<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (Apr 15) expressed its displeasure as it pulled up the Allahabad High Court for its observation that the rape victim "invited trouble". The top court cautioned judges against making inappropriate observations in cases involving sexual violence against women. This comes along with another judgement by the Bombay High Court in which the accused was&nbsp;granted bail in a sexual assault case involving a minor, with the court saying that the minor "had sufficient knowledge" and joined the man "voluntarily." </div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">Additionally, the Supreme Court&nbsp;is also hearing a suo moto case wherein the Allahabad High Court stated that grabbing a woman's breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her&nbsp;pyjama "did not amount to attempted rape." The apex court stayed the order that was passed last month (March 2025) and called he statement by the high court "highly insensitive."&nbsp;</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">The courts in India, including lower courts and high courts, have repeatedly issued inappropriate statements and orders blaming victims. In several cases, the courts have been slammed for their language in cases related to gender violence, sexual abuse, etc. However, despite active coverage by media, criticism by civic society, and rap by top court, these instances seem to be increasing.&nbsp;</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">Women across the spectrum have called for sensitisation of courts to prevent such instances and have expressed their fears that the judiciary will lose its trust if such statements become rampant. They have also called out the deep-rooted misogyny.&nbsp;</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">Nalini Bhattar, research scholar at the Department of Women's Studies at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), is of the opinion that victims' trauma is exacerbated and public trust is damaged when the judiciary overlooks the basic principle of equality and issues a statement that is deeply rooted in misogyny.</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">"When judiciary displays gender insensitivity, victims' trauma is exacerbated in addition to public trust being damaged. Judges' recent regressive remarks, in which they blame survivors of rape or harassment for their experience, are extremely concerning and intolerable. Such statements undermine the fundamental basis of justice by shifting the emphasis from the accused/convicts to the victim. It is rooted in misogyny," Bhattar says.</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">
<div class="x_elementToProof" aria-hidden="true"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">Read More | &nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-stays-allahabad-hcs-ruling-that-grabbing-breasts-and-pulling-pyjama-strings-not-rape-8892087" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="x_elementToProof" data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">A look back at controversial statements by Indian courts in the recent past</h2>
<div class="x_elementToProof">In August 2024, the Supreme Court was appalled by every paragraph of a Calcutta High Court judgment dated October 18, 2023 asking adolescent girls to &ldquo;control their sexual urges&rdquo;. &ldquo;Sex in adolescents is normal but sexual urge or arousal of such urge is dependent on some action by the individual, may be a man or woman. Therefore, sexual urge is not at all normal and normative,&rdquo; the Calcutta High Court had stated. The top court had called the judgment "absolutely wrong" and&nbsp; reminded that &ldquo;the honourable judges are not expected to either express their personal views or preach.&rdquo;</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">In September 2024, the Supreme Court asked judges to refrain from making &ldquo;casual observations&rdquo; that reveal their communal bias or misogyny. The &ldquo;heart and soul of judging is to be fair&rdquo;, it observed, and noted that judges must strictly adhere to the values laid down by the Constitution and not be guided by prejudice.</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">Elaborating on the top court's observation, Vinita Pandey, lawyer and Assistant Professor at Career Point University, says that "sensitisation of judges is important at every level." Citing a Madras High Court judgement, Pandey explained that the judge had categorically stated that he wasn't informed enough about the issues with transgenders. "Sensitisation of police and lower judiciary is not enough, it has to be at every level, from top to bottom."</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">Along with sensitisation, accountability is also important, says Meghna Mehra, founder of All India Queer Association (AIQA) Foundation. Mehra adds, "The Allahbad HC's judgement caused more harm than we can anticipate because it further blames the victims. We need to have better accountability from judges and men alike."</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">In the same vein, Bhattar opines, "In order to ensure that justice is not only carried out but also perceived as having been carried out, particularly for individuals who come forward during their most vulnerable moments, the judiciary must adhere to the values of empathy, impartiality, and gender sensitivity. Otherwise it will give an authority and space to the assaulter to do whatever they want to do, with the women, with impunity."</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">
Read More |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/allahabad-high-court-says-rape-victim-responsible-grants-bail-to-accused-she-invited-trouble-8949367">Allahabad HC holds woman 'responsible' in rape case, grants bail to accused: 'She invited trouble'</a>
</div>
<h2 class="x_elementToProof">'Male-dominated worldview responsible for such statements' </h2>
<div class="x_elementToProof">
<div class="x_elementToProof">Insensitive remarks by judges are not limited to high courts. In August 2022, the district and sessions judge at Kozhikode, acknowledged the &lsquo;revealing and provocative dress&rsquo; of the complainant woman as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a molestation case.</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">
<div class="x_elementToProof">In the same year, while granting bail in rape case of a 15-year-old girl, the Bombay High Court held that the alleged accused is a young boy and it cannot rule out "the possibility of him being smitten by infatuation".</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">In November 2021, another plea was filed in the Supreme Court regarding a Bombay High Court judgment wherein&nbsp; a person under the POCSO Act was acquited citing the reason that there was "no skin-to-skin contact.</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">In 2020, the&nbsp;<bdi>Karnataka High Court while granting bail to rape accused said it is </bdi><bdi>"unbecoming of an Indian woman to sleep after being ravished. This is not how our women react."</bdi></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">The list goes on, and it is hard to see these incidents as standalones. Therefore, some women also feel that patriarchal structure and inherited misogyny cannot be ended by sensitisation and accountability alone.&nbsp;</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">Maria Khanam, a gender and development researcher, says, "These are not isolated slips of language. They are symptomatic of a deeply embedded patriarchal consciousness within the legal system. Such statements function as discursive tools that not only reflect but actively reinforce gendered hierarchies, thus impeding access to substantive justice for survivors."</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">She goes on to explain, "Feminist legal theorists such as Catharine MacKinnon have long argued that law is not a neutral arbiter but a gendered institution&mdash;structured through male-dominated worldviews that define the &ldquo;reasonable person&rdquo; standard in masculine terms. When judges invoke moralistic narratives about women&rsquo;s sexuality, they are not merely expressing personal bias but perpetuating androcentric knowledge systems&mdash;frameworks that marginalize women&rsquo;s experiences and normalize male-centric norms." </div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-pulls-up-allahabad-hc-for-woman-invited-trouble-remark-in-rape-case-order-8964174">Supreme Court pulls up Allahabad HC for woman 'invited trouble' remark in rape case order</a></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">In 2023, then-Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud introduced a handbook on gender stereotypes. But was it of any use? Seemingly not. A section of the justice delivery system still appears to be immune to the principles of gender equality guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as ignorant to the sensitivity of the cases related to gender-based violence. Handbooks cannot serve their purpose until gender sensitivity is understood by individual judges.&nbsp;</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof">Read More |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-justice-ram-manohar-narayan-mishra-allahabad-hc-judge-who-ruled-grabbing-breasts-not-rape-attempt-8893416" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad HC judge who ruled &lsquo;grabbing breasts not rape attempt&rsquo;?</a></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" aria-hidden="true">&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-stays-allahabad-hcs-ruling-that-grabbing-breasts-and-pulling-pyjama-strings-not-rape-8892087" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a></div>
&nbsp;

India News | The courts in India have repeatedly issued inappropriate statements and orders blaming victim in cases related to sexual assault and rape. Women across the spectrum calls out the "deep rooted misogyny."

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (Apr 15) expressed its displeasure as it pulled up the Allahabad High Court for its observation that the rape victim "invited trouble". The top court cautioned judges against making inappropriate observations in cases involving sexual violence against women. This comes along with another judgement by the Bombay High Court in which the accused was granted bail in a sexual assault case involving a minor, with the court saying that the minor "had sufficient knowledge" and joined the man "voluntarily." Additionally, the Supreme Court is also hearing a suo moto case wherein the Allahabad High Court stated that grabbing a woman's breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her pyjama "did not amount to attempted rape." The apex court stayed the order that was passed last month (March 2025) and called he statement by the high court "highly insensitive." The courts in India, including lower courts and high courts, have repeatedly issued inappropriate statements and orders blaming victims. In several cases, the courts have been slammed for their language in cases related to gender violence, sexual abuse, etc. However, despite active coverage by media, criticism by civic society, and rap by top court, these instances seem to be increasing. Women across the spectrum have called for sensitisation of courts to prevent such instances and have expressed their fears that the judiciary will lose its trust if such statements become rampant. They have also called out the deep-rooted misogyny. Nalini Bhattar, research scholar at the Department of Women's Studies at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), is of the opinion that victims' trauma is exacerbated and public trust is damaged when the judiciary overlooks the basic principle of equality and issues a statement that is deeply rooted in misogyny. "When judiciary displays gender insensitivity, victims' trauma is exacerbated in addition to public trust being damaged. Judges' recent regressive remarks, in which they blame survivors of rape or harassment for their experience, are extremely concerning and intolerable. Such statements undermine the fundamental basis of justice by shifting the emphasis from the accused/convicts to the victim. It is rooted in misogyny," Bhattar says. Read More | Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape A look back at controversial statements by Indian courts in the recent past In August 2024, the Supreme Court was appalled by every paragraph of a Calcutta High Court judgment dated October 18, 2023 asking adolescent girls to “control their sexual urges”. “Sex in adolescents is normal but sexual urge or arousal of such urge is dependent on some action by the individual, may be a man or woman. Therefore, sexual urge is not at all normal and normative,” the Calcutta High Court had stated. The top court had called the judgment "absolutely wrong" and reminded that “the honourable judges are not expected to either express their personal views or preach.” In September 2024, the Supreme Court asked judges to refrain from making “casual observations” that reveal their communal bias or misogyny. The “heart and soul of judging is to be fair”, it observed, and noted that judges must strictly adhere to the values laid down by the Constitution and not be guided by prejudice. Elaborating on the top court's observation, Vinita Pandey, lawyer and Assistant Professor at Career Point University, says that "sensitisation of judges is important at every level." Citing a Madras High Court judgement, Pandey explained that the judge had categorically stated that he wasn't informed enough about the issues with transgenders. "Sensitisation of police and lower judiciary is not enough, it has to be at every level, from top to bottom." Along with sensitisation, accountability is also important, says Meghna Mehra, founder of All India Queer Association (AIQA) Foundation. Mehra adds, "The Allahbad HC's judgement caused more harm than we can anticipate because it further blames the victims. We need to have better accountability from judges and men alike." In the same vein, Bhattar opines, "In order to ensure that justice is not only carried out but also perceived as having been carried out, particularly for individuals who come forward during their most vulnerable moments, the judiciary must adhere to the values of empathy, impartiality, and gender sensitivity. Otherwise it will give an authority and space to the assaulter to do whatever they want to do, with the women, with impunity." Read More | Allahabad HC holds woman 'responsible' in rape case, grants bail to accused: 'She invited trouble' 'Male-dominated worldview responsible for such statements' Insensitive remarks by judges are not limited to high courts. In August 2022, the district and sessions judge at Kozhikode, acknowledged the ‘revealing and provocative dress’ of the complainant woman as a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a molestation case. In the same year, while granting bail in rape case of a 15-year-old girl, the Bombay High Court held that the alleged accused is a young boy and it cannot rule out "the possibility of him being smitten by infatuation". In November 2021, another plea was filed in the Supreme Court regarding a Bombay High Court judgment wherein a person under the POCSO Act was acquited citing the reason that there was "no skin-to-skin contact. In 2020, the Karnataka High Court while granting bail to rape accused said it is "unbecoming of an Indian woman to sleep after being ravished. This is not how our women react." The list goes on, and it is hard to see these incidents as standalones. Therefore, some women also feel that patriarchal structure and inherited misogyny cannot be ended by sensitisation and accountability alone. Maria Khanam, a gender and development researcher, says, "These are not isolated slips of language. They are symptomatic of a deeply embedded patriarchal consciousness within the legal system. Such statements function as discursive tools that not only reflect but actively reinforce gendered hierarchies, thus impeding access to substantive justice for survivors." She goes on to explain, "Feminist legal theorists such as Catharine MacKinnon have long argued that law is not a neutral arbiter but a gendered institution—structured through male-dominated worldviews that define the “reasonable person” standard in masculine terms. When judges invoke moralistic narratives about women’s sexuality, they are not merely expressing personal bias but perpetuating androcentric knowledge systems—frameworks that marginalize women’s experiences and normalize male-centric norms." Read More | Supreme Court pulls up Allahabad HC for woman 'invited trouble' remark in rape case order In 2023, then-Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud introduced a handbook on gender stereotypes. But was it of any use? Seemingly not. A section of the justice delivery system still appears to be immune to the principles of gender equality guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as ignorant to the sensitivity of the cases related to gender-based violence. Handbooks cannot serve their purpose until gender sensitivity is understood by individual judges. Read More | Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad HC judge who ruled ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’?

