The Supreme Court today rejected a plea seeking an urgent hearing on a fresh PIL that sought cancellation of Censor Board&#39;s certificate granted to controversial Bollywood movie &#39;Padmaavat&#39;.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also trashed the submission that the screening of the movie may cause serious threat to life, property and law and order.

&quot;Maintaining law and order is not our job. That is the job of the state. Prayer rejected,&quot; the bench said while refusing to accord urgent hearing on the fresh plea filed by lawyer M L Sharma.

The lawyer has sought cancellation of the U/A certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to Deepika Padukone-starrer &#39;Padmaavat&#39; on various grounds including the provisions of the Cinematograph Act.

&quot;Yesterday, we have passed a reasoned order,&quot; the bench said adding that, once CBFC has granted the certificate, there was no scope of any interference.

The apex court had yesterday paved the way for the nationwide release of movie &#39;Padmaavat&#39; on January 25 by staying the ban on the screening of the film in Gujarat and Rajasthan.

The court had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film.

The movie, starring Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh in lead roles, is based on the saga of historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.

Haryana and Madhya Pradesh governments have not issued any formal order but had stated that they would not allow the exhibition of the film.

Maintaining that states were under constitutional obligation to maintain law and order, the apex court had said that this duty also includes providing police protection to persons who are involved in the film, its exhibition and the audience watching it.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also trashed the submission that the screening of the movie may cause serious threat to life, property and law and order.

The Supreme Court today rejected a plea seeking an urgent hearing on a fresh PIL that sought cancellation of Censor Board's certificate granted to controversial Bollywood movie 'Padmaavat'. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also trashed the submission that the screening of the movie may cause serious threat to life, property and law and order. "Maintaining law and order is not our job. That is the job of the state. Prayer rejected," the bench said while refusing to accord urgent hearing on the fresh plea filed by lawyer M L Sharma. The lawyer has sought cancellation of the U/A certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to Deepika Padukone-starrer 'Padmaavat' on various grounds including the provisions of the Cinematograph Act. "Yesterday, we have passed a reasoned order," the bench said adding that, once CBFC has granted the certificate, there was no scope of any interference. The apex court had yesterday paved the way for the nationwide release of movie 'Padmaavat' on January 25 by staying the ban on the screening of the film in Gujarat and Rajasthan. The court had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film. The movie, starring Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh in lead roles, is based on the saga of historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi. Haryana and Madhya Pradesh governments have not issued any formal order but had stated that they would not allow the exhibition of the film. Maintaining that states were under constitutional obligation to maintain law and order, the apex court had said that this duty also includes providing police protection to persons who are involved in the film, its exhibition and the audience watching it.

Supreme Court rejects plea to cancel CBFC certificate to 'Padmaavat'

With independence, the people of India fantasised about breathing freely; the Indian Constitution brushed aside all vestiges of subordination which the tyranny of the alien rulers had imposed upon them, declaring all laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights to be void.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, within a year or so, the constitutional dream was diluted with the First Amendment of the Constitution that equipped the government with wider powers to stifle liberty by incorporating the phrase &ldquo;Public Order&rdquo; and the Press Objectionable Matters Act, 1951, like those passed during 1910 and 1931. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

With Indira Gandhi becoming the prime minister, the period saw the strident confrontation between the government and the press. Central Censorship orders were passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971. The Defence of India Act 1971 and other Acts came into force during this period. The Press Council (Repeal) Act 1976 repealed the Press Council Act and abolished the Press Council. The Parliamentary Proceeding (Protection of Publication) Act, 1976 was too repealed to curb the freedom of the press.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Some curative measures were taken by the ensuing government but the executive under the existing laws is still adequately equipped to restrain the liberty of the press. However, right since its inception, the free speech clause has always been an endearing fundamental right for the Indian Supreme Court. Starting with Romesh Thapar, and Brij Bhusan cases to recent Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which quashing section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, we can say that Supreme Court has always come to rescue free speech whenever it was endangered.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The ongoing uproar on an exhibition of the movie Padmaavat is a blatant specimen of the fact that Indian soil is not yet prepared to nurture the freedom of speech. The film is facing massive protests from fringe groups like &lsquo;Rajput Karni Sena&rsquo;. They publicly and bizarrely exhibited the courage to issue death threats to producer and actors of the film and blocked the historic Chittorgarh Fort for tourists and called for Bharat Bandh on 1 December 2017. Instead of taking stern action against these fringe elements, the government of Rajasthan and some other states obliquely encouraged them to do more mischief.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Any alleged distortion of historical facts must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Indian Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 empower the Central Board of Film Certification &ldquo;the Censor Board&rdquo; to grant permission to exhibit the film with conditions, without conditions or refuse permission as it thinks appropriate.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

