbitration award in favour of Leela Venture in 2012. The arbitration award had declared that payment of royalty by Leela had become impossible and therefore the parties may enter into a new contract in relation to possession of the property. The arbitrator had discharged Leela from liability of paying the royalty. While dismissing Leela's plea, the division bench had said, "The award is perverse and is liable to be set aside". AAI, which owned 29,000 square metre of land near Mumbai Airport, had leased two parcels measuring 9,000 sq mt each to Leela Scottish Lace Ltd and Leela Venture Limited. The remaining 11,000 sq mt was initially given on a license to Leela. The dispute relates to the 11,000 sq mt of land, which was leased to Leela in February 1996 for a period of 30 years for adding a wing of 150 rooms to the existing hotel.

Supreme Court directs Delhi's Hotel Leela to pay Rs 258 crore to Airports Authority of India

The Aadhaar law cannot be struck down just because it can be misused, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.&nbsp;

A five-judge bench of the Supreme court is hearing a bunch of petitions against the Aadhaar Act.&nbsp;

&quot;We find it problematic to strike down a law merely on the possibility of misuse,&quot; Justice Chandrachud said Tuesday.&nbsp;

&quot;So treat Aadhaar as an exception,&quot; replied Kapil Sibal, who is arguing for the petitioners against the Act.&nbsp;

Sibal said that they are not saying there is a possibility of misuse. The &quot;misuse already exists everyday&quot;, Sibal said.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-may-cause-death-of-citizens-civil-rights-lawyer-for-petitioners-29842" target="_blank">&#39;Aadhaar may cause death of civil rights&#39;</a>

&quot;RTI made the citizen more powerful. Will Aadhaar Act make the state ever more powerful?&quot; Sibal asked.&nbsp;

Sibal said that &quot;every technology can be hacked. If somebody says it cannot be hacked, they are lying.&quot;&nbsp;

&quot;There is no technology that cannot be misused,&quot; he said. Even the &quot;telephone is misused&quot;, he added

To which&nbsp;Justice Sikri replied: &quot;Then there should be no inventions at all.&quot;&nbsp;

The Aadhaar Act aims to give every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says that will help streamline the delivery of services to them.&nbsp;

The government has since ordered the furnishing of Aadhaar numbers to avail government benefits, as also the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers.&nbsp;

A number of petitions have been filed against the programme. The Supreme Court had ordered the grouping of the petitions and is hearing them at one go.&nbsp;

The petitioners have argued that the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers is &quot;illegal and unconstitutional&quot;.&nbsp;

There have been reports in recent months of people unable to get government rations -- because they did not have Aadhaar numbers or were unable to furnish them -- dying from starvation. There have also been reports of citizens&#39; <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-issues-virtual-id-against-aadhaar-to-strengthen-data-security-29128" target="_blank">data collected under the Aadhaar programme being sold</a>.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

'We find it problematic to strike down a law merely on the possibility of misuse,' Justice Chandrachud said Tuesday

The Aadhaar law cannot be struck down just because it can be misused, the Supreme Court said Tuesday. A five-judge bench of the Supreme court is hearing a bunch of petitions against the Aadhaar Act. "We find it problematic to strike down a law merely on the possibility of misuse," Justice Chandrachud said Tuesday. "So treat Aadhaar as an exception," replied Kapil Sibal, who is arguing for the petitioners against the Act. Sibal said that they are not saying there is a possibility of misuse. The "misuse already exists everyday", Sibal said. Also read: 'Aadhaar may cause death of civil rights' "RTI made the citizen more powerful. Will Aadhaar Act make the state ever more powerful?" Sibal asked. Sibal said that "every technology can be hacked. If somebody says it cannot be hacked, they are lying." "There is no technology that cannot be misused," he said. Even the "telephone is misused", he added To which Justice Sikri replied: "Then there should be no inventions at all." The Aadhaar Act aims to give every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says that will help streamline the delivery of services to them. The government has since ordered the furnishing of Aadhaar numbers to avail government benefits, as also the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers. A number of petitions have been filed against the programme. The Supreme Court had ordered the grouping of the petitions and is hearing them at one go. The petitioners have argued that the linking of the numbers to bank accounts and telephone numbers is "illegal and unconstitutional". There have been reports in recent months of people unable to get government rations -- because they did not have Aadhaar numbers or were unable to furnish them -- dying from starvation. There have also been reports of citizens' data collected under the Aadhaar programme being sold.

Aadhaar law cannot be struck down just because it can be misused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday cracked a whip against khap panchayats in connection with cases pertaining to so-called honour killing.

The top&nbsp;court asked khap panchayats to &quot;not become conscience keepers&quot; as the &quot;law will take its own course&quot;.

The top court also asked the Centre and petitioners to come up with effective suggestions for the protection of couples from khap panchayats.

The Supreme Court told the advocate representing khap&nbsp;panchayats that &quot;it is the courts to decide if marriages are legally valid or not.&quot; 
 
Also Read -&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/attacks-on-couples-by-khap-panchayats-absolutely-illegal-supreme-court-29736">Attacks on couples by </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/attacks-on-couples-by-khap-panchayats-absolutely-illegal-supreme-court-29736">khap</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/attacks-on-couples-by-khap-panchayats-absolutely-illegal-supreme-court-29736"> panchayats &#39;absolutely illegal&#39;: Supreme Court</a>

The Supreme Court also pulled up the Khap Panchayats for taking the law into their own hands in the name of so-called honour killings. 
 
Earlier on January 16, the top court rapped the Centre for failing to prevent attacks on couples, who did inter-caste marriages.The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, said, &quot;If the Centre does not act against Khap Panchayats, then the court will step in.&quot;

The top court also observed that &quot;no Khap Panchayat or society can question&quot; if an adult man and woman opt for an inter-caste marriage.

The top court said 'it is the courts to decide if marriages are legally valid or not'

The Supreme Court on Monday cracked a whip against khap panchayats in connection with cases pertaining to so-called honour killing. The top court asked khap panchayats to "not become conscience keepers" as the "law will take its own course". The top court also asked the Centre and petitioners to come up with effective suggestions for the protection of couples from khap panchayats. The Supreme Court told the advocate representing khap panchayats that "it is the courts to decide if marriages are legally valid or not." Also Read - Attacks on couples by khap panchayats 'absolutely illegal': Supreme Court The Supreme Court also pulled up the Khap Panchayats for taking the law into their own hands in the name of so-called honour killings. Earlier on January 16, the top court rapped the Centre for failing to prevent attacks on couples, who did inter-caste marriages.The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, said, "If the Centre does not act against Khap Panchayats, then the court will step in." The top court also observed that "no Khap Panchayat or society can question" if an adult man and woman opt for an inter-caste marriage.

Supreme Court raps khap panchayats, asks them not to become 'conscience keepers'

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce the final verdict in Cauvery water dispute this week.