Controversial statements by Indian courts on sexual abuse cases: Women say 'sensitisation necessary'

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Allahabad High Court for its observation that the rape victim "invited trouble"and was "responsible for the same". A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih cautioned judges against making inappropriate observations in cases involving sexual violence against women.
"There is another order now by another judge. Yes bail can be granted. But what is this discussion that 'she herself invited trouble etc'. One has to be careful when saying such things especially on this side (judges),"&nbsp;Justice Gavai remarked.
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/allahabad-high-court-says-rape-victim-responsible-grants-bail-to-accused-she-invited-trouble-8949367">Allahabad HC holds woman 'responsible' in rape case, grants bail to accused: 'She invited trouble'</a>
The court made the observation while hearing another case related to the Allahabad High Court wherein it&nbsp;stated that grabbing a woman's breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her&nbsp;pyjama&nbsp;"did not amount to attempted rape." The court had taken up the matter suo motu after the judgment was brought to the notice of Court by an organisation 'We the Women of India'. The top court called the order "total insensitivity" and "inhuman approach."
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court while pronouncing an order in alleged rape case said, "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that victim and applicant both are major. Victim is a student of MA, hence she was competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act as disclosed by her in the FIR." He added, "This court is of the view that even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. Similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement."
Read More |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-justice-ram-manohar-narayan-mishra-allahabad-hc-judge-who-ruled-grabbing-breasts-not-rape-attempt-8893416" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad HC judge who ruled &lsquo;grabbing breasts not rape attempt&rsquo;?</a>
<h2>What was the incident?</h2>
According to multiple reports, the woman, a student of a popular Noida-based university,&nbsp;in her complaint told the police that she and her friends went to a bar in Delhi's Hauz Khas and met the accused there. She also confessed that she was intoxicated as she consumed alcohol. She further stated that while leaving the bar, the accused asked her if he could drop her back to her place in Noida but took her to an apartment in Gurugram, where he allegedly raped her. The woman filed a complaint at the Noida Sector 126 police station in December 2024 and the accused was arrested under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 64 (punishment for rape).&nbsp;&nbsp;
Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-total-insensitivity-supreme-court-stays-allahabad-hc-grabbing-breasts-not-rape-ruling-8894942">India: &lsquo;Total insensitivity&rsquo;, Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC 'Grabbing Breasts Not Rape' Ruling</a>
<h2>Why the court granted bail?</h2>
Contesting the rape allegations, the counsel for the accused had claimed that it was consensual. The counsel also argued that the accused has been languishing in jail since December 2024, despite having no criminal history. The counsel guranteed the court that if he was released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed," the court said.
Read More |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-stays-allahabad-hcs-ruling-that-grabbing-breasts-and-pulling-pyjama-strings-not-rape-8892087" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape</a>

India News | The Supreme Court has pulled up the Allahabad High Court for its observation that the rape victim "invited trouble"and was "responsible for the same"

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Allahabad High Court for its observation that the rape victim "invited trouble"and was "responsible for the same". A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih cautioned judges against making inappropriate observations in cases involving sexual violence against women. "There is another order now by another judge. Yes bail can be granted. But what is this discussion that 'she herself invited trouble etc'. One has to be careful when saying such things especially on this side (judges)," Justice Gavai remarked. Read More | Allahabad HC holds woman 'responsible' in rape case, grants bail to accused: 'She invited trouble' The court made the observation while hearing another case related to the Allahabad High Court wherein it stated that grabbing a woman's breasts and pulling the drawstrings of her pyjama "did not amount to attempted rape." The court had taken up the matter suo motu after the judgment was brought to the notice of Court by an organisation 'We the Women of India'. The top court called the order "total insensitivity" and "inhuman approach." Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court while pronouncing an order in alleged rape case said, "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that victim and applicant both are major. Victim is a student of MA, hence she was competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act as disclosed by her in the FIR." He added, "This court is of the view that even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. Similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement." Read More | Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad HC judge who ruled ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’? What was the incident? According to multiple reports, the woman, a student of a popular Noida-based university, in her complaint told the police that she and her friends went to a bar in Delhi's Hauz Khas and met the accused there. She also confessed that she was intoxicated as she consumed alcohol. She further stated that while leaving the bar, the accused asked her if he could drop her back to her place in Noida but took her to an apartment in Gurugram, where he allegedly raped her. The woman filed a complaint at the Noida Sector 126 police station in December 2024 and the accused was arrested under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 64 (punishment for rape). Watch | India: ‘Total insensitivity’, Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC 'Grabbing Breasts Not Rape' Ruling Why the court granted bail? Contesting the rape allegations, the counsel for the accused had claimed that it was consensual. The counsel also argued that the accused has been languishing in jail since December 2024, despite having no criminal history. The counsel guranteed the court that if he was released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the early disposal of the case. "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed," the court said. Read More | Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape

Supreme Court pulls up Allahabad HC for woman 'invited trouble' remark in rape case order

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Tamil Nadu governor's decision to withhold assent to 10 key bills and also reserving them for the president after they were reenacted by the state legislature is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

India: Supreme Court raps Tamil Nadu governor, clears 10 pending bills

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Apr 7) slammed Uttar Pradesh Police over recurrent instances of civil cases being converted into criminal ones, calling it a &ldquo;complete breakdown of the rule of law&rdquo;.&nbsp;
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna also warned of costs imposed on the state police if similar petitions continue in the future.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-mp-files-petition-in-supreme-court-against-waqf-bill-8925846">AIMIM's Owaisi, Congress MP file petitions in Supreme Court against Waqf Amendment Bill</a>
The case concerns a money-related issue. The chargesheet filed by the police asked for a civil case to be converted to a criminal case. However, the petitioner claimed that the police took bribes to turn the civil dispute into a criminal case.
<h2>&lsquo;Happening day in and day out in UP&rsquo;</h2>
The top court stayed the criminal prosecution in the case. It also ordered UP Police Director General of Police (DGP) Prashant Kumar and the investigating officer (IO) to file a response in the next two weeks.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-reacts-to-supreme-court-ruling-on-teacher-jobs-scam-i-cant-accept-it-8922781">Mamata Banerjee reacts to Supreme Court ruling on teacher jobs scam: &lsquo;I can&rsquo;t accept it'</a>
&ldquo;This is wrong! What is happening in UP? Every day, civil suits are being converted to criminal cases,&rdquo; the CJI said, as quoted by LiveLaw. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s absurd, merely not giving money cannot be turned into an offence. Let the IO stand in the witness box and make out the case of crime. We will direct it, let him learn his lesson, this is not the way you file chargesheets.&rdquo;
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/supreme-court-rejects-ranveer-allahbadias-request-to-return-passport-indias-got-latent-controversy-8914025">Supreme Court rejects Ranveer Allahbadia's request to return passport</a>
&ldquo;It&rsquo;s strange that it&rsquo;s happening day in and day out in UP. Lawyers have forgotten there is some civil jurisdiction also,&rdquo; he noted.
&ldquo;We are passing it over, but now any case that comes up now (in UP) we will impose costs on the Police. Let them (UP Police DGP and IO) file the affidavit. This is complete breakdown of the rule of law,&rdquo; the court said.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-varma-cash-row-police-visit-delhi-hc-judges-residence-question-staffers-supreme-court-declines-urgent-hearing-on-plea-seeking-fir-8895690">Justice Varma cash row: Police question staffers at Delhi HC judge's residence; SC declines urgent hearing on plea seeking FIR</a>
The CJI has also raised concerns regarding civil cases being converted into criminal ones last year in December as well. He said that this was happening a lot in some states and highlighted that this puts extra pressure on the courts, even though such issues can be handled under civil law.
(With inputs from agencies)

India news | The top court stayed the criminal prosecution in the case. It also ordered UP Police Director General of Police (DGP) Prashant Kumar and the investigating officer (IO) to file a response in the next two weeks.