To bring objectivity in its decision and to study the impact of a film on the public, it is mandated that Board may hold a seminar of film critics, writers, historians, community leaders and persons engaged in the film industry. The central government is also vested with revision powers under the Act to deal with any exigencies. Failing all, we have our constitutional courts which uphold freedom of speech as an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than allow monopolisation of that market whether by the government itself or a private licensee.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Following the due process, the censor board conferred Padmavati&nbsp;a UA certificate and suggested to change the film&rsquo;s title to &ldquo;Padmaavat&rdquo;&nbsp;besides making four other modifications. The board also advised modifications in disclaimers, pertinently adding one regarding not glorifying the practice of&nbsp;Sati&nbsp;and also relevant changes in the song &lsquo;Ghoomar&rsquo; to befit the character portrayed. Incorporating these modifications, the film was proposed to be released on 25th January 2018.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

But, fringe elements sustained its disorderly behaviour and, consequently, governments of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana imposed a ban on screening of the Film &lsquo;Padmaavat.&rsquo; The producer has to approach the Court for implementation of its fundamental right.&nbsp; The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, preserving its pledge, rightly granted an interim injunction against the decision of four states to ban the release and public exhibition of the film Padmaavat.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

People have the right to protest but by constitutional means. The government is bound to ensure that rule of law would reign in all circumstances and at any cost. The subsistence of private armies like Karni Sena is frightening and must be outlawed. &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

People have the right to protest but by constitutional means. The subsistence of private armies like Karni Sena is frightening and must be outlawed.

With independence, the people of India fantasised about breathing freely; the Indian Constitution brushed aside all vestiges of subordination which the tyranny of the alien rulers had imposed upon them, declaring all laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights to be void. However, within a year or so, the constitutional dream was diluted with the First Amendment of the Constitution that equipped the government with wider powers to stifle liberty by incorporating the phrase “Public Order” and the Press Objectionable Matters Act, 1951, like those passed during 1910 and 1931. With Indira Gandhi becoming the prime minister, the period saw the strident confrontation between the government and the press. Central Censorship orders were passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971. The Defence of India Act 1971 and other Acts came into force during this period. The Press Council (Repeal) Act 1976 repealed the Press Council Act and abolished the Press Council. The Parliamentary Proceeding (Protection of Publication) Act, 1976 was too repealed to curb the freedom of the press. Some curative measures were taken by the ensuing government but the executive under the existing laws is still adequately equipped to restrain the liberty of the press. However, right since its inception, the free speech clause has always been an endearing fundamental right for the Indian Supreme Court. Starting with Romesh Thapar, and Brij Bhusan cases to recent Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which quashing section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, we can say that Supreme Court has always come to rescue free speech whenever it was endangered. The ongoing uproar on an exhibition of the movie Padmaavat is a blatant specimen of the fact that Indian soil is not yet prepared to nurture the freedom of speech. The film is facing massive protests from fringe groups like ‘Rajput Karni Sena’. They publicly and bizarrely exhibited the courage to issue death threats to producer and actors of the film and blocked the historic Chittorgarh Fort for tourists and called for Bharat Bandh on 1 December 2017. Instead of taking stern action against these fringe elements, the government of Rajasthan and some other states obliquely encouraged them to do more mischief. Any alleged distortion of historical facts must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Indian Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 empower the Central Board of Film Certification “the Censor Board” to grant permission to exhibit the film with conditions, without conditions or refuse permission as it thinks appropriate. To bring objectivity in its decision and to study the impact of a film on the public, it is mandated that Board may hold a seminar of film critics, writers, historians, community leaders and persons engaged in the film industry. The central government is also vested with revision powers under the Act to deal with any exigencies. Failing all, we have our constitutional courts which uphold freedom of speech as an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than allow monopolisation of that market whether by the government itself or a private licensee. Following the due process, the censor board conferred Padmavati a UA certificate and suggested to change the film’s title to “Padmaavat” besides making four other modifications. The board also advised modifications in disclaimers, pertinently adding one regarding not glorifying the practice of Sati and also relevant changes in the song ‘Ghoomar’ to befit the character portrayed. Incorporating these modifications, the film was proposed to be released on 25th January 2018. But, fringe elements sustained its disorderly behaviour and, consequently, governments of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana imposed a ban on screening of the Film ‘Padmaavat.’ The producer has to approach the Court for implementation of its fundamental right. The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, preserving its pledge, rightly granted an interim injunction against the decision of four states to ban the release and public exhibition of the film Padmaavat. People have the right to protest but by constitutional means. The government is bound to ensure that rule of law would reign in all circumstances and at any cost. The subsistence of private armies like Karni Sena is frightening and must be outlawed. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Debate over Padmaavat has devolved into a fight between freedom and fanatics

Spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has come out in support of Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s Padmaavat. The filmmaker screened the film for the spiritual leader on Wednesday evening at his ashram.&nbsp; 
 
&ldquo;I loved the movie and haven&#39;t found anything objectionable about it. Very shocked to see people protesting, as the movie is about Rajput honour and is a beautiful tribute to Rani Padmavati. I request people to go watch the movie, it will make you proud. Padmaavat should be celebrated across India,&rdquo; said the Art of Living founder.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhansali%20ravi%20sankar-20180118082756.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Sanjay Leela Bhansali with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/bhansali%20shankar2-20180118083024.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Sanjay Leela Bhansali screened Padmaavat for Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Wednesday evening at his ashram. (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Padmaavat has been in the middle of a controversy as a fringe group, Rajput Karni Sena demanded a ban on the film&#39;s release as they felt it dishonoured the Rajput community and Queen Padmini. &nbsp; 
 
While the film was cleared by CBFC in the first week of January with a demand of title change and 5 modifications in the story, four states decided to ban the film. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the ban and cleared the film&#39;s release.&nbsp;

Sanjay Leela Bhansali screened the film for the spiritual leader at his ashram on Wednesday.

Spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has come out in support of Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat. The filmmaker screened the film for the spiritual leader on Wednesday evening at his ashram. “I loved the movie and haven't found anything objectionable about it. Very shocked to see people protesting, as the movie is about Rajput honour and is a beautiful tribute to Rani Padmavati. I request people to go watch the movie, it will make you proud. Padmaavat should be celebrated across India,” said the Art of Living founder. Sanjay Leela Bhansali with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (WION) × Sanjay Leela Bhansali screened Padmaavat for Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Wednesday evening at his ashram. (WION) × Padmaavat has been in the middle of a controversy as a fringe group, Rajput Karni Sena demanded a ban on the film's release as they felt it dishonoured the Rajput community and Queen Padmini. While the film was cleared by CBFC in the first week of January with a demand of title change and 5 modifications in the story, four states decided to ban the film. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the ban and cleared the film's release.

Sri Sri Ravi Sankar bats for Padmaavat, says film should be celebrated across India

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra met the with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court - &nbsp;Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph in order to resolve issues raised by them during a press conference last week.

Misra had earlier met the senior judges a few days ago as well in a bid to quell differences over a number of issues raised by them on January 12th in an open press conference.

The meeting with the four judges lasted around 10-15 minutes before the resumption of court proceedings at 10:30 am.

The judges had alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to &quot;select benches&quot; headed by junior judges in the last few months.&nbsp;

The judges had said the issues involving administration of the Supreme Court were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

Later, the judges had released a letter detailing cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;. 
&nbsp;

The judges had alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to "select benches" headed by junior judges in the last few months.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra met the with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph in order to resolve issues raised by them during a press conference last week. Misra had earlier met the senior judges a few days ago as well in a bid to quell differences over a number of issues raised by them on January 12th in an open press conference. The meeting with the four judges lasted around 10-15 minutes before the resumption of court proceedings at 10:30 am. The judges had alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to "select benches" headed by junior judges in the last few months. The judges had said the issues involving administration of the Supreme Court were serious enough to prompt them to go public. Later, the judges had released a letter detailing cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment".

CJI Dipak Misra meets 4 Supreme Court judges to diffuse crisis

Even after the Supreme Court cleared decks for release of Padmaavat, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/final-warning-padmaavat-should-not-be-released-say-protesters-after-supreme-court-order-29929">opposition against the Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s film</a> continues. Controversial Haryana politician Suraj Pal Amu has said that if the film is released, the country will fall apart.

&quot;Today the Supreme has hurt the sentiments of crores of people, who respect the court. We will continue our struggle, even if we are sent to the gallows. If this film is released, the country will fall apart,&quot; Amu said.

Amu, a former BJP leader, had offered a Rs 10 crore bounty last year to anybody who beheaded director Sanjay Leela Bhansali and the film&#39;s lead actress Deepika Padukone. He had <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/haryana-bjps-chief-media-coordinator-who-offered-rs-10-crore-bounty-for-beheading-deepika-padukone-resigns-25417">resigned from the party</a> after controversy over his remarks.