On January 9, the Apex Court indicated that it would deliver within a month its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between riparian states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, saying enough confusion has been created on it for over two decades.

A three-judge bench of the apex court had reserved its 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, after marathon hearing on September 20, 2017.

&quot;Enough of confusion has been there for past two decades. Any forum can touch the matter after the verdict is delivered in the issue. We will give the verdict in four weeks,&quot; a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud had said on January 9.

The court&#39;s remark had come during the hearing of a plea filed in 2016 by a citizens&#39; group led by philanthropist Kiran Mazumdar Shaw seeking its intervention for the supply of drinking water to residents of Bengaluru and surrounding districts.

The group under the banner of Bangalore Political Action Committee (BPAC) in which Shaw is the President and former Infosys director and educationist Mohandas Pai the Vice President, had told the court that citizens of Bengaluru need adequate drinking water and their right to life needed to be protected by the top court.

In Karnataka, the verdict is being watched very closely as the polls are round the corner. An unfavourable verdict would put the Congress in Karnataka in a spot of bother as it relies heavily on the votes in the Cauvery belt.

(With inputs from PTI)

With the Cauvery Waters verdict round the corner, the atmosphere is tense in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce the final verdict in Cauvery water dispute this week. On January 9, the Apex Court indicated that it would deliver within a month its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute between riparian states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, saying enough confusion has been created on it for over two decades. A three-judge bench of the apex court had reserved its 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, after marathon hearing on September 20, 2017. "Enough of confusion has been there for past two decades. Any forum can touch the matter after the verdict is delivered in the issue. We will give the verdict in four weeks," a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud had said on January 9. The court's remark had come during the hearing of a plea filed in 2016 by a citizens' group led by philanthropist Kiran Mazumdar Shaw seeking its intervention for the supply of drinking water to residents of Bengaluru and surrounding districts. The group under the banner of Bangalore Political Action Committee (BPAC) in which Shaw is the President and former Infosys director and educationist Mohandas Pai the Vice President, had told the court that citizens of Bengaluru need adequate drinking water and their right to life needed to be protected by the top court. In Karnataka, the verdict is being watched very closely as the polls are round the corner. An unfavourable verdict would put the Congress in Karnataka in a spot of bother as it relies heavily on the votes in the Cauvery belt. (With inputs from PTI)

Cauvery water dispute: Supreme Court likely to deliver final verdict this week

The Supreme Court on Monday castigated Delhi&#39;s civic authorities for &quot;keeping their eyes closed&quot; and waiting for disaster to happen, questioning the DDA on its proposals to change the city&#39;s Master Plan 2021.

Hearing a matter related to sealing in Delhi, the apex court said it appeared that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was &quot;succumbing to some pressure&quot;.

&quot;Everybody in Delhi is just keeping their eyes closed and waiting for disaster to happen. You (civic bodies) have learnt nothing from Uphaar fire tragedy and incidents in Bawana and Kamala Mills,&quot; a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said.

The DDA recently proposed bringing uniform floor area ratio (FAR) for shop-cum-residence plots and complexes at par with residential plots, a move that would come as a big relief to traders facing the threat of sealing.

FAR is the ratio of a building&#39;s total floor area (gross floor area) to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built.

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for some of the petitioners, said the DDA had recently proposed changes in the Master Plan.

&quot;What about the people who are staying in Delhi?&quot; the bench asked DDA.

&quot;You have to hear the people also. You cannot hear only some people,&quot; it said.

The bench referred to the ongoing illegal constructions in Delhi and asked, &quot;Are you (DDA) looking after the interest of the people of Delhi or not?&quot;

Stressing that there has to be rule of law, the court said Delhi was grappling with several problems like waste management, pollution and parking.

&quot;Twenty out of 13 most polluted cities of the world are in India. Delhi is perhaps the most polluted. I do not know what civic authorities are doing in Delhi,&quot; Justice Lokur observed.

The bench directed the DDA to file an affidavit within two weeks, indicating the changes it proposes in Master Plan 2021.

The DDA&#39;s proposals are expected to come as a big relief to traders, who have been seeking uniform FAR, as several properties have been sealed by the civic bodies recently.

Civic bodies in north, south and central Delhi have been carrying out sealing drives. It started in December last year with action against more than 50 shops in Defence Colony Market at the instance of a Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee.

The apex court had observed on January 31 that the mandate given to its monitoring committee to oversee implementation of laws relating to the sealing of illegal premises in Delhi does not mean that other authorities would not do their work.

The court made the observation while hearing the pleas by traders of a marble market in south Delhi where South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) had carried out sealing drive as per the direction of the monitoring committee.

The apex court had earlier observed that the rule of law over sanction to construct buildings had &quot;completely broken down&quot; in Delhi and expressed concern over illegal construction.

It had also ordered restoration of its 2006 monitoring committee to identify and seal such offending structures.

The monitoring committee, comprising K J Rao, former advisor to the Election Commissioner, Bhure Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major General (Retd) Som Jhingan, was set up on March 24, 2006, by the apex court.&nbsp;

Everybody in Delhi is just keeping their eyes closed and waiting for disaster to happen. You (civic bodies) have learnt nothing from Uphaar fire tragedy and incidents in Bawana and Kamala Mills,'a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said

The Supreme Court on Monday castigated Delhi's civic authorities for "keeping their eyes closed" and waiting for disaster to happen, questioning the DDA on its proposals to change the city's Master Plan 2021. Hearing a matter related to sealing in Delhi, the apex court said it appeared that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was "succumbing to some pressure". "Everybody in Delhi is just keeping their eyes closed and waiting for disaster to happen. You (civic bodies) have learnt nothing from Uphaar fire tragedy and incidents in Bawana and Kamala Mills," a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said. The DDA recently proposed bringing uniform floor area ratio (FAR) for shop-cum-residence plots and complexes at par with residential plots, a move that would come as a big relief to traders facing the threat of sealing. FAR is the ratio of a building's total floor area (gross floor area) to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built. During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for some of the petitioners, said the DDA had recently proposed changes in the Master Plan. "What about the people who are staying in Delhi?" the bench asked DDA. "You have to hear the people also. You cannot hear only some people," it said. The bench referred to the ongoing illegal constructions in Delhi and asked, "Are you (DDA) looking after the interest of the people of Delhi or not?" Stressing that there has to be rule of law, the court said Delhi was grappling with several problems like waste management, pollution and parking. "Twenty out of 13 most polluted cities of the world are in India. Delhi is perhaps the most polluted. I do not know what civic authorities are doing in Delhi," Justice Lokur observed. The bench directed the DDA to file an affidavit within two weeks, indicating the changes it proposes in Master Plan 2021. The DDA's proposals are expected to come as a big relief to traders, who have been seeking uniform FAR, as several properties have been sealed by the civic bodies recently. Civic bodies in north, south and central Delhi have been carrying out sealing drives. It started in December last year with action against more than 50 shops in Defence Colony Market at the instance of a Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee. The apex court had observed on January 31 that the mandate given to its monitoring committee to oversee implementation of laws relating to the sealing of illegal premises in Delhi does not mean that other authorities would not do their work. The court made the observation while hearing the pleas by traders of a marble market in south Delhi where South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) had carried out sealing drive as per the direction of the monitoring committee. The apex court had earlier observed that the rule of law over sanction to construct buildings had "completely broken down" in Delhi and expressed concern over illegal construction. It had also ordered restoration of its 2006 monitoring committee to identify and seal such offending structures. The monitoring committee, comprising K J Rao, former advisor to the Election Commissioner, Bhure Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major General (Retd) Som Jhingan, was set up on March 24, 2006, by the apex court.