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Apr 7) slammed Uttar Pradesh Police over recurrent instances of civil cases being converted into criminal ones, calling it a “complete breakdown of the rule of law”. Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna also warned of costs imposed on the state police if similar petitions continue in the future. Also read | AIMIM's Owaisi, Congress MP file petitions in Supreme Court against Waqf Amendment Bill The case concerns a money-related issue. The chargesheet filed by the police asked for a civil case to be converted to a criminal case. However, the petitioner claimed that the police took bribes to turn the civil dispute into a criminal case. ‘Happening day in and day out in UP’ The top court stayed the criminal prosecution in the case. It also ordered UP Police Director General of Police (DGP) Prashant Kumar and the investigating officer (IO) to file a response in the next two weeks. Also read | Mamata Banerjee reacts to Supreme Court ruling on teacher jobs scam: ‘I can’t accept it' “This is wrong! What is happening in UP? Every day, civil suits are being converted to criminal cases,” the CJI said, as quoted by LiveLaw. “It’s absurd, merely not giving money cannot be turned into an offence. Let the IO stand in the witness box and make out the case of crime. We will direct it, let him learn his lesson, this is not the way you file chargesheets.” Also read | Supreme Court rejects Ranveer Allahbadia's request to return passport “It’s strange that it’s happening day in and day out in UP. Lawyers have forgotten there is some civil jurisdiction also,” he noted. “We are passing it over, but now any case that comes up now (in UP) we will impose costs on the Police. Let them (UP Police DGP and IO) file the affidavit. This is complete breakdown of the rule of law,” the court said. Also read | Justice Varma cash row: Police question staffers at Delhi HC judge's residence; SC declines urgent hearing on plea seeking FIR The CJI has also raised concerns regarding civil cases being converted into criminal ones last year in December as well. He said that this was happening a lot in some states and highlighted that this puts extra pressure on the courts, even though such issues can be handled under civil law. (With inputs from agencies)

‘Breakdown of rule of law’: Indian Supreme Court slams UP police for converting civil cases into criminal suits

The Supreme Court of India has issued an interim order halting tree felling in Telangana's Kancha Gachibowli forest area, located near the University of Hyderabad campus. Watch this report for more details!

SC Halts Tree Felling in Telangana’s Kancha Gachibowli Forest, What's Next?

Hours after the Parliament passed&nbsp;the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, two petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the bill. The Waqf bill makes several changes to the 1995 Act governing Waqfs.
The first petition was filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, contending that the law violates Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom to practice religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (minority rights) and 300A (right to property). All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi has filed the second petition, terming the proposed law a "brazen violation" of the fundamental rights of Muslims and the Muslim community.
Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/waqf-bill-debate-in-india-how-are-waqf-assets-managed-in-other-countries-see-list-8917665" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Waqf bill debate in India: How are waqf assets managed in other countries? See list</a>
<h2>What does the petitioner say in his petition against Waqf Bill?</h2>
In the petition, Jawed claims that the Act discriminates against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions. The petitioner argues that the Amendment allows state interference in the administration of waqfs. It shifts key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the District Collector. This transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d) of the Constitution, the plea states.&nbsp;The petitioner also took objection to the provisions allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board. The petitioner also questions the condition in the Bill that one should be a practitioner of Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf, saying that such a limitation "infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25."
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/parliament-clears-waqf-amendment-bill-2025-after-intense-debate-pm-modi-calls-it-watershed-moment-8923850" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Read More | Parliament clears Waqf (Amendment) Bill after intense debate, PM Modi calls it 'watershed moment'</a>
<h2>What is Waqf Amendment Bill?</h2>
The bill seeks to manage waqf properties better, empower stakeholders involved, and make it possible to do an efficient survey of the properties. As per the bill, only lawful property owners can create waqf. In the case of 'waqf alal aulad', wherein the ancestral property is given as waqf, the inheritance rights of heirs, including females, should not be affected, as per the provisions of the bill.&nbsp;
It also makes it mandatory to register waqf properties online, for which a portal will be created. The current time given for registration is six months, but extensions can be taken by approaching the Waqf Tribunals. Another key area addressed by the bill is the wrongful declaration of properties as waqf, including government property. In such disputes, a state government officer will conduct an inquiry. The inspection of Waqf records will now come under section 75 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the replacement of the erstwhile Evidence Act.&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/parliament-clears-waqf-amendment-bill-2025-after-intense-debate-pm-modi-calls-it-watershed-moment-8923850" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Read More | Parliament clears Waqf (Amendment) Bill after intense debate, PM Modi calls it 'watershed moment'</a>
In case the government acquires waqf properties for development or infrastructure projects, the compensation will be given under the 2013 law on compensation, or any other law relating to the acquisition of land.
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/brazen-assault-congress-sonia-gandhi-slams-bjp-after-waqf-bill-was-passed-in-rajya-sabha-8920165" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Read More |&nbsp; 'Brazen assault': Congress' Sonia Gandhi slams BJP after Waqf bill was passed in Rajya Sabha</a>
(With inputs from agencies)

India News | Hours after the Parliament passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the bill by a Congress MP

Hours after the Parliament passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, two petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the bill. The Waqf bill makes several changes to the 1995 Act governing Waqfs. The first petition was filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, contending that the law violates Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom to practice religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (minority rights) and 300A (right to property). All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi has filed the second petition, terming the proposed law a "brazen violation" of the fundamental rights of Muslims and the Muslim community. Read More | Waqf bill debate in India: How are waqf assets managed in other countries? See list What does the petitioner say in his petition against Waqf Bill? In the petition, Jawed claims that the Act discriminates against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions. The petitioner argues that the Amendment allows state interference in the administration of waqfs. It shifts key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the District Collector. This transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d) of the Constitution, the plea states. The petitioner also took objection to the provisions allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board. The petitioner also questions the condition in the Bill that one should be a practitioner of Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf, saying that such a limitation "infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25." Read More | Parliament clears Waqf (Amendment) Bill after intense debate, PM Modi calls it 'watershed moment' What is Waqf Amendment Bill? The bill seeks to manage waqf properties better, empower stakeholders involved, and make it possible to do an efficient survey of the properties. As per the bill, only lawful property owners can create waqf. In the case of 'waqf alal aulad', wherein the ancestral property is given as waqf, the inheritance rights of heirs, including females, should not be affected, as per the provisions of the bill. It also makes it mandatory to register waqf properties online, for which a portal will be created. The current time given for registration is six months, but extensions can be taken by approaching the Waqf Tribunals. Another key area addressed by the bill is the wrongful declaration of properties as waqf, including government property. In such disputes, a state government officer will conduct an inquiry. The inspection of Waqf records will now come under section 75 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the replacement of the erstwhile Evidence Act. Read More | Parliament clears Waqf (Amendment) Bill after intense debate, PM Modi calls it 'watershed moment' In case the government acquires waqf properties for development or infrastructure projects, the compensation will be given under the 2013 law on compensation, or any other law relating to the acquisition of land. Read More | 'Brazen assault': Congress' Sonia Gandhi slams BJP after Waqf bill was passed in Rajya Sabha (With inputs from agencies)

AIMIM's Owaisi, Congress MP file petitions in Supreme Court against Waqf Amendment Bill

India: Supreme Court intervenes to halt tree felling near Hyderabad University

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear the petition seeking an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma to investigate cash recovery at his house and said there are plenty of options available after the in-house inquiry report is out.

Supreme Court denies FIR plea against Justice Yashwant Varma

Supreme Court refuses to examine plea for FIR against justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (Mar 26) stayed the Allahabad High Court order in a case about child abuse as the judge had observed that the grabbing of breast and pulling the string of a pyjama don't amount to a rape attempt. Instead, the High Court had categorised the act as "aggravated sexual assault" under the POCSO Act, which carries a lesser penalty.

India: ‘Total insensitivity’, Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC 'Grabbing Breasts Not Rape' Ruling

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (Mar 26) stayed the Allahabad High Court order in a case about child abuse as the judge had observed that the grabbing of breast and pulling the string of a pyjama don't amount to a rape attempt. Instead, the High Court had categorised the act as "aggravated sexual assault" under the POCSO Act, which carries a lesser penalty. Watch in for more details!

SC stays Allahabad HC's 'grabbing breasts not rape' ruling, calls it 'insensitive, inhuman'

Allahabad HC&rsquo;s Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra&rsquo;s verdict grabbing breasts does not amount to a rape attempt has faced severe backlash, promting Supreme Court of India to step in.&nbsp;
On Wednesday (Mar 26), the top court stayed the order on the child abuse case, calling the March 17 ruling &ldquo;insensitive&rdquo; and &ldquo;inhuman&rdquo;. Allahabad HC had categorised the act as &ldquo;aggravated sexual assault&rdquo; under the POCSO Act, which would carry a lesser penalty for the accused.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-stays-allahabad-hcs-ruling-that-grabbing-breasts-and-pulling-pyjama-strings-not-rape-8892087">Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape</a>
<h2>Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra?</h2>
Justice Mishra graduated in law in 1985 and completed his post-graduation in 1987. In 1990, he joined the UP Judicial Service as Munsif and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service in 2005.
Over the years, he served in Baghpat and Aligarh and held positions including director of JTRI and district and sessions judge, Lucknow.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-notice-of-allahbad-hc-ruling-grabbing-breasts-not-rape-attempt-8890256">Supreme Court takes suo motu notice of Allahabad HC &lsquo;grabbing breasts not rape attempt&rsquo; ruling</a>
In 2022, he took an oath as an additional judge in the Allahabad High Court and became a permanent judge on September 25, 2023.
<h2>Controversial ruling</h2>
The Allahabad High Court&rsquo;s order, delivered by Justice Mishra, had said that &ldquo;the allegation of holding the victim&rsquo;s breasts and breaking the waistband of the pyjama did not constitute a case of attempted rape against the accused.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Justice Mishra reasoned that while it was a case of assault on a woman&rsquo;s dignity, it can&rsquo;t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl. The controversial verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/grabbing-breasts-snapping-pyjama-string-not-rape-allahabad-hcs-controversial-ruling-sparks-debate-8873890">'Grabbing breasts, snapping pyjama string not rape': Allahabad HC's controversial ruling sparks debate</a>
<h2>What did Supreme Court say?</h2>
The top court said that it was pained to see the lack of sensitivity by the High Court judge who passed the order. It ordered, &ldquo;We are at pains to state that it shows total lack of sensitivity on part of the author of the judgment.&rdquo;
Condemning the judgment as a violation of legal standards, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take appropriate action against Justice Mishra.
&ldquo;It&rsquo;s very serious and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity on the part of the judge&hellip; We are sorry to use such harsh words against a constitutional court judge, but this is one of those cases.&rdquo;
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-varma-cash-row-sc-collegium-recommends-transfer-of-judge-to-allahabad-high-court-8886740">Justice Varma cash row: SC Collegium recommends transfer of judge to Allahabad High Court</a>
The SC also noted that the judgment was delivered four months later, indicating that the judge had thoroughly considered it.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the case after the organisation &lsquo;We the Women of India&rsquo; appealed against the March 17 order.
(With inputs from agencies)

India news | Trending | Justice Mishra reasoned that while it was a case of assault on a woman’s dignity, it can’t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl. The controversial verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation.