The BJP had issued a show-cause notice to Amu and asked him to apologise.

Padmaavat has been accused of distorting historical facts by fringe groups. The objection is to an alleged dream sequence between Deepika Padukone&#39;s Rani Padmini and Ranveer Singh&#39;s Alauddin Khilji, a claim that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has repeatedly rubbished.

Padmaavat was originally scheduled to hit theatres on December 1 but its co-producers Viacom 18 deferred the film&#39;s release after film ran into trouble with the censor board. Widespread protests followed from the fringe groups, especially in Rajput-dominated areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana, against the release of films prompting the censor board to form a panel to review the film; the film&#39;s name was finally changed to &#39;Padmaavat&#39; and the release date decided as January 25, 2018.

But the fringe groups kept protesting against the film&#39;s release, and the governments of Rajasthan, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat said they will not allow Padmaavat to be released in their states.

The filmmakers then approcahed the Supreme Court which on Thursday (January 18) <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917">stayed the ban</a>, clearing decks for the film&#39;s pan-India release.

Amu, a former BJP leader, had offered a Rs 10 crore bounty last year to anybody who beheaded director Sanjay Leela Bhansali and the film's lead actress Deepika Padukone.

Even after the Supreme Court cleared decks for release of Padmaavat, opposition against the Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film continues. Controversial Haryana politician Suraj Pal Amu has said that if the film is released, the country will fall apart. "Today the Supreme has hurt the sentiments of crores of people, who respect the court. We will continue our struggle, even if we are sent to the gallows. If this film is released, the country will fall apart," Amu said. Amu, a former BJP leader, had offered a Rs 10 crore bounty last year to anybody who beheaded director Sanjay Leela Bhansali and the film's lead actress Deepika Padukone. He had resigned from the party after controversy over his remarks. The BJP had issued a show-cause notice to Amu and asked him to apologise. Padmaavat has been accused of distorting historical facts by fringe groups. The objection is to an alleged dream sequence between Deepika Padukone's Rani Padmini and Ranveer Singh's Alauddin Khilji, a claim that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has repeatedly rubbished. Padmaavat was originally scheduled to hit theatres on December 1 but its co-producers Viacom 18 deferred the film's release after film ran into trouble with the censor board. Widespread protests followed from the fringe groups, especially in Rajput-dominated areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana, against the release of films prompting the censor board to form a panel to review the film; the film's name was finally changed to 'Padmaavat' and the release date decided as January 25, 2018. But the fringe groups kept protesting against the film's release, and the governments of Rajasthan, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat said they will not allow Padmaavat to be released in their states. The filmmakers then approcahed the Supreme Court which on Thursday (January 18) stayed the ban, clearing decks for the film's pan-India release.

If Padmaavat is released, the country will fall apart: Suraj Pal Amu

Members of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-women-of-kshatriya-community-threaten-to-perform-jauhar-if-the-films-release-is-not-stalled-29572">Rajput community</a> have refused to accept the decision of the Supreme Court allowing the screening of Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s Padmaavat.

&quot;We do not accept the decison of Supreme Court on Padmaavat. Our protest will continue,&quot; said Vikramaditya Singh, state president of Sarv Rajput Kshatriya Mahasabha in Raipur.

&quot;Members of the Rajput community have submitted a memorandum to Chhattisgarh Home Minister Ramsewak Paikra demanding ban on Padmaavat in the state. Cinema halls screening the film would be burnt down. No changes hereafter are acceptable. We want a complete ban. This is our final warning,&quot; he added.

The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917">cleared the decks</a> for the all-India release of controversial movie &#39;Padmaavat&#39; on January 25 and stayed notifications and orders issued by Rajasthan and Gujarat prohibiting exhibition of the film in their states.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also restrained any other state from issuing such notifications and orders prohibiting exhibition of the movie.

&quot;We direct that there shall be a stay of operation on the notification and orders issued and we also restrain other states from issuing such notifications or orders in this matter,&quot; the bench said in its interim order.

Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi, representing Viacom 18 and other producers of the movie, told the bench that states have no power to issue such notifications banning exhibition of a film when the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has given a certificate of release.

Governments of Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-now-rajasthan-bans-the-film-keeping-public-interest-in-mind-29892">Rajasthan</a> had declared that they will not allow screening of the movie, which stars Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh in lead roles.