Delhi's civic authorities waiting for disaster to happen: Supreme Court

The Maldives&#39; state health minister said on Monday he has resigned from the administration of President Abdulla Yameen in protest against the government&#39;s decision to not enforce a Supreme Court order freeing opposition leaders from prison.

State Health Minister Hussain Rasheed&#39;s resignation is the first since the government defied Thursday&#39;s court order and said it will resist any attempt to enforce the decision.

&quot;It is not possible for my conscience to accept the lack of answers to the way the government is dealing with the orders of the highest court on state institutions,&quot; Rasheed said in his letter of resignation, which was reviewed by Reuters.

State Health Minister Hussain Rasheed's resignation is the first since the government defied Thursday's court order and said it will resist any attempt to enforce the decision

The Maldives' state health minister said on Monday he has resigned from the administration of President Abdulla Yameen in protest against the government's decision to not enforce a Supreme Court order freeing opposition leaders from prison. State Health Minister Hussain Rasheed's resignation is the first since the government defied Thursday's court order and said it will resist any attempt to enforce the decision. "It is not possible for my conscience to accept the lack of answers to the way the government is dealing with the orders of the highest court on state institutions," Rasheed said in his letter of resignation, which was reviewed by Reuters.

Maldives minister resigns to protest government response to Supreme Court ruling

Maldives capital Male continues to remain tense, with the opposition and general public unrelentingly asking President Yameen to step down and allow a new leadership to take charge.

The opposition, media and others have confirmed that there is a heavy army and police presence at all key locations, including the Parliament and the Supreme Court, and that judges continue to remain in fear about their safety as long as President Yameen stays in office.

Rumours abound that the army and paramilitary forces could enter the Supreme Court premises during the course of the day and take the judges into their custody on the orders of the president.

In his defense, President Yameen had written letters to Chief Justice asking him to revoke his orders. The government has reportedly received information that the Supreme Court may issue orders to arrest President Yameen soon.

The people of Maldives, including the opposition leadership, are insisting that President Yameen resigns for not following the apex court&#39;s orders. They feel he is corrupt, perpetrating misrule and is guilty of committing human rights abuses. Yameen, however, has denied these charges.

The President denies the allegations.

Eva Abdulla, a Member of Parliament told ANI, &quot;He&#39;d eventually have to capitulate, yes. Or resign&quot;.

When ANI asked Ahmed Mahloof, spokesperson of the Joint Opposition, as to whether President Yameen would abide by the court&#39;s orders, he said, &quot;he won&#39;t&quot;.

Two Members of Parliament Abdullah Sinan and Ahmed Ilham were detained on Sunday, produced before a criminal court on Monday, and thereafter released.

The duo were among the dozen former government lawmakers disqualified by the country&#39;s electoral watchdog over the Supreme Court&#39;s anti-defection ruling.

The reinstatement of the disqualified Members of Parliament, if achieved, would allow the opposition to claim that it is in the majority, and therefore, have the right to form the government post President Yameen&#39;s exit from office.

The opposition, media and others have confirmed that there is a heavy army and police presence at all key locations, including the Parliament and the Supreme Court

Maldives capital Male continues to remain tense, with the opposition and general public unrelentingly asking President Yameen to step down and allow a new leadership to take charge. The opposition, media and others have confirmed that there is a heavy army and police presence at all key locations, including the Parliament and the Supreme Court, and that judges continue to remain in fear about their safety as long as President Yameen stays in office. Rumours abound that the army and paramilitary forces could enter the Supreme Court premises during the course of the day and take the judges into their custody on the orders of the president. In his defense, President Yameen had written letters to Chief Justice asking him to revoke his orders. The government has reportedly received information that the Supreme Court may issue orders to arrest President Yameen soon. The people of Maldives, including the opposition leadership, are insisting that President Yameen resigns for not following the apex court's orders. They feel he is corrupt, perpetrating misrule and is guilty of committing human rights abuses. Yameen, however, has denied these charges. The President denies the allegations. Eva Abdulla, a Member of Parliament told ANI, "He'd eventually have to capitulate, yes. Or resign". When ANI asked Ahmed Mahloof, spokesperson of the Joint Opposition, as to whether President Yameen would abide by the court's orders, he said, "he won't". Two Members of Parliament Abdullah Sinan and Ahmed Ilham were detained on Sunday, produced before a criminal court on Monday, and thereafter released. The duo were among the dozen former government lawmakers disqualified by the country's electoral watchdog over the Supreme Court's anti-defection ruling. The reinstatement of the disqualified Members of Parliament, if achieved, would allow the opposition to claim that it is in the majority, and therefore, have the right to form the government post President Yameen's exit from office.

Political crisis in Maldives continues, demand for President's resignation grows

The Supreme Court in the Maldives is trying to impeach President Abdulla Yameen for not obeying its order to release jailed opposition leaders, the attorney general said on Sunday, warning of further instability in the Indian Ocean nation.

The Maldives, best known for its luxury resorts, has been in a fresh political crisis since the top court threw out terrorism convictions last week against former president Mohamed Nasheed and others who have been trying to oust the president for years.

Yameen has faced calls at home, and from the United States and India, among other nations, to heed the court decision on Nasheed, the island&#39;s first democratically elected president, and the others, but has dug in his heels so far.

Home to about 400,000 people, the Maldives has also been drawn into a region-wide tussle for influence between India - with which it has long-standing political and security ties - and China, which opened an embassy in 2011 and has offered technical and financial assistance to build infrastructure.

Attorney General Mohamed Anil said the government had received information the Supreme Court was preparing to fire Yameen, but such a move would be illegal and resisted by government law enforcement authorities.

&quot;We have received information that things might happen that will lead to a national security crisis,&quot; Anil told reporters in the capital, Male.

&quot;The information says the Supreme Court might issue a ruling to impeach or remove the president from power,&quot; he said, adding that government bodies had been given instructions not to carry out such an order.