Allahabad HC’s Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra’s verdict grabbing breasts does not amount to a rape attempt has faced severe backlash, promting Supreme Court of India to step in. On Wednesday (Mar 26), the top court stayed the order on the child abuse case, calling the March 17 ruling “insensitive” and “inhuman”. Allahabad HC had categorised the act as “aggravated sexual assault” under the POCSO Act, which would carry a lesser penalty for the accused. Also read | Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC's ruling that 'grabbing breasts and pulling pyjama strings' not rape Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra? Justice Mishra graduated in law in 1985 and completed his post-graduation in 1987. In 1990, he joined the UP Judicial Service as Munsif and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service in 2005. Over the years, he served in Baghpat and Aligarh and held positions including director of JTRI and district and sessions judge, Lucknow. Also read | Supreme Court takes suo motu notice of Allahabad HC ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’ ruling In 2022, he took an oath as an additional judge in the Allahabad High Court and became a permanent judge on September 25, 2023. Controversial ruling The Allahabad High Court’s order, delivered by Justice Mishra, had said that “the allegation of holding the victim’s breasts and breaking the waistband of the pyjama did not constitute a case of attempted rape against the accused.” Justice Mishra reasoned that while it was a case of assault on a woman’s dignity, it can’t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl. The controversial verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation. Also read | 'Grabbing breasts, snapping pyjama string not rape': Allahabad HC's controversial ruling sparks debate What did Supreme Court say? The top court said that it was pained to see the lack of sensitivity by the High Court judge who passed the order. It ordered, “We are at pains to state that it shows total lack of sensitivity on part of the author of the judgment.” Condemning the judgment as a violation of legal standards, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take appropriate action against Justice Mishra. “It’s very serious and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity on the part of the judge… We are sorry to use such harsh words against a constitutional court judge, but this is one of those cases.” Also read | Justice Varma cash row: SC Collegium recommends transfer of judge to Allahabad High Court The SC also noted that the judgment was delivered four months later, indicating that the judge had thoroughly considered it. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the case after the organisation ‘We the Women of India’ appealed against the March 17 order. (With inputs from agencies)

Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Allahabad HC judge who ruled ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’?

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Mar 15) has taken suo motu cognizance of a controversial rulling by the Allahabad High Court, which said that grabbing breasts and breaking pyjama strings did not amount to rape or attempt to rape. The court&rsquo;s verdict came on March 17 in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, sparking outrage from legal experts, political leaders and activists.
The matter will be heard in the Supreme Court by the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Wednesday (Mar 26).
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/man-rapes-infant-indian-court-reduces-life-sentence-to-10-years-says-original-punishment-was-harsh-and-excessive-8887575">Man rapes infant, Indian court reduces life sentence to 10 years, says original punishment was 'harsh and excessive'</a>
<h2>Controversial verdict</h2>
The Allahabad High Court ruling came as it was hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case of alleged rape of a minor girl.
The accused, identified as Pawan and Akash, allegedly grabbed the breasts of a minor girl and broke her pyjama string. They also attempted to drag her beneath a culvert but fled the scene after a passer-by came to the girl&rsquo;s aid. The incident took place in Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/man-rapes-mentally-challenged-minor-indian-court-reduces-sentence-because-hes-family-man-with-4-kids-8885258">Man rapes mentally challenged minor, Indian court reduces sentence because he's 'family man with 4 kids'</a>
In its order, the Allahabad High Court had said that &ldquo;the allegation of holding the victim&rsquo;s breasts and breaking the waistband of the pyjama did not constitute a case of attempted rape against the accused.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Defending the ruling, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who gave the order on March 17, said that while it was a case of assault on a woman&rsquo;s dignity, but it can&rsquo;t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl.
<h2>HC order draws criticism</h2>
The verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation. Legal experts noted that such statements diminish the confidence of the public in the judiciary.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/grabbing-breasts-snapping-pyjama-string-not-rape-allahabad-hcs-controversial-ruling-sparks-debate-8873890">'Grabbing breasts, snapping pyjama string not rape': Allahabad HC's controversial ruling sparks debate</a>
Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal said, &ldquo;God save this country with such judges adorning the bench! The Supreme Court has been too soft in dealing with errant judges (sic).&rdquo;
Earlier on Monday (Mar 24), the Supreme Court denied to hear a petition regarding the HC&rsquo;s ruling.&nbsp;
The petition called for the top court to issue an order to remove controversial sections of the judgment. The plea also demanded SC issue guidelines to prevent judges from making such remarks in the future.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-ghaziabad-man-rapes-murders-7-year-old-daughter-frames-neighbour-8868874">India: Ghaziabad man rapes, murders 7-Year-Old daughter; frames neighbour</a>
Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi told PTI, &ldquo;I am completely against this decision, and the Supreme Court should take serious note of it. Such a ruling has no place in a civilised society.&rdquo;
(With inputs from agencies)

India news | Trending | The HC’s verdict came on March 17 in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, sparking outrage from legal experts, political leaders and activists.

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Mar 15) has taken suo motu cognizance of a controversial rulling by the Allahabad High Court, which said that grabbing breasts and breaking pyjama strings did not amount to rape or attempt to rape. The court’s verdict came on March 17 in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, sparking outrage from legal experts, political leaders and activists. The matter will be heard in the Supreme Court by the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Wednesday (Mar 26). Also read | Man rapes infant, Indian court reduces life sentence to 10 years, says original punishment was 'harsh and excessive' Controversial verdict The Allahabad High Court ruling came as it was hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case of alleged rape of a minor girl. The accused, identified as Pawan and Akash, allegedly grabbed the breasts of a minor girl and broke her pyjama string. They also attempted to drag her beneath a culvert but fled the scene after a passer-by came to the girl’s aid. The incident took place in Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj. Also read | Man rapes mentally challenged minor, Indian court reduces sentence because he's 'family man with 4 kids' In its order, the Allahabad High Court had said that “the allegation of holding the victim’s breasts and breaking the waistband of the pyjama did not constitute a case of attempted rape against the accused.” Defending the ruling, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who gave the order on March 17, said that while it was a case of assault on a woman’s dignity, but it can’t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl. HC order draws criticism The verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation. Legal experts noted that such statements diminish the confidence of the public in the judiciary. Also read | 'Grabbing breasts, snapping pyjama string not rape': Allahabad HC's controversial ruling sparks debate Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal said, “God save this country with such judges adorning the bench! The Supreme Court has been too soft in dealing with errant judges (sic).” Earlier on Monday (Mar 24), the Supreme Court denied to hear a petition regarding the HC’s ruling. The petition called for the top court to issue an order to remove controversial sections of the judgment. The plea also demanded SC issue guidelines to prevent judges from making such remarks in the future. Also read | India: Ghaziabad man rapes, murders 7-Year-Old daughter; frames neighbour Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi told PTI, “I am completely against this decision, and the Supreme Court should take serious note of it. Such a ruling has no place in a civilised society.” (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court takes suo motu notice of Allahabad HC ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’ ruling

The row over the alleged cash pile at Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's residence has taken a new turn. The Supreme Court of India has released an inquiry report, photographs, and videos as part of an internal investigation by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhayay. Watch this report for more details!

Cash row: Supreme Court releases probe report on Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma

Wisconsin voters have cast their ballots to elect a judge to the state Supreme Court. Democrats and Republicans have poured millions into the race, with key issues like abortion rights and President Trump’s performance influencing voters. The outcome could shape major legal decisions in the state.

Wisconsin Supreme Court election: Voters decide key judicial seat

The US Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration, upholding a lower court's decision to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid. This legal setback forces USAID to proceed with payments for already completed projects, marking a significant blow to Trump’s funding policies.