The producers submitted <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-padmaavat-producers-move-supreme-court-against-states-banning-release-29802">before the Supreme Court</a> that the movie has undergone changes including in its title as suggested by the CBFC.

Asserting that the film has been cleared by the CBFC, the plea has said that the states cannot impose a blanket ban on a film and its screening can be suspended in a particular area or areas on account of law and order problem, not across the states.

The film is based on the saga of the historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.

The set of the movie was vandalised twice - in Jaipur and Kolhapur, while its director Sanjay Leela Bhansali was roughed up by members of the Karni Sena last year.

(With PTI inputs)

The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the decks for the all-India release of controversial movie 'Padmaavat' on January 25.

Members of the Rajput community have refused to accept the decision of the Supreme Court allowing the screening of Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat. "We do not accept the decison of Supreme Court on Padmaavat. Our protest will continue," said Vikramaditya Singh, state president of Sarv Rajput Kshatriya Mahasabha in Raipur. "Members of the Rajput community have submitted a memorandum to Chhattisgarh Home Minister Ramsewak Paikra demanding ban on Padmaavat in the state. Cinema halls screening the film would be burnt down. No changes hereafter are acceptable. We want a complete ban. This is our final warning," he added. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the decks for the all-India release of controversial movie 'Padmaavat' on January 25 and stayed notifications and orders issued by Rajasthan and Gujarat prohibiting exhibition of the film in their states. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also restrained any other state from issuing such notifications and orders prohibiting exhibition of the movie. "We direct that there shall be a stay of operation on the notification and orders issued and we also restrain other states from issuing such notifications or orders in this matter," the bench said in its interim order. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi, representing Viacom 18 and other producers of the movie, told the bench that states have no power to issue such notifications banning exhibition of a film when the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has given a certificate of release. Governments of Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan had declared that they will not allow screening of the movie, which stars Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh in lead roles. The producers submitted before the Supreme Court that the movie has undergone changes including in its title as suggested by the CBFC. Asserting that the film has been cleared by the CBFC, the plea has said that the states cannot impose a blanket ban on a film and its screening can be suspended in a particular area or areas on account of law and order problem, not across the states. The film is based on the saga of the historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi. The set of the movie was vandalised twice - in Jaipur and Kolhapur, while its director Sanjay Leela Bhansali was roughed up by members of the Karni Sena last year. (With PTI inputs)

'Final warning, Padmaavat should not be released', say protesters after Supreme Court order

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/netanyahu-meets-moshe-at-chabad-house-calls-it-a-unique-blend-of-love-and-hatred-29966">Netanyahu meets Moshe at Chabad House, calls it &#39;a unique blend of love and hatred&#39;</a>

The Chabad House is a unique blend of love and hatred towards the people of Israel, the country&#39;s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said today.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917">When Bandit Queen can release, why not </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917">Padmaavat</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917">, says Supreme Court</a>

The Supreme Court said Thursday that the movie Padmaavat would have to be released across the country. Four states -- Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh -- had banned the release of the film.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lucknow-schoolgirl-who-attacked-class-1-boy-with-knife-had-wanted-a-holiday-29965">Lucknow: Schoolgirl who attacked class 1 boy with knife had wanted a holiday</a>

Police said Thursday that the 11-year-old girl who attacked the Class 1 boy with a sharp-edged weapon in the toilet of his Lucknow school had wanted a holiday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/virat-kohli-named-icc-cricketer-of-the-year-29916">Virat Kohli named ICC Cricketer of the Year</a>

Indian captain Virat Kohli has been awarded the Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy for ICC Cricketer of the Year, besides bagging the top honour for ODI players in the ICC annual awards, announced in Dubai.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/australia-lifesaving-drone-makes-first-rescue-29970">In world first, drone rescues 2 swimmers off Australian beach</a>

A pair of Australian swimmers on Thursday became the first people to be rescued in the ocean by a drone when the aerial lifesaver dropped a safety device to distressed teens caught in rough seas.

Netanyahu meets Moshe at Chabad House, calls it 'a unique blend of love and hatred' The Chabad House is a unique blend of love and hatred towards the people of Israel, the country's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said today. When Bandit Queen can release, why not Padmaavat, says Supreme Court The Supreme Court said Thursday that the movie Padmaavat would have to be released across the country. Four states -- Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh -- had banned the release of the film. Lucknow: Schoolgirl who attacked class 1 boy with knife had wanted a holiday Police said Thursday that the 11-year-old girl who attacked the Class 1 boy with a sharp-edged weapon in the toilet of his Lucknow school had wanted a holiday. Virat Kohli named ICC Cricketer of the Year Indian captain Virat Kohli has been awarded the Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy for ICC Cricketer of the Year, besides bagging the top honour for ODI players in the ICC annual awards, announced in Dubai. In world first, drone rescues 2 swimmers off Australian beach A pair of Australian swimmers on Thursday became the first people to be rescued in the ocean by a drone when the aerial lifesaver dropped a safety device to distressed teens caught in rough seas.