Riot police stood guard outside government offices in Male and the Republic Square, a site of protests by opposition activists.

The combined opposition said it feared a military takeover of the islands to preserve Yameen&#39;s grip on power.

&quot;The intimidation of the Supreme Court justices, with the highly irregular statement made by the attorney general defying the Supreme Court, supported by the two chiefs of the security forces, is tantamount to the effective sidelining of the judiciary and in direct contravention of the constitution,&quot; it said in a statement.

&quot;Maldivians are fearful that President Yameen is about to order a full military takeover of the country, in an attempt to ensure he is not removed from office.&quot;

Biggest challenge&nbsp;

The crisis poses the biggest threat to Yameen&#39;s control of the Maldives since he took power in 2013, defeating Nasheed in an election the latter&#39;s supporters say was rigged.

Yameen has stopped short of saying he will not obey the court order. He told a party meeting on Saturday he &quot;did not expect the Supreme Court ruling at all&quot;.

Critics of the government continued to face pressure. On Sunday, police raided the home of Hassan Saeed, the head of the judicial administration department, which the opposition said was considering a corruption investigation into Yameen.

Police said in a statement they were looking to arrest Saeed over an investigation into apartment purchases.

They were also inquiring whether family members of Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, who handed down last week&#39;s ruling, were involved in the apartment purchases, police said.

The political drama in the Maldives, which is made up of 26 coral atolls and 1,192 individual islands, centres on tiny, densely populated Male, the base of all its major institutions.

Besides political wrangling, the largely Muslim island chain is grappling with problems such as significant numbers of radicalised youth who enlisted to fight for the Islamic State militant group in the Middle East.

Yameen on Saturday fired his second police chief in three days.

Yameen has faced calls at home, and from the United States and India, among other nations, to heed the court decision on Nasheed

The Supreme Court in the Maldives is trying to impeach President Abdulla Yameen for not obeying its order to release jailed opposition leaders, the attorney general said on Sunday, warning of further instability in the Indian Ocean nation. The Maldives, best known for its luxury resorts, has been in a fresh political crisis since the top court threw out terrorism convictions last week against former president Mohamed Nasheed and others who have been trying to oust the president for years. Yameen has faced calls at home, and from the United States and India, among other nations, to heed the court decision on Nasheed, the island's first democratically elected president, and the others, but has dug in his heels so far. Home to about 400,000 people, the Maldives has also been drawn into a region-wide tussle for influence between India - with which it has long-standing political and security ties - and China, which opened an embassy in 2011 and has offered technical and financial assistance to build infrastructure. Attorney General Mohamed Anil said the government had received information the Supreme Court was preparing to fire Yameen, but such a move would be illegal and resisted by government law enforcement authorities. "We have received information that things might happen that will lead to a national security crisis," Anil told reporters in the capital, Male. "The information says the Supreme Court might issue a ruling to impeach or remove the president from power," he said, adding that government bodies had been given instructions not to carry out such an order. Riot police stood guard outside government offices in Male and the Republic Square, a site of protests by opposition activists. The combined opposition said it feared a military takeover of the islands to preserve Yameen's grip on power. "The intimidation of the Supreme Court justices, with the highly irregular statement made by the attorney general defying the Supreme Court, supported by the two chiefs of the security forces, is tantamount to the effective sidelining of the judiciary and in direct contravention of the constitution," it said in a statement. "Maldivians are fearful that President Yameen is about to order a full military takeover of the country, in an attempt to ensure he is not removed from office." Biggest challenge The crisis poses the biggest threat to Yameen's control of the Maldives since he took power in 2013, defeating Nasheed in an election the latter's supporters say was rigged. Yameen has stopped short of saying he will not obey the court order. He told a party meeting on Saturday he "did not expect the Supreme Court ruling at all". Critics of the government continued to face pressure. On Sunday, police raided the home of Hassan Saeed, the head of the judicial administration department, which the opposition said was considering a corruption investigation into Yameen. Police said in a statement they were looking to arrest Saeed over an investigation into apartment purchases. They were also inquiring whether family members of Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed, who handed down last week's ruling, were involved in the apartment purchases, police said. The political drama in the Maldives, which is made up of 26 coral atolls and 1,192 individual islands, centres on tiny, densely populated Male, the base of all its major institutions. Besides political wrangling, the largely Muslim island chain is grappling with problems such as significant numbers of radicalised youth who enlisted to fight for the Islamic State militant group in the Middle East. Yameen on Saturday fired his second police chief in three days.

Maldives top court seeks to impeach president, attorney general says

The CBI on Friday filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging a 2005 order of the Delhi High Court quashing all charges against the accused persons in the politically-sensitive Rs 64 crore Bofors pay-off case.

The agency filed the appeal against the May 31, 2005 decision of the high court by which all the accused persons including Europe-based industrialists Hinduja brothers were discharged from the case.

The filing of the appeal assumes significance as recently Attorney General K K Venugopal had advised against going for the petition after 12 years of delay.

However, sources said that the law officers after consultation were in favour of the appeal as the CBI placed some important documents and evidence to challenge the high court order.&nbsp;

Advocate Ajay Agrawal, who contested the 2014 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli against the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has also filed an application seeking recusal of Chief Justice Dipak Misra from hearing the matter.

During the last hearing on January 16, the bench had asked&nbsp;Agrawal to explain his locus in filing the appeal and satisfy it how could the matter be entertained at the instance of a third party. 
 
Later, he filed an application seeking the CJI&#39;s recusal alleging that the chief justice was &quot;prejudiced&quot; and &quot;bent upon&quot; dismissing the case without going into the merits.

The&nbsp;Rs.&nbsp;1,437-crore deal between India and Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors for the supply of 400 155mm Howitzer guns for the Indian Army was entered into on March 24, 1986. 
 
Swedish Radio on April 16, 1987, had claimed that the company had paid bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel. 
 
The CBI on January 22, 1990 had registered the FIR for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, the then president of AB Bofors, alleged middleman Win Chadda and the Hinduja brothers.

Earlier, all accused including Hinduja brothers were discharged from the case

The CBI on Friday filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging a 2005 order of the Delhi High Court quashing all charges against the accused persons in the politically-sensitive Rs 64 crore Bofors pay-off case. The agency filed the appeal against the May 31, 2005 decision of the high court by which all the accused persons including Europe-based industrialists Hinduja brothers were discharged from the case. The filing of the appeal assumes significance as recently Attorney General K K Venugopal had advised against going for the petition after 12 years of delay. However, sources said that the law officers after consultation were in favour of the appeal as the CBI placed some important documents and evidence to challenge the high court order. Advocate Ajay Agrawal, who contested the 2014 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli against the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has also filed an application seeking recusal of Chief Justice Dipak Misra from hearing the matter. During the last hearing on January 16, the bench had asked Agrawal to explain his locus in filing the appeal and satisfy it how could the matter be entertained at the instance of a third party. Later, he filed an application seeking the CJI's recusal alleging that the chief justice was "prejudiced" and "bent upon" dismissing the case without going into the merits. The Rs. 1,437-crore deal between India and Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors for the supply of 400 155mm Howitzer guns for the Indian Army was entered into on March 24, 1986. Swedish Radio on April 16, 1987, had claimed that the company had paid bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel. The CBI on January 22, 1990 had registered the FIR for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, the then president of AB Bofors, alleged middleman Win Chadda and the Hinduja brothers.