US Supreme Court rejects Trump’s aid freeze, orders payment

The Central government has opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, saying imposing such a disqualification was solely within the domain of Parliament.
In an affidavit filed in court, the Centre said the prayer in a plea, seeking the same, amounted to re-writing of the statute or directing Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner that was wholly beyond the powers of judicial review.
"The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament," the affidavit said.
By confining the operation of penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence was ensured while undue harshness was avoided, it added.
There was, said the Centre, nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time, and it was a settled principle of law that penalties were limited either by time or by quantum.
"It is submitted that issues raised by the petitioner have wide-ranging ramifications and clearly fall within the legislative policy of Parliament, and the contours of judicial review would be suitably altered in such regard," the affidavit said.
The plea in the top court filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks a life ban on convicted politicians aside from the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country.
In its affidavit, the Centre underlined the apex court had consistently held that the legislative choice over one option or the other couldn't be questioned in courts over its efficacy or otherwise.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-of-india-dismisses-new-pleas-on-1991-places-of-worship-law-orders-april-hearing-for-pending-petitions-8731473">Supreme Court dismisses new pleas on 1991 Places of Worship law, orders April hearing for pending petitions</a>
Under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the period of disqualification was six years from the date of conviction or, in the case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release, it added.
"The disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy, and it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner's understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban," it said.
The Centre said as a matter of judicial review, the court could declare the provisions to be unconstitutional, however, the relief sought by the petitioner effectively sought to read "life-long" instead of "six years" in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act.
It said lifetime disqualification was the maximum that could be imposed under the provisions and such a discretion was "certainly within the power of Parliament".
"However, it is one thing to say that a power exists and another to say that it must necessarily be exercised in every case," the Centre argued.
The affidavit said the impugned laws were "constitutionally sound" and "did not suffer from the vice of excess delegation" aside from being intra vires the powers of Parliament.
While imposing any penalty, it said, Parliament considers the principles of proportionality and reasonability, as, for instance, the entirety of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or penal law, provides for imprisonment or fines up to certain limits, and the rationale behind it was that the punitive measures would co-relate with the gravity of the offence.
There were numerous penal laws that prescribe imposing restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedoms, which in most cases are time-specific, it said.
The Centre said the petition failed to make the crucial distinction between basis of disqualification and effects of disqualification.
"It is true that the basis of disqualification is conviction for an offence and that this basis remains unchanged so long as the conviction stands. The effect of such conviction lasts for a fixed period of time. As stated above, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time," it said.
The affidavit said the petitioner's reliance on Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution was totally misplaced.
Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution deals with disqualifications for membership of either house of parliament, legislative assembly or legislative council.
The Centre said Clause (e) of Articles 102 and 191 were enabling provisions that confer on Parliament the power to make laws governing disqualification and it was in exercise of this power that the 1951 Act was enacted.
"The Constitution has left the field open to Parliament to enact such further law governing disqualifications as it deems fit. Parliament has power both to determine the grounds for disqualification and the duration of disqualification," it said.
The Centre said the grounds for disqualification in the articles included holding of an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency and not being a citizen of India.
"It is submitted that these are not permanent disqualifications," it added.
The apex court on 10 February sought responses of the Centre and the Election Commission on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of Representation of People Act.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India news: "The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament," the affidavit said.

The Central government has opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, saying imposing such a disqualification was solely within the domain of Parliament. In an affidavit filed in court, the Centre said the prayer in a plea, seeking the same, amounted to re-writing of the statute or directing Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner that was wholly beyond the powers of judicial review. "The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament," the affidavit said. By confining the operation of penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence was ensured while undue harshness was avoided, it added. There was, said the Centre, nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time, and it was a settled principle of law that penalties were limited either by time or by quantum. "It is submitted that issues raised by the petitioner have wide-ranging ramifications and clearly fall within the legislative policy of Parliament, and the contours of judicial review would be suitably altered in such regard," the affidavit said. The plea in the top court filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks a life ban on convicted politicians aside from the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country. In its affidavit, the Centre underlined the apex court had consistently held that the legislative choice over one option or the other couldn't be questioned in courts over its efficacy or otherwise. Also read: Supreme Court dismisses new pleas on 1991 Places of Worship law, orders April hearing for pending petitions Under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the period of disqualification was six years from the date of conviction or, in the case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release, it added. "The disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy, and it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner's understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban," it said. The Centre said as a matter of judicial review, the court could declare the provisions to be unconstitutional, however, the relief sought by the petitioner effectively sought to read "life-long" instead of "six years" in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act. It said lifetime disqualification was the maximum that could be imposed under the provisions and such a discretion was "certainly within the power of Parliament". "However, it is one thing to say that a power exists and another to say that it must necessarily be exercised in every case," the Centre argued. The affidavit said the impugned laws were "constitutionally sound" and "did not suffer from the vice of excess delegation" aside from being intra vires the powers of Parliament. While imposing any penalty, it said, Parliament considers the principles of proportionality and reasonability, as, for instance, the entirety of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or penal law, provides for imprisonment or fines up to certain limits, and the rationale behind it was that the punitive measures would co-relate with the gravity of the offence. There were numerous penal laws that prescribe imposing restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedoms, which in most cases are time-specific, it said. The Centre said the petition failed to make the crucial distinction between basis of disqualification and effects of disqualification. "It is true that the basis of disqualification is conviction for an offence and that this basis remains unchanged so long as the conviction stands. The effect of such conviction lasts for a fixed period of time. As stated above, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time," it said. The affidavit said the petitioner's reliance on Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution was totally misplaced. Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution deals with disqualifications for membership of either house of parliament, legislative assembly or legislative council. The Centre said Clause (e) of Articles 102 and 191 were enabling provisions that confer on Parliament the power to make laws governing disqualification and it was in exercise of this power that the 1951 Act was enacted. "The Constitution has left the field open to Parliament to enact such further law governing disqualifications as it deems fit. Parliament has power both to determine the grounds for disqualification and the duration of disqualification," it said. The Centre said the grounds for disqualification in the articles included holding of an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency and not being a citizen of India. "It is submitted that these are not permanent disqualifications," it added. The apex court on 10 February sought responses of the Centre and the Election Commission on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of Representation of People Act. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India: Centre opposes plea seeking lifetime ban on convicted politicians in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the pleas against the appointments of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (EC) under the 2023 law.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh indicated that the matter would be listed after the Holi festival break due to paucity of time. However, no date was fixed for hearing the matter.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, said it was an important issue which required an urgent consideration.
He said the matter involved a short legal question -- whether the 2023 Constitution bench verdict should be followed for the appointment of the CEC and ECs through a panel involving the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or the 2023 law, which excludes the CJI from the panel.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/morning-news-brief-starmer-backs-zelensky-against-trumps-dictator-claims-rekha-gupta-to-be-sworn-in-as-delhi-cm-and-more-8738357">Morning news brief: Starmer backs Zelensky against Trump's 'dictator' claims; Rekha Gupta to be sworn in as Delhi CM and more</a>
At around 3 pm, Justice Surya Kant told Bhushan that he would be sitting in a special bench and the court had numerous matters listed before the Holi break.
Bhushan requested the matter to be listed on any day in the coming week and assured the petitioners would not take more than an hour to advance submissions.
Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for petitioner Jaya Thakur, also mentioned the matter for an urgent hearing saying it was "very important for the survival of democracy".
Justice Surya Kant said, for the court, all matters were equally important and no single matter was superior to others.
Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, expressed his inability to address the court on the issue saying he was appearing before the Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna on the issue of arbitration.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/gbs-outbreak-claims-2-more-lives-in-pune-india-toll-rises-to-23-8738268">GBS outbreak claims two more lives in Pune, India toll rises to 23</a>
On February 18, the top court said it would take up on "priority basis" the pleas against the appointments of the CEC and ECs under the 2023 law.
Bhushan said the government by appointing the new CEC and EC under the 2023 law was making a "mockery of democracy".
On February 17, the government appointed EC Gyanesh Kumar as the next CEC. Kumar is the first CEC to be appointed under the new law and his term would run till January 26, 2029, days before the EC is expected to announce the schedule of the next Lok Sabha election.
Vivek Joshi, a 1989-batch Haryana-cadre IAS officer, was appointed as an election commissioner.
Born on May 21, 1966, Joshi (58) would serve in the poll panel till 2031. According to the law, a CEC or an EC retires at 65 or could have a tenure in the poll panel for six years.
On February 12, the top court fixed February 19 to hear pleas against the appointment of the CEC and EC under the 2023 law saying if anything happened in the interregnum, the consequences were bound to follow.
It said the issue would be decided on merit and finally.
Bhushan referred to the 2023 verdict, saying it held that the election commissioners had to be selected for appointment by an independent panel comprising the prime minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India.
On March 15, 2024, the top court refused to stay the appointments of the new ECs under the 2023 law which excluded the CJI from the selection panel and deferred the hearing on a batch of pleas against the appointments.
The apex court told the petitioners that the March 2, 2023 verdict directed for the three-member panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the CJI to operate till Parliament enacted a law.
The apex court's verdict held that leaving the appointment of the ECs and CEC in the hands of the executive would be detrimental to the health of the country's democracy and the holding of free and fair elections.
The NGO challenged the CJI's exclusion and said the election commission should be insulated from "political" and "executive interference" for maintaining a healthy democracy.
ADR's plea alleged the verdict was overruled by the Centre without removing its basis and the composition of the selection committee under the new law which amounted to excessive interference of the executive in the appointments and was detrimental to the independence of the poll panel.
Former IAS officers Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu were recommended to be appointed as ECs in 2024 by a selection panel chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the new law.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.
&nbsp;

India News: The Supreme Court has postponed hearings on challenges to the law concerning the appointments of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the pleas against the appointments of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (EC) under the 2023 law. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh indicated that the matter would be listed after the Holi festival break due to paucity of time. However, no date was fixed for hearing the matter. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, said it was an important issue which required an urgent consideration. He said the matter involved a short legal question -- whether the 2023 Constitution bench verdict should be followed for the appointment of the CEC and ECs through a panel involving the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or the 2023 law, which excludes the CJI from the panel. Also read | Morning news brief: Starmer backs Zelensky against Trump's 'dictator' claims; Rekha Gupta to be sworn in as Delhi CM and more At around 3 pm, Justice Surya Kant told Bhushan that he would be sitting in a special bench and the court had numerous matters listed before the Holi break. Bhushan requested the matter to be listed on any day in the coming week and assured the petitioners would not take more than an hour to advance submissions. Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for petitioner Jaya Thakur, also mentioned the matter for an urgent hearing saying it was "very important for the survival of democracy". Justice Surya Kant said, for the court, all matters were equally important and no single matter was superior to others. Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, expressed his inability to address the court on the issue saying he was appearing before the Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna on the issue of arbitration. Also read | GBS outbreak claims two more lives in Pune, India toll rises to 23 On February 18, the top court said it would take up on "priority basis" the pleas against the appointments of the CEC and ECs under the 2023 law. Bhushan said the government by appointing the new CEC and EC under the 2023 law was making a "mockery of democracy". On February 17, the government appointed EC Gyanesh Kumar as the next CEC. Kumar is the first CEC to be appointed under the new law and his term would run till January 26, 2029, days before the EC is expected to announce the schedule of the next Lok Sabha election. Vivek Joshi, a 1989-batch Haryana-cadre IAS officer, was appointed as an election commissioner. Born on May 21, 1966, Joshi (58) would serve in the poll panel till 2031. According to the law, a CEC or an EC retires at 65 or could have a tenure in the poll panel for six years. On February 12, the top court fixed February 19 to hear pleas against the appointment of the CEC and EC under the 2023 law saying if anything happened in the interregnum, the consequences were bound to follow. It said the issue would be decided on merit and finally. Bhushan referred to the 2023 verdict, saying it held that the election commissioners had to be selected for appointment by an independent panel comprising the prime minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India. On March 15, 2024, the top court refused to stay the appointments of the new ECs under the 2023 law which excluded the CJI from the selection panel and deferred the hearing on a batch of pleas against the appointments. The apex court told the petitioners that the March 2, 2023 verdict directed for the three-member panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the CJI to operate till Parliament enacted a law. The apex court's verdict held that leaving the appointment of the ECs and CEC in the hands of the executive would be detrimental to the health of the country's democracy and the holding of free and fair elections. The NGO challenged the CJI's exclusion and said the election commission should be insulated from "political" and "executive interference" for maintaining a healthy democracy. ADR's plea alleged the verdict was overruled by the Centre without removing its basis and the composition of the selection committee under the new law which amounted to excessive interference of the executive in the appointments and was detrimental to the independence of the poll panel. Former IAS officers Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu were recommended to be appointed as ECs in 2024 by a selection panel chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the new law. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Supreme Court adjourns pleas challenging validity of CEC appointment Law