WION Evening News brief, 18 January, 2018

On Wednesday there was uncertainty and fear surrounding the future of&nbsp;Padmavati. Will the producers Viacom 18 Motion Pictures actually be able to release the film in spite of the threat? The fringe group claiming to represent the Rajput&nbsp;community has sent out threatening letters to individual multiplex theatres across the country.

A worried manager of a leading multiplex told me, &ldquo;Even if we overlook the threat and decide to release&nbsp;the&nbsp;film the mall owners would be worried about the security&nbsp;of the shoppers.&nbsp;So if the mall owner says no, we can&rsquo;t release&nbsp;Padmaavat. And what about the patrons who come to see&nbsp;PadMan?&nbsp;They will be scared away because of the violent&nbsp;treats&nbsp;for&nbsp;Padamavat.&rdquo;

But on Thursday the clouds of doubts were partially dispelled when the honourable Supreme Court ruled against the ban imposed on the film by 4 Indian states.

Not just Sanjay&nbsp;Leela&nbsp;Bhansali&nbsp;the entire film industry, petrified to speak up, breathed a sigh of relief.&nbsp;One&nbsp;of&nbsp;the first filmmakers to react with unbridled joy at the SC&rsquo;s verdict was R&nbsp;&nbsp;Balki&nbsp;whose&nbsp;PadMan&nbsp;gets directly affected by the release of&nbsp;Padmavati&nbsp;on the same day.

Says&nbsp;Balki, &ldquo;This is a victory democracy, the right&nbsp;to freedom of expression and for the film industry being held at ransom by fringe groups. I can&rsquo;t even begin to imagine the&nbsp; relief that Viacom 18 and&nbsp;Sanjay&nbsp;Leela&nbsp;Bhansali&nbsp;must be feeling.&rdquo;

It is good to hear a&nbsp; voice from the film industry finally&nbsp;speak up. There has been a strange quietude among&nbsp;&nbsp;Sanjay&nbsp;Bhansali&rsquo;s colleagues. Perhaps they are too scared to speak up. A&nbsp;prominent actor who is a member&nbsp;of parliament had promised to raise the&nbsp;Padmavat&nbsp;issue in parliament. That actor is now&nbsp;tightlipped,&nbsp;afraid to talk.

&ldquo;It is not fear of the fringe groups that&nbsp;keeps&nbsp;me from raising my voice in parliament. It is the fear of being proven wrong.&nbsp;What if tomorrow, when the film releases and it has something genuinely&nbsp;objectionable in it?&nbsp; Even earlier in&nbsp;Bajirao&nbsp;Mastani,&nbsp;Bhansali&nbsp;had portrayed the Maratha warrior as dancing to an aggressive song.&nbsp;What if&nbsp;something like&nbsp;that pops up in&nbsp;Padmavat?&rdquo;&nbsp;asks this&nbsp;otherwise-fearless parliamentarian.

Wait-and-watch&nbsp;seems to&nbsp;be&nbsp;the policy&nbsp;regarding&nbsp;Padmaavat. In the days before the release of the volatile film on January&nbsp;25, we can expect several&nbsp;private screenings&nbsp;for&nbsp;various influential&nbsp;elements including perhaps&nbsp;some&nbsp;leaders from&nbsp;the&nbsp;fringe groups.

Back&nbsp;at the&nbsp;Bhansalis&rsquo;&nbsp;residence, there was cautious&nbsp;optimism about&nbsp;the SC&nbsp; order to&nbsp;ban&nbsp;the ban, so to speak. Minutes after the&nbsp; SC&nbsp; verdict the filmmaker who hasn&rsquo;t slept much in recent weeks was on the&nbsp;phone&nbsp;in a&nbsp;huddle over&nbsp;release plans. A&nbsp; close family member said. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s&nbsp;great&nbsp;to hear&nbsp;the&nbsp; Supreme&nbsp; Court lift the ban. But will the States pay ahead? And&nbsp; more importantly, will &nbsp;the&nbsp; fringe groups listen to the&nbsp; verdict?&rdquo