Bofors case: CBI files plea in SC against HC order quashing charges against accused

India today said it was imperative for &quot;all organs&quot; of the Maldivian government to abide by the country&#39;s Supreme Court order to release all political prisoners &quot;in the spirit of democracy&quot;.

In a statement, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said it was &quot;closely monitoring&quot; the evolving situation in the Maldives and also hoped that the safety and security of Indian expatriates in the island nation would be ensured by the Maldivian authorities under &quot;all circumstances&quot;.

The Maldivian Supreme Court, in a significant development yesterday, ordered the immediate release of the former president Mohamed Nasheed and other opposition leaders

&quot;We have seen last night?s order of the Supreme Court of Maldives releasing all political prisoners. In the spirit of democracy and rule of law, it is imperative for all organs of the Government of Maldives to respect and abide by the order of the apex court,&quot; the MEA said.

It said that as a close and friendly neighbour, India wishes to see a stable, peaceful and prosperous Maldives.

&quot;We are closely monitoring the evolving situation,&quot; said the MEA.

The island nation has witnessed political unrest and street protests since Nasheed was convicted in 2015 on terror charges and sentenced to 13 years in jail.

There were reports of clashes between supporters of Nasheed and police in the capital city Male today where hundreds of policemen were deployed to restore peace.

Nasheed was earlier granted asylum by the UK after he was authorised to seek medical treatment there amid mounting foreign pressure.

The leader, who is currently in Sri Lanka, welcomed the court order and said President Abdulla Yameen must resign in the wake of the ruling by the apex court.

&quot;Welcome tonight&#39;s SC ruling calling for the immediate release of political prisoners and the restoration of their civil and political rights. President Yameen must abide by this ruling and resign. Urge all citizens to avoid confrontation and engage in peaceful political activity,&quot; Nasheed tweeted.

In a statement, the MEA said it was 'closely monitoring' the evolving situation in the Maldives and also hoped that the safety and security of Indian expatriates in the island nation would be ensured by the Maldivian authorities under 'all circumstances'

India today said it was imperative for "all organs" of the Maldivian government to abide by the country's Supreme Court order to release all political prisoners "in the spirit of democracy". In a statement, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said it was "closely monitoring" the evolving situation in the Maldives and also hoped that the safety and security of Indian expatriates in the island nation would be ensured by the Maldivian authorities under "all circumstances". The Maldivian Supreme Court, in a significant development yesterday, ordered the immediate release of the former president Mohamed Nasheed and other opposition leaders "We have seen last night?s order of the Supreme Court of Maldives releasing all political prisoners. In the spirit of democracy and rule of law, it is imperative for all organs of the Government of Maldives to respect and abide by the order of the apex court," the MEA said. It said that as a close and friendly neighbour, India wishes to see a stable, peaceful and prosperous Maldives. "We are closely monitoring the evolving situation," said the MEA. The island nation has witnessed political unrest and street protests since Nasheed was convicted in 2015 on terror charges and sentenced to 13 years in jail. There were reports of clashes between supporters of Nasheed and police in the capital city Male today where hundreds of policemen were deployed to restore peace. Nasheed was earlier granted asylum by the UK after he was authorised to seek medical treatment there amid mounting foreign pressure. The leader, who is currently in Sri Lanka, welcomed the court order and said President Abdulla Yameen must resign in the wake of the ruling by the apex court. "Welcome tonight's SC ruling calling for the immediate release of political prisoners and the restoration of their civil and political rights. President Yameen must abide by this ruling and resign. Urge all citizens to avoid confrontation and engage in peaceful political activity," Nasheed tweeted.

Imperative for Maldivian govt to abide by SC ruling: India

The Supreme Court today adopted a roster system for the allocation of matters to judges with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra deciding to keep to himself the public interest litigation (PIL) cases.&nbsp;

The order of the CJI was made public on the official website of the apex court.

The 13-page notification said a roster of the work for fresh cases notified under the order of the chief justice of India will come into effect from February 5 till further orders.

The decision to make public the roster system for the allocation of matters assumes significance as four seniormost judges -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- in their January 12 press conference had questioned the allocation of sensitive PILs and important cases to the judges junior in seniority.

The notification has given the description of matters that would be allocated to the benches headed by the CJI, justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur, Joseph, A K Sikri, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, A K Goel and R F Nariman.

The names of these 12 judges are in the order of their seniority.&nbsp;

The decision to make public the roster system for the allocation of matters assumes significance as four seniormost judges in their January 12 press conference had questioned the allocation of sensitive PILs and important cases to the judges junior in seniority

The Supreme Court today adopted a roster system for the allocation of matters to judges with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra deciding to keep to himself the public interest litigation (PIL) cases. The order of the CJI was made public on the official website of the apex court. The 13-page notification said a roster of the work for fresh cases notified under the order of the chief justice of India will come into effect from February 5 till further orders. The decision to make public the roster system for the allocation of matters assumes significance as four seniormost judges -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- in their January 12 press conference had questioned the allocation of sensitive PILs and important cases to the judges junior in seniority. The notification has given the description of matters that would be allocated to the benches headed by the CJI, justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur, Joseph, A K Sikri, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, A K Goel and R F Nariman. The names of these 12 judges are in the order of their seniority.

Supreme Court adopts roster system for allocation of matters, CJI keeps PIL cases

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said today his government will move to the Supreme Court seeking a &quot;temporary ban&quot; on the ongoing sealing drive in Delhi, after his meeting with BJP leaders on the issue ended in hostility.

A BJP delegation, led by its Delhi unit chief Manoj Tiwari, walked out of the meeting at Kejriwal&#39;s residence, alleging the AAP government wanted to &quot;divert&quot; the attention.

The leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, Vijender Gupta, alleged that AAP leaders and workers misbehaved with the visiting members of the BJP delegation during the meeting.

Gupta charged that AAP workers entered into a scuffle with BJP workers. He said a police complaint against AAP legislators and others over the incident has been filed.

The complaint filed by Delhi BJP general-secretary Ravinder Gupta with Civil Lines police station named AAP MLAs Jarnail Singh, Akhilesh Tripathi, Rajesh Rishi and Jitender Tomar.