The Supreme Court of India has granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber-Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia aka Beer Biceps concerning the multiple cases filed against him over a controversial remark he made on Samay Raina's show India's Got Latent. Allahbadia's remark led to massive backlash and multiple cases against him. . Watch in for more details!

‘Something dirty in his mind’: SC slams Ranveer Allahbadia, but grants him protection from arrest

The Supreme Court has granted interim protection to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, shielding him from further arrests. The court also heard his plea to club all FIRs filed against him into a single case.

Ranveer Allahbadia controversy: Indian top court hears Allahabadia's plea to club FIRs

India’s Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice, expressed frustration over the surge of fresh pleas in the Places of Worship Act case and refused to entertain any new petitions. The court emphasized that the issue has been sufficiently addressed.

India’s top court rejects fresh pleas on worship case surge

India's Supreme Court criticized the practice of announcing freebies before elections, claiming it discourages willingness to work among people. Watch in for more details!

India | People get freebies, why work?; Supreme Court slams pre-election freebies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday deprecated the practice of announcing freebies prior to elections and said people were not willing to work as they were getting free ration and money.
The observations came from a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, which was hearing a matter concerning the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas.
"Unfortunately, because of these freebies... The people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations. They are getting amount without doing any work," Justice Gavai observed.
Also Read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-ragging-horror-dumbbells-hung-from-private-parts-stabbed-with-compass-five-arrested-8714584"> </a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-ragging-horror-dumbbells-hung-from-private-parts-stabbed-with-compass-five-arrested-8714584">Kerala ragging horror: Dumbbells hung from private parts, stabbed with compass; Five arrested</a>
"We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation," the bench said.
Attorney General R Venkataramani told the bench that the Centre was in the process of finalising the urban poverty alleviation mission, which would address various issues, including the provision of shelter for the urban homeless.
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/narendra-modi-led-indian-govt-to-table-new-immigration-and-foreigners-bill-in-parliament-here-are-key-details-8714137">Narendra Modi-led Indian govt to table new Immigration and Foreigners Bill in Parliament. Here are key details</a>
The bench asked the Attorney General to verify from the Centre as to within how much time the urban poverty alleviation mission would be made applicable. The top court posted the matter for hearing after six weeks.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.
&nbsp;

India News | "Unfortunately, because of these freebies... The people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations. They are getting amount without doing any work," Justice Gavai observed.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday deprecated the practice of announcing freebies prior to elections and said people were not willing to work as they were getting free ration and money. The observations came from a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, which was hearing a matter concerning the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas. "Unfortunately, because of these freebies... The people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations. They are getting amount without doing any work," Justice Gavai observed. Also Read | Kerala ragging horror: Dumbbells hung from private parts, stabbed with compass; Five arrested "We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation," the bench said. Attorney General R Venkataramani told the bench that the Centre was in the process of finalising the urban poverty alleviation mission, which would address various issues, including the provision of shelter for the urban homeless. Also Read | Narendra Modi-led Indian govt to table new Immigration and Foreigners Bill in Parliament. Here are key details The bench asked the Attorney General to verify from the Centre as to within how much time the urban poverty alleviation mission would be made applicable. The top court posted the matter for hearing after six weeks. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Supreme court criticises freebies, says people not willing to work

The parents of Kolkata&rsquo;s RG Kar rape and murder case victim have withdrawn their plea filed before the Supreme Court seeking a fresh/reinvestigation in the case.
The Indian Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 29) asked the parents' lawyer whether the court should proceed with the case or not, as a plea has been filed at the Calcutta HC as well.&nbsp;
The parents had sought the SC's intervention to explore new evidence and reconsider the investigation, but the SC warned the counsel representing the victims to be cautious with their submissions. The Court stressed that the legal process had already culminated with a conviction, making any further action highly sensitive.
<h2 dir="ltr">SC had deferred the verdict on Jan 22</h2>
On January 22, the apex court deferred a verdict on the case, citing lack of time. The case, which triggered nationwide outrage, was originally set to be heard for the first time after the sentencing of the convict, Sanjay Roy, who was sentenced to "life imprisonment till death" by the Sealdah Sessions Court in Kolkata on January 20.
The crime, which occurred on August 9 last year, led to widespread protests and calls for better safety measures for medical professionals. Senior advocate Karuna Nandy, representing the Association of Junior and Senior Doctors, requested an urgent hearing.
<h2 dir="ltr">Sealdah Court found Sanjay Roy guilty</h2>
Sealdah Civil and Criminal Court found Sanjay Roy guilty in the RG Kar rape and murder case of a trainee doctor on Jan 18. He was found convicted under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 64 (rape), 66 (causing injury resulting in the death of the rape victim), and 103 (1) (murder).
The judge, on January 18, had already made it clear that the maximum punishment in the case could be the &ldquo;death penalty&rdquo;, while the minimum punishment in the matter could be life imprisonment.
(With inputs from agencies)
&nbsp;

India News: Parents in the RG Kar case in Kolkata have retracted their Supreme Court plea for a new investigation, marking a significant development in the case's legal proceedings.

The parents of Kolkata’s RG Kar rape and murder case victim have withdrawn their plea filed before the Supreme Court seeking a fresh/reinvestigation in the case. The Indian Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 29) asked the parents' lawyer whether the court should proceed with the case or not, as a plea has been filed at the Calcutta HC as well. The parents had sought the SC's intervention to explore new evidence and reconsider the investigation, but the SC warned the counsel representing the victims to be cautious with their submissions. The Court stressed that the legal process had already culminated with a conviction, making any further action highly sensitive. SC had deferred the verdict on Jan 22 On January 22, the apex court deferred a verdict on the case, citing lack of time. The case, which triggered nationwide outrage, was originally set to be heard for the first time after the sentencing of the convict, Sanjay Roy, who was sentenced to "life imprisonment till death" by the Sealdah Sessions Court in Kolkata on January 20. The crime, which occurred on August 9 last year, led to widespread protests and calls for better safety measures for medical professionals. Senior advocate Karuna Nandy, representing the Association of Junior and Senior Doctors, requested an urgent hearing. Sealdah Court found Sanjay Roy guilty Sealdah Civil and Criminal Court found Sanjay Roy guilty in the RG Kar rape and murder case of a trainee doctor on Jan 18. He was found convicted under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 64 (rape), 66 (causing injury resulting in the death of the rape victim), and 103 (1) (murder). The judge, on January 18, had already made it clear that the maximum punishment in the case could be the “death penalty”, while the minimum punishment in the matter could be life imprisonment. (With inputs from agencies)

RG Kar rape-murder case: Victim’s parents withdraw plea filed before SC seeking reinvestigation

ANI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a petition filed by a non-believer Muslim woman seeking to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law) regarding inheritance.&nbsp;
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, directed the Central government to file its response within four weeks. The matter was posted for hearing in the first week of May. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, explained that the petitioner, who has only one daughter, wants to bequeath her entire property to her daughter. However, under Sharia law, she would be allowed to bequeath only 50 per cent of her property.&nbsp;
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-haryana-cm-saini-denies-kejriwals-claims-of-water-contamination-8661658">India: Haryana CM Saini slams Kejriwal for claims of water contamination</a>
"She wants the benefit of the Indian Succession Act, the secular law," Solicitor General said. Last year, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the State of Kerala regarding the petition. The petition was filed by a Kerala-based woman, Safiya PM, who stated that she is a non-believer Muslim and, therefore, should be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, with respect to inheritance, instead of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law). She claimed that her father is a non-practicing Muslim but has not officially renounced the religion. According to Sharia law, a person who leaves Islam is ousted from the community and is thereafter not entitled to any inheritance rights in parental property, the petition said.&nbsp;
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-technology/isrp-rocket-launch-countdown-underway-satish-dhawan-space-centre-in-sriharikota-gslv-8660599">Countdown underway for ISRO's 100th rocket launch</a>
The petition further stated that under Sharia law, a Muslim individual cannot bequeath more than one-third of their property via a will. The petitioner noted that her father cannot bequeath more than one-third of his property to her, with the remaining two-thirds going to her brother, who suffers from Down's syndrome. It was also stated that the petitioner has a daughter, and after her death, the entire property will not pass on to her daughter, as her father's brothers will also have a claim.&nbsp;
"The absence of any provision for having the inheritance rights, even after leaving the religion, puts the citizen in a dangerous situation as neither the secular laws of the State nor the religious laws would protect her. As per Sharia law, one who has left Islam will lose her inheritance rights."&nbsp;
"It is the prayer of the petitioner that she should be governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925," the petition stated. Additionally, the petitioner strongly believes that practices under Sharia law are "highly discriminatory towards Muslim women," and therefore, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
<div data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">Disclaimer: This story has been published from ANI feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.</div>
<div></div>

India News| The petition further stated that under Sharia law, a Muslim individual cannot bequeath more than one-third of their property via a will. 