Tiwari said the BJP delegation walked out of the meeting as Kejriwal had converted it into a &quot;public rally&quot;.

&quot;We sensed their dangerous mood and felt that he was not interested in finding a solution to the problem,&quot; he charged.

Kejriwal said he was &quot;sad&quot; that the BJP did not participate in the meeting. He announced the Delhi government will approach the Supreme Court seeking a temporary ban on the drive being carried out by the saffron party-led civic bodies against properties allegedly violating the civic norms.

&quot;I am sad that this meeting could not take place. We will go to the Supreme Court for a temporary ban on sealing this week,&quot; he said.

Kejriwal said if the Centre, the L-G and the BJP wanted, not a single shop would have been sealed in the national capital, alleging that the saffron party was doing politics on the issue.

&quot;Although the BJP delegation had come for a discussion over sealing, they did not raise this issue in the meeting.

&quot;Manoj Tiwari raised only two issues - unauthorised colonies and 351 roads, which have nothing to with the ongoing sealing drive. On 351 roads, there is no sealing yet, but despite this, BJP is raising this issue again and again,&quot; Kejriwal told reporters at his official residence.

He also said the BJP was diverting the attention from the sealing drive.

The chief minister said all the three municipal commissioners have sought two more days&#39; to submit a survey report to the government to change the land use of 351 roads to commercial and mixed land use so that there is no sealing on these roads in the future.

&quot;If the survey report comes in two days, we will submit it in the Supreme Court in this week,&quot; he said.

On the BJP&#39;s claim that AAP MLAs attacked its leaders during the meeting, Kejriwal said that the BJP was levelling &quot;baseless allegations&quot;.

&quot;If any MLA has misbehaved with them, I will throw him out (of the AAP)... Recently, I had written to the L-G on the sealing issue and suggested four steps to give a relief to traders, but it is unfortunate that the Centre and L-G is not taking immediate step to stop the sealing,&quot; Kejriwal said.

He added that BJP leaders wanted a &quot;closed-door&quot; discussion, but he denied it, saying there should be an open discussion on sealing drive that&#39;s why he had also called AAP MLAs and councillors for the meeting.

Meanwhile, Kejriwal visited markets in Chandni Chowk and other areas and interacted with traders hit by sealing drive.

He said he will visit other markets later in the day.

Civic bodies have undertaken the sealing drive initiated by a Supreme Court-appointed Monitoring Committee. Commercial premises have been sealed for failing to deposit conversion charges according to provisions in Master Plan 2021.

The AAP has demanded that the Central government should either bring an ordinance or amend Delhi Master Plan 2021 to stop sealing.

The BJP, on the other hand, demanded that the AAP dispensation should come out with a notification on mix land use to give a relief to the city&#39;s traders.

A BJP delegation, led by its Delhi unit chief Manoj Tiwari, walked out of the meeting at Kejriwal's residence, alleging the AAP government wanted to 'divert the attention

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said today his government will move to the Supreme Court seeking a "temporary ban" on the ongoing sealing drive in Delhi, after his meeting with BJP leaders on the issue ended in hostility. A BJP delegation, led by its Delhi unit chief Manoj Tiwari, walked out of the meeting at Kejriwal's residence, alleging the AAP government wanted to "divert" the attention. The leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, Vijender Gupta, alleged that AAP leaders and workers misbehaved with the visiting members of the BJP delegation during the meeting. Gupta charged that AAP workers entered into a scuffle with BJP workers. He said a police complaint against AAP legislators and others over the incident has been filed. The complaint filed by Delhi BJP general-secretary Ravinder Gupta with Civil Lines police station named AAP MLAs Jarnail Singh, Akhilesh Tripathi, Rajesh Rishi and Jitender Tomar. Tiwari said the BJP delegation walked out of the meeting as Kejriwal had converted it into a "public rally". "We sensed their dangerous mood and felt that he was not interested in finding a solution to the problem," he charged. Kejriwal said he was "sad" that the BJP did not participate in the meeting. He announced the Delhi government will approach the Supreme Court seeking a temporary ban on the drive being carried out by the saffron party-led civic bodies against properties allegedly violating the civic norms. "I am sad that this meeting could not take place. We will go to the Supreme Court for a temporary ban on sealing this week," he said. Kejriwal said if the Centre, the L-G and the BJP wanted, not a single shop would have been sealed in the national capital, alleging that the saffron party was doing politics on the issue. "Although the BJP delegation had come for a discussion over sealing, they did not raise this issue in the meeting. "Manoj Tiwari raised only two issues - unauthorised colonies and 351 roads, which have nothing to with the ongoing sealing drive. On 351 roads, there is no sealing yet, but despite this, BJP is raising this issue again and again," Kejriwal told reporters at his official residence. He also said the BJP was diverting the attention from the sealing drive. The chief minister said all the three municipal commissioners have sought two more days' to submit a survey report to the government to change the land use of 351 roads to commercial and mixed land use so that there is no sealing on these roads in the future. "If the survey report comes in two days, we will submit it in the Supreme Court in this week," he said. On the BJP's claim that AAP MLAs attacked its leaders during the meeting, Kejriwal said that the BJP was levelling "baseless allegations". "If any MLA has misbehaved with them, I will throw him out (of the AAP)... Recently, I had written to the L-G on the sealing issue and suggested four steps to give a relief to traders, but it is unfortunate that the Centre and L-G is not taking immediate step to stop the sealing," Kejriwal said. He added that BJP leaders wanted a "closed-door" discussion, but he denied it, saying there should be an open discussion on sealing drive that's why he had also called AAP MLAs and councillors for the meeting. Meanwhile, Kejriwal visited markets in Chandni Chowk and other areas and interacted with traders hit by sealing drive. He said he will visit other markets later in the day. Civic bodies have undertaken the sealing drive initiated by a Supreme Court-appointed Monitoring Committee. Commercial premises have been sealed for failing to deposit conversion charges according to provisions in Master Plan 2021. The AAP has demanded that the Central government should either bring an ordinance or amend Delhi Master Plan 2021 to stop sealing. The BJP, on the other hand, demanded that the AAP dispensation should come out with a notification on mix land use to give a relief to the city's traders.

Delhi government to move Supreme court to seek 'temporary ban' on sealing drive

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy was today asked by the Supreme Court to satisfy it on the aspect of maintainability of his plea seeking a SIT probe into the death of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor&#39;s wife Sunanda Pushkar.

The apex court observed this while hearing Swamy&#39;s appeal against the Delhi High Court&#39;s October 26 last year&#39;s verdict dismissing his plea for a probe by a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) into Pushkar&#39;s death.

Pushkar was found dead under mysterious circumstances in a suite of a five-star hotel in Delhi on the night of January 17, 2014.

&quot;Before going into the merits, we need to be satisfied on maintainability (of the plea),&quot; a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy told Swamy.

Swamy told the bench that when the matter relating to the probe into Indian Premier League (IPL) was going on, the issue of Pushkar&#39;s &quot;unnatural death&quot; came to fore.

&quot;It took one year for Delhi Police to lodge an FIR. The autopsy report says it was an unnatural death. The FIR says it was a murder. Nothing has been done,&quot; he told the court, adding that he had thereafter moved the high court.

To this, the bench asked, &quot;what is the conclusion of the police?&quot;

Swamy then contended that the FIR said it was an unnatural death based on the post-mortem report.

&quot;The police must have come to a conclusion by now. The question is of maintainability of the plea,&quot; the bench said after which Swamy said it was a matter of &quot;public interest&quot;.

On the issue of maintainability, the BJP leader said he had appeared in many cases involving politicians, including former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister late J Jayalalithaa.

The bench thereafter referred to the conclusions arrived at by the high court on Swamy&#39;s plea and said, &quot;in view of the findings by the Delhi High Court, we need to be satisfied on the aspect of maintainability&quot;.

The bench asked him to first argue on maintainability of the plea and posted the matter for hearing after three weeks.

The high court had last year rejected Swamy&#39;s plea for a court-monitored SIT probe into Pushkar&#39;s death and termed his public interest litigation (PIL) as a &quot;textbook example of a political interest litigation&quot;.

Swamy, in his plea before the high court, had alleged that the police had &quot;botched up&quot; the probe and accused Tharoor of &quot;interfering&quot; in the investigation as a minister in the erstwhile UPA regime and later.

The division bench of the high court had chastised the BJP leader and his lawyer, who was a co-petitioner before it, for making &quot;sweeping allegations&quot; in the petition against Tharoor and the Delhi Police without giving any basis for such accusations.

When the high court had questioned the source based on which he had made the allegations, Swamy and his lawyer had said they would file affidavits to reply to the court&#39;s query.

However, the high court had rejected their offer, saying it appeared that they had concealed information pertinent to the case which they ought to have disclosed when they had filed the petition.

The high court had also said that Swamy ought to have mentioned his political affiliation as well as that of Tharoor in his plea as these facts were important to the adjudication of the case.

Pushkar was found dead under mysterious circumstances in a suite of a five-star hotel in Delhi on January 17, 2014

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy was today asked by the Supreme Court to satisfy it on the aspect of maintainability of his plea seeking a SIT probe into the death of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor's wife Sunanda Pushkar. The apex court observed this while hearing Swamy's appeal against the Delhi High Court's October 26 last year's verdict dismissing his plea for a probe by a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) into Pushkar's death. Pushkar was found dead under mysterious circumstances in a suite of a five-star hotel in Delhi on the night of January 17, 2014. "Before going into the merits, we need to be satisfied on maintainability (of the plea)," a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy told Swamy. Swamy told the bench that when the matter relating to the probe into Indian Premier League (IPL) was going on, the issue of Pushkar's "unnatural death" came to fore. "It took one year for Delhi Police to lodge an FIR. The autopsy report says it was an unnatural death. The FIR says it was a murder. Nothing has been done," he told the court, adding that he had thereafter moved the high court. To this, the bench asked, "what is the conclusion of the police?" Swamy then contended that the FIR said it was an unnatural death based on the post-mortem report. "The police must have come to a conclusion by now. The question is of maintainability of the plea," the bench said after which Swamy said it was a matter of "public interest". On the issue of maintainability, the BJP leader said he had appeared in many cases involving politicians, including former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister late J Jayalalithaa. The bench thereafter referred to the conclusions arrived at by the high court on Swamy's plea and said, "in view of the findings by the Delhi High Court, we need to be satisfied on the aspect of maintainability". The bench asked him to first argue on maintainability of the plea and posted the matter for hearing after three weeks. The high court had last year rejected Swamy's plea for a court-monitored SIT probe into Pushkar's death and termed his public interest litigation (PIL) as a "textbook example of a political interest litigation". Swamy, in his plea before the high court, had alleged that the police had "botched up" the probe and accused Tharoor of "interfering" in the investigation as a minister in the erstwhile UPA regime and later. The division bench of the high court had chastised the BJP leader and his lawyer, who was a co-petitioner before it, for making "sweeping allegations" in the petition against Tharoor and the Delhi Police without giving any basis for such accusations. When the high court had questioned the source based on which he had made the allegations, Swamy and his lawyer had said they would file affidavits to reply to the court's query. However, the high court had rejected their offer, saying it appeared that they had concealed information pertinent to the case which they ought to have disclosed when they had filed the petition. The high court had also said that Swamy ought to have mentioned his political affiliation as well as that of Tharoor in his plea as these facts were important to the adjudication of the case.

Sunanda Pushkar death case: Supreme Court questions maintainability of Subramanian Swamy's plea

The judges of Supreme Court and 24 high courts have got almost 200% hike in their salary, the government notified on Tuesday.&nbsp;

The chief justice of India will now earn Rs 2.8 lakh - up from Rs 1 lakh, including dearness and other allowances.&nbsp;

The revised&nbsp;salary is in addition to perks such as official residence, cars, staff and allowances as applicable.

Other judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of the high courts will be earning a monthly salary of Rs 2.50 lakh, up from the current Rs 90,000.

The judges of the high courts, who get Rs 80,000 per month now, will get Rs 2.25 lakh per month&nbsp;

SC judges and chief justices of high courts shall also be entitled to allowances, at the level of the cabinet secretary, the service chiefs and some constitutional functionaries such as the CAG and the CEC.

The High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2018 also revises the rates of house rent allowance with effect from July 1, 2017, and the rates of sumptuary allowance with effect from September 22, 2017.&nbsp;

The salary hike is in line with the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission for officers of all-India services&nbsp;and makes it on par with bureaucrats.

On January 4, the Lok Sabha had passed a bill to hike the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&nbsp;

SC judges to get Rs 2.8 lakhs per month and HC judges to get Rs 2.5 lakhs per month

The judges of Supreme Court and 24 high courts have got almost 200% hike in their salary, the government notified on Tuesday. The chief justice of India will now earn Rs 2.8 lakh - up from Rs 1 lakh, including dearness and other allowances. The revised salary is in addition to perks such as official residence, cars, staff and allowances as applicable. Other judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of the high courts will be earning a monthly salary of Rs 2.50 lakh, up from the current Rs 90,000. The judges of the high courts, who get Rs 80,000 per month now, will get Rs 2.25 lakh per month SC judges and chief justices of high courts shall also be entitled to allowances, at the level of the cabinet secretary, the service chiefs and some constitutional functionaries such as the CAG and the CEC. The High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2018 also revises the rates of house rent allowance with effect from July 1, 2017, and the rates of sumptuary allowance with effect from September 22, 2017. The salary hike is in line with the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission for officers of all-India services and makes it on par with bureaucrats. On January 4, the Lok Sabha had passed a bill to hike the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

200% hike in salary for Supreme Court, High Court judges

The supreme court has issued a notice of contempt to three states, Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh for not taking important measure to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism.