ANI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a petition filed by a non-believer Muslim woman seeking to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law) regarding inheritance. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, directed the Central government to file its response within four weeks. The matter was posted for hearing in the first week of May. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, explained that the petitioner, who has only one daughter, wants to bequeath her entire property to her daughter. However, under Sharia law, she would be allowed to bequeath only 50 per cent of her property. Also Read | India: Haryana CM Saini slams Kejriwal for claims of water contamination "She wants the benefit of the Indian Succession Act, the secular law," Solicitor General said. Last year, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the State of Kerala regarding the petition. The petition was filed by a Kerala-based woman, Safiya PM, who stated that she is a non-believer Muslim and, therefore, should be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, with respect to inheritance, instead of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law). She claimed that her father is a non-practicing Muslim but has not officially renounced the religion. According to Sharia law, a person who leaves Islam is ousted from the community and is thereafter not entitled to any inheritance rights in parental property, the petition said. Also Read | Countdown underway for ISRO's 100th rocket launch The petition further stated that under Sharia law, a Muslim individual cannot bequeath more than one-third of their property via a will. The petitioner noted that her father cannot bequeath more than one-third of his property to her, with the remaining two-thirds going to her brother, who suffers from Down's syndrome. It was also stated that the petitioner has a daughter, and after her death, the entire property will not pass on to her daughter, as her father's brothers will also have a claim. "The absence of any provision for having the inheritance rights, even after leaving the religion, puts the citizen in a dangerous situation as neither the secular laws of the State nor the religious laws would protect her. As per Sharia law, one who has left Islam will lose her inheritance rights." "It is the prayer of the petitioner that she should be governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925," the petition stated. Additionally, the petitioner strongly believes that practices under Sharia law are "highly discriminatory towards Muslim women," and therefore, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Disclaimer: This story has been published from ANI feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

SC seeks Centre's response on Muslim woman's petition for inheritance under Indian Succession Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared Mumbai-attack convict Tahawwur Rana’s extradition to India, dismissing his review petition against the move. Watch in for more details!

US Supreme Court approves extradition of 26/11 convict Tahawwur Rana to India

US Supreme Court clears 26/11 convict Tahawwur Rana's extradition to India

The Supreme Court will hear a plea filed by the mother of Atul Subhash, a Bengaluru-based engineer who committed suicide in 2024 alleging harassment by his wife and his in-laws, seeking his minor son's custody on Monday (Jan 20).
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma is likely to hear the plea by Anju Devi who has filed a habeas corpus petition, seeking the custody of her four-year-old grandson.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/snatch-justice-if-necessary-father-of-rg-kar-victim-says-will-not-beg-ahead-of-final-verdict-8630773">'Snatch justice if necessary': Father of RG Kar victim says 'will not beg', ahead of final verdict</a>
<h2 dir="ltr">Apex Court earlier denied the minor's custody</h2>
Earlier, on January 7, the apex court had denied her the minor's custody saying she was a "stranger to the child".
"Sorry to say but the child is a stranger to the petitioner. If you wish, please visit the child. In case you want the custody of the child, there is a separate procedure," the top court had said.
<h2 dir="ltr">The court granted bail to Atul's wife and in-laws</h2>
The 34-year-old Subhash was found hanging at his house in Bengaluru's Munnekolalu on December 9, 2024, leaving behind video and written notes, alleging harassment by his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, and his in-laws.
Later they were arrested on charges of abetting Subhash's suicide and granted conditional bail on January 4.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/maha-kumbh-2025-organisers-use-ai-to-prevent-stampedes-and-ensure-safety-of-400-million-pilgrims-8631920">Maha Kumbh 2025: Organisers use AI to prevent stampedes, ensure safety of 400mn pilgrims</a>
During the last hearing, the top court was informed by the counsel appearing for Subhash's estranged wife Nikita Singhania that the child was studying at a boarding school in Haryana.
"Yesterday, the mother reached Faridabad and took custody of the child from boarding school. We will take the child to Bengaluru. The mother has to remain in Bengaluru to fulfil the bail conditions," her counsel told the bench.
Advocate Kumar Dushyant Singh, representing Devi, had sought the child's custody and alleged her estranged daughter-in-law had kept the child's location under wraps.
He had argued a child below six years of age should not be sent to a boarding school and relied on photos to show the petitioner interacting with the child when he was only a couple of years old.
The apex court had then directed the child to be produced in court on the next hearing on January 20 and said the case couldn't be decided based on a media trial.
"It's not a media trial. It's a court trial which can pronounce a person guilty," added the top court while posting the matter for hearing on January 20.&nbsp;
(Inputs from the agencies)
&nbsp;

India News: The Supreme Court will review a grandmother's plea for custody of her grandson after her son's alleged harassment and tragic suicide case reaches the high court.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea filed by the mother of Atul Subhash, a Bengaluru-based engineer who committed suicide in 2024 alleging harassment by his wife and his in-laws, seeking his minor son's custody on Monday (Jan 20). A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma is likely to hear the plea by Anju Devi who has filed a habeas corpus petition, seeking the custody of her four-year-old grandson. Also read | 'Snatch justice if necessary': Father of RG Kar victim says 'will not beg', ahead of final verdict Apex Court earlier denied the minor's custody Earlier, on January 7, the apex court had denied her the minor's custody saying she was a "stranger to the child". "Sorry to say but the child is a stranger to the petitioner. If you wish, please visit the child. In case you want the custody of the child, there is a separate procedure," the top court had said. The court granted bail to Atul's wife and in-laws The 34-year-old Subhash was found hanging at his house in Bengaluru's Munnekolalu on December 9, 2024, leaving behind video and written notes, alleging harassment by his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, and his in-laws. Later they were arrested on charges of abetting Subhash's suicide and granted conditional bail on January 4. Also read | Maha Kumbh 2025: Organisers use AI to prevent stampedes, ensure safety of 400mn pilgrims During the last hearing, the top court was informed by the counsel appearing for Subhash's estranged wife Nikita Singhania that the child was studying at a boarding school in Haryana. "Yesterday, the mother reached Faridabad and took custody of the child from boarding school. We will take the child to Bengaluru. The mother has to remain in Bengaluru to fulfil the bail conditions," her counsel told the bench. Advocate Kumar Dushyant Singh, representing Devi, had sought the child's custody and alleged her estranged daughter-in-law had kept the child's location under wraps. He had argued a child below six years of age should not be sent to a boarding school and relied on photos to show the petitioner interacting with the child when he was only a couple of years old. The apex court had then directed the child to be produced in court on the next hearing on January 20 and said the case couldn't be decided based on a media trial. "It's not a media trial. It's a court trial which can pronounce a person guilty," added the top court while posting the matter for hearing on January 20. (Inputs from the agencies)

India: SC to hear plea by Atul Subhash's mother seeking custody of his minor son on Jan 20

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a petition related to the ongoing farmers' protest and questioned the Centre for not making a statement that they would consider genuine demands of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/search?title=farmers+protest" rel="dofollow">protesting farmers </a>and their doors are open.&nbsp;
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.&nbsp;
"Mr Mehta, you have been there for all these days, why your client cannot make a statement that we will consider the genuine and that we are open to genuine grievances of farmers&hellip; Our doors are open&hellip; Why can&rsquo;t the Central Government also make a statement?," Justice Bhuyan questioned.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-announces-increased-crop-insurance-allocation-and-fertiliser-subsidy-for-farmers-8583830" rel="dofollow">PM Modi announces increased crop insurance allocation, fertiliser subsidy for farmers</a>
&ldquo;Your Lordships are perhaps not aware of several factors which are weighing in. Therefore, right now we are confining (ourselves) to one person&rsquo;s health,&rdquo; Mehta said, referring to farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on fast-unto-death for more than a month now.
&ldquo;If the State fails, then the Union will,&rdquo; the Bench said.&nbsp;
It further posted the matter for further hearing to be held on Monday.
<h2>SC slams Punjab govt for creating 'false impression'</h2>
The apex court said that there is a deliberate attempt in the media by the Punjab government to create the impression that the court is pressuring Dallewal to break his fast.&nbsp;
Farmers&rsquo; leader Jagjit Sigh Dallewal, who has been on fast-unto-death since November 26, has refused to receive medical help.&nbsp;
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-farmers-leader-dallewal-to-take-medical-aid-if-centre-agrees-to-talk-punjab-tells-supreme-court-8581124" rel="dofollow">India: Farmer leader Dallewal to take medical aid if Centre agrees to talk, Punjab tells SC</a>
&ldquo;There is a deliberate attempt in the media by your state government officers to give an impression that the court is pressuring him to break the fast. Our direction was not to break his fast. We only said that let his health be taken care of and he could continue his peaceful protest even when he is hospitalised. You have to persuade him from this angle,&rdquo; the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan told Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh.
The Justices said that shifting him to the hospital does not mean that he will not continue his fast.&nbsp;
There are medical facilities that will ensure that no harm is caused to his life. That is our only concern. His life is precious as a farm leader. He is not aligned to any political ideologies, and he is taking care of only the farmers&rsquo; cause,&rdquo; Justice Kant said.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/punjab-farmers-call-for-kisan-mahapanchayat-at-khanauri-protest-site-on-january-4-8574225" rel="dofollow">Punjab farmers call for 'Kisan Mahapanchayat' on January 4</a>
He stressed that once Dallewal's health is taken care of, he can continue the fast.&nbsp;
"Once we are satisfied that his life is not in danger, the role of the committee (appointed by the court) becomes easier,&rdquo; the top court said while hearing Labh Singh&rsquo;s petition seeking contempt of court action against Punjab Chief Secretary and Director-General of Police.&nbsp;
&ldquo;Your attitude is that there should be no conciliation. That is the whole problem,&rdquo; Justice Kant added.&nbsp;
(With inputs from agencies)

India news: The SC said that there is a deliberate attempt in the media by the Punjab government to create the impression that the court is pressuring Dallewal to break his fast. 

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a petition related to the ongoing farmers' protest and questioned the Centre for not making a statement that they would consider genuine demands of protesting farmers and their doors are open. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. "Mr Mehta, you have been there for all these days, why your client cannot make a statement that we will consider the genuine and that we are open to genuine grievances of farmers… Our doors are open… Why can’t the Central Government also make a statement?," Justice Bhuyan questioned. Also read: PM Modi announces increased crop insurance allocation, fertiliser subsidy for farmers “Your Lordships are perhaps not aware of several factors which are weighing in. Therefore, right now we are confining (ourselves) to one person’s health,” Mehta said, referring to farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on fast-unto-death for more than a month now. “If the State fails, then the Union will,” the Bench said. It further posted the matter for further hearing to be held on Monday. SC slams Punjab govt for creating 'false impression' The apex court said that there is a deliberate attempt in the media by the Punjab government to create the impression that the court is pressuring Dallewal to break his fast. Farmers’ leader Jagjit Sigh Dallewal, who has been on fast-unto-death since November 26, has refused to receive medical help. Also read: India: Farmer leader Dallewal to take medical aid if Centre agrees to talk, Punjab tells SC “There is a deliberate attempt in the media by your state government officers to give an impression that the court is pressuring him to break the fast. Our direction was not to break his fast. We only said that let his health be taken care of and he could continue his peaceful protest even when he is hospitalised. You have to persuade him from this angle,” the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan told Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh. The Justices said that shifting him to the hospital does not mean that he will not continue his fast. There are medical facilities that will ensure that no harm is caused to his life. That is our only concern. His life is precious as a farm leader. He is not aligned to any political ideologies, and he is taking care of only the farmers’ cause,” Justice Kant said. Also read: Punjab farmers call for 'Kisan Mahapanchayat' on January 4 He stressed that once Dallewal's health is taken care of, he can continue the fast. "Once we are satisfied that his life is not in danger, the role of the committee (appointed by the court) becomes easier,” the top court said while hearing Labh Singh’s petition seeking contempt of court action against Punjab Chief Secretary and Director-General of Police. “Your attitude is that there should be no conciliation. That is the whole problem,” Justice Kant added. (With inputs from agencies)

'Why can't Centre say it will consider genuine grievances of farmers,' asks Supreme Court

The Punjab government on Tuesday (Dec 31) informed the Supreme Court of India that farmer leader <a href="https://www.wionews.com/search?title=DALLEWAL" rel="dofollow">Jagjit Singh Dallewal</a>, who has been on fast-unto-death for more than a month now, would accept medical treatment if the Centre agreed to speak to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/search?title=farmers+protest" rel="dofollow">protesting farmers</a>.&nbsp;
A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a contempt plea against the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP for not complying with the apex court's order to give Dallewal medical aid.
As the hearing continued, the Punjab government sought three more days to comply with the order.&nbsp;
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/abetment-to-commit-suicide-sc-warns-punjab-govt-to-shift-farmer-leader-dallewal-to-hospital-8573388" rel="dofollow">'Abetment to suicide': SC warns Punjab govt to shift farmer leader Dallewal to hospital</a>
"...As per the nnegotiators,there is a proposal given by the farmers to the Central government that in case they get an invite for a talk, Dallewal is ready to take medical help as desired," Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh said.&nbsp;
Singh added, "Therefore, the state government was seeking some more time and work positively towards compliance of the directions."
The bench said, "We will not comment on what's going on as far as negotiations or your law and order is concerned. If something happens, which is acceptable to both sides and all stakeholders concerned, we will be equally happy. At the moment, we are only concerned with the compliance of our orders. If you want more time, we in peculiar circumstances are inclined to grant you some time."
The hearing comes three days after a Punjab government team attempted to persuade Dallewal to take medical aid. However, he has been declining it.&nbsp;
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-bandh-in-punjab-cripples-traffic-commercial-activities-affected-by-protesting-farmers-8577488" rel="dofollow">India: 'Bandh' in Punjab by protesting farmers cripples traffic, hits commercial activities</a>
Last week, the apex court warned that it would frame charges of contempt of court against Punjab Chief Secretary K A P Sinha and Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav if they do not follow the orders.
&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a contempt case. and the next step is known. Why should not there be charges against the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police? Why should charges not be framed? This is the logical flow of a contempt matter,&rdquo; a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia told the two officers.&nbsp;
The 70-year-old farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal has been on a fast-unto-death at the Khanauri border point between Punjab and Haryana since November 26. He has been demanding the Central government to accept farmers' demands, including a legal guarantee for the minimum support price of crops.&nbsp;
(With inputs from agencies)

India news: A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a contempt plea against the Punjab Chief Secy and DGP for not complying with the SC's order.

The Punjab government on Tuesday (Dec 31) informed the Supreme Court of India that farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who has been on fast-unto-death for more than a month now, would accept medical treatment if the Centre agreed to speak to the protesting farmers. A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a contempt plea against the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP for not complying with the apex court's order to give Dallewal medical aid. As the hearing continued, the Punjab government sought three more days to comply with the order. Also read: 'Abetment to suicide': SC warns Punjab govt to shift farmer leader Dallewal to hospital "...As per the nnegotiators,there is a proposal given by the farmers to the Central government that in case they get an invite for a talk, Dallewal is ready to take medical help as desired," Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh said. Singh added, "Therefore, the state government was seeking some more time and work positively towards compliance of the directions." The bench said, "We will not comment on what's going on as far as negotiations or your law and order is concerned. If something happens, which is acceptable to both sides and all stakeholders concerned, we will be equally happy. At the moment, we are only concerned with the compliance of our orders. If you want more time, we in peculiar circumstances are inclined to grant you some time." The hearing comes three days after a Punjab government team attempted to persuade Dallewal to take medical aid. However, he has been declining it. Also read: India: 'Bandh' in Punjab by protesting farmers cripples traffic, hits commercial activities Last week, the apex court warned that it would frame charges of contempt of court against Punjab Chief Secretary K A P Sinha and Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav if they do not follow the orders. “It’s a contempt case. and the next step is known. Why should not there be charges against the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police? Why should charges not be framed? This is the logical flow of a contempt matter,” a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia told the two officers. The 70-year-old farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal has been on a fast-unto-death at the Khanauri border point between Punjab and Haryana since November 26. He has been demanding the Central government to accept farmers' demands, including a legal guarantee for the minimum support price of crops. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Farmer leader Dallewal to take medical aid if Centre agrees to talk, Punjab tells SC

New Delhi, India
As Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal continued his fast-unto-death, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Dec 18) directed the Punjab government to extend him immediate medical aid, saying that if something happens, the "entire state machinery will be blamed". 
The 70-year-old farmer leader has been on a fast-unto-death at the Khanauri border point between Punjab and Haryana since November 26.
The court further said that there would be serious repercussions if something untoward happened to him. 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-farmers-protest-rail-roko-agitation-in-punjab-travellers-may-face-inconvenience-784880">Also read: India farmers' protest: 'Rail roko' agitation in Punjab, travellers face inconvenience</a>
“He needs to be healthy to agitate… As an elected government and a constitutional organ, you would not like to invite the blame that something happened to him… Even farmers should be concerned about saving their life. He’s their leader! You tell us something tomorrow. Do something swiftly,” a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant told the central and state governments. 
This comes as the Punjab government pointed out that Dallewal has refused medical treatment despite his health deteriorating and has vowed to sacrifice his life for farmers' rights. 
The court stressed that Dallewal is a leader of the farmers, and no leniency can be shown in such a situation. 
"He's (Mr Dallewal) their leader. The farmers should also be concerned about his health... You tell us something tomorrow. Do something swiftly," he added. 
Watch | Delhi Farmers Protest Explained: Why Are Farmers Protesting and What Are Their Demands?
<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/files/2024/12/02/469087-thumb-1.png&videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/0212_WION_ORG_DELIHI_CHALO_MARCH_WEB.mp4/index.m3u8&duration=142&tags=Punjab,delhi farmer protest,MSP,Noida,delhi-ncr" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>
The apex court emphasised that the court's doors are always open for farmers' demands, and they can visit and express their grievances. 
"We clarify that the court's doors are always open to any suggestion or demand by farmers directly or through their authorised representative," it said. 
Dallewal had been on a hunger strike for Minimum Support Price (MSP) and to seek justice for the injured farmers.
The doctors are warning that he may suffer a heart attack as his health is worsening. Despite the fact he knows about these risks, Dallewal is keen to continue his protest till his demands are met.
(With inputs from agencies)

The court further said that there would be serious repercussions if something untoward happened to farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal. 



New Delhi, India As Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal continued his fast-unto-death, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (Dec 18) directed the Punjab government to extend him immediate medical aid, saying that if something happens, the "entire state machinery will be blamed". The 70-year-old farmer leader has been on a fast-unto-death at the Khanauri border point between Punjab and Haryana since November 26. The court further said that there would be serious repercussions if something untoward happened to him. Also read: India farmers' protest: 'Rail roko' agitation in Punjab, travellers face inconvenience “He needs to be healthy to agitate… As an elected government and a constitutional organ, you would not like to invite the blame that something happened to him… Even farmers should be concerned about saving their life. He’s their leader! You tell us something tomorrow. Do something swiftly,” a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant told the central and state governments. This comes as the Punjab government pointed out that Dallewal has refused medical treatment despite his health deteriorating and has vowed to sacrifice his life for farmers' rights. The court stressed that Dallewal is a leader of the farmers, and no leniency can be shown in such a situation. "He's (Mr Dallewal) their leader. The farmers should also be concerned about his health... You tell us something tomorrow. Do something swiftly," he added. Watch | Delhi Farmers Protest Explained: Why Are Farmers Protesting and What Are Their Demands? × The apex court emphasised that the court's doors are always open for farmers' demands, and they can visit and express their grievances. "We clarify that the court's doors are always open to any suggestion or demand by farmers directly or through their authorised representative," it said. Dallewal had been on a hunger strike for Minimum Support Price (MSP) and to seek justice for the injured farmers. The doctors are warning that he may suffer a heart attack as his health is worsening. Despite the fact he knows about these risks, Dallewal is keen to continue his protest till his demands are met. (With inputs from agencies)

Farmers' protest: SC warns Punjab govt if something happens to farmers 'entire state machinery to be blamed'

supreme-court

Supreme Court, News on Supreme Court, stories on Supreme Court, articles on Supreme Court, Supreme Court stories at Wion, Supreme Court news, Supreme Court latest news

supreme court