The states now have to respond to the notice by September 3.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-pleas-against-cow-vigilantism-23168">Supreme Court to hear pleas seeking ban on cow vigilante groups</a>

A bench headed by Dipak Misra gave the directions on Monday.

The Supreme court notice was a response to the petition filed by Mahatma Gandhi&#39;s grandson Tushar Gandhi.

In 2017 Supreme court has asked states government to maintain law and order in order to prevent cow vigilantism violence.

The states were also asked to appoint nodal officers and highway patrol, they were also supposed to inform the court about the progress.

Many cases of harassment and violence in the name of &quot;gau raksha&quot; (cow protection) have taken place across the nation over the last few months.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in June, had condemned the attacks in the name of cow vigilantism, saying, &quot;Killing people in the name of cow is unacceptable. No one has the right to take the law into his/her hands. We belong to a land of non-violence. Violence is not the solution to any problem.&quot;

Earlier, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar after the all-party meeting had said, &quot;Prime Minister Modi has asked the State Governments to take strict action against the anti-social elements creating violence in the name of cow vigilantism and punish them strictly.&quot;&nbsp;

The states now have to respond to the notice by September 3

The supreme court has issued a notice of contempt to three states, Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh for not taking important measure to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism. The states now have to respond to the notice by September 3. Also read: Supreme Court to hear pleas seeking ban on cow vigilante groups A bench headed by Dipak Misra gave the directions on Monday. The Supreme court notice was a response to the petition filed by Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Tushar Gandhi. In 2017 Supreme court has asked states government to maintain law and order in order to prevent cow vigilantism violence. The states were also asked to appoint nodal officers and highway patrol, they were also supposed to inform the court about the progress. Many cases of harassment and violence in the name of "gau raksha" (cow protection) have taken place across the nation over the last few months. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in June, had condemned the attacks in the name of cow vigilantism, saying, "Killing people in the name of cow is unacceptable. No one has the right to take the law into his/her hands. We belong to a land of non-violence. Violence is not the solution to any problem." Earlier, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar after the all-party meeting had said, "Prime Minister Modi has asked the State Governments to take strict action against the anti-social elements creating violence in the name of cow vigilantism and punish them strictly."

3 states get contempt notice from Supreme Court on cow vigilantism

Amid the row over Karni Sena threatening to halt the release of &quot;Padmaavat&quot;,&nbsp; Delhi police chief spokesperson Deependra Pathak has assured the security of cinema halls in the national capital, saying the film will release hassle-free.

Delhi police are also in constant touch with the cinema hall managements in the city, he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi Police will maintain security at all cinema halls. We are constantly in touch with cinema hall management and the people living in those areas. We believe film will release here hassle-free: Deependra Pathak, Delhi Police Chief Spokesperson <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a> <a href="https://t.co/GKITpvaQbm">pic.twitter.com/GKITpvaQbm</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/954273400318341120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Several fringe groups in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are continuing their protest against the film and are threatening to halt its release.

The Rajput community is also demanding a ban on the film after refusing to accept the decision of the Supreme Court, allowing the screening of the movie.

Protesters in Rajasthan have threatened to burn down the cinema halls screening &quot;Padmaavat.&quot;

Haryana politician Suraj Pal Amu&nbsp;blaming the supreme court for hurting sentiments of the people warned that &quot;if the film is released the country will fall apart.&quot;

A Bench headed by Dipak Misra&nbsp;cleared Padmaavat&#39;s release pan India on Thursday.&nbsp;

Sukhdev Singh of the same group warned that Prasoon Joshi, Central Board of Film certification chief, won&#39;t be allowed to enter Rajasthan on Friday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Prasoon Joshi(CBFC chief) will not be allowed to enter Rajasthan: Sukhdev Singh,Rajput Karni Sena <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a> <a href="https://t.co/VsJVWyupYB">pic.twitter.com/VsJVWyupYB</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/954221623174864896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The protestors have also called for &#39;&#39;Janta curfew&#39;&#39; and took out a massive rally in Dholpur of Rajasthan to demand a countrywide ban on the film.

Protestors of Karni Sena have also threatened of mass immolation if the film is not banned.

On Thursday, Karni Sena protestors vandalised a cinema hall in Muzaffarpur, Bihar after the apex court ruled in Padmaavat&#39;s favour.

Earlier banned in four states --&nbsp;Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana --Padmaavat&nbsp;received U/A&nbsp;certificate from Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after modifications suggested by the panel and will now release on January 25.

Delhi police are also maintaining a constant touch between police and cinema hall management

Amid the row over Karni Sena threatening to halt the release of "Padmaavat", Delhi police chief spokesperson Deependra Pathak has assured the security of cinema halls in the national capital, saying the film will release hassle-free. Delhi police are also in constant touch with the cinema hall managements in the city, he said. Delhi Police will maintain security at all cinema halls. We are constantly in touch with cinema hall management and the people living in those areas. We believe film will release here hassle-free: Deependra Pathak, Delhi Police Chief Spokesperson #Padmaavat pic.twitter.com/GKITpvaQbm — ANI (@ANI) January 19, 2018 × Several fringe groups in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are continuing their protest against the film and are threatening to halt its release. The Rajput community is also demanding a ban on the film after refusing to accept the decision of the Supreme Court, allowing the screening of the movie. Protesters in Rajasthan have threatened to burn down the cinema halls screening "Padmaavat." Haryana politician Suraj Pal Amu blaming the supreme court for hurting sentiments of the people warned that "if the film is released the country will fall apart." A Bench headed by Dipak Misra cleared Padmaavat's release pan India on Thursday. Sukhdev Singh of the same group warned that Prasoon Joshi, Central Board of Film certification chief, won't be allowed to enter Rajasthan on Friday. Prasoon Joshi(CBFC chief) will not be allowed to enter Rajasthan: Sukhdev Singh,Rajput Karni Sena #Padmaavat pic.twitter.com/VsJVWyupYB — ANI (@ANI) January 19, 2018 × The protestors have also called for ''Janta curfew'' and took out a massive rally in Dholpur of Rajasthan to demand a countrywide ban on the film. Protestors of Karni Sena have also threatened of mass immolation if the film is not banned. On Thursday, Karni Sena protestors vandalised a cinema hall in Muzaffarpur, Bihar after the apex court ruled in Padmaavat's favour. Earlier banned in four states -- Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana --Padmaavat received U/A certificate from Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after modifications suggested by the panel and will now release on January 25.

Delhi Police chief assures hassle-free release of 'Padmaavat' in Delhi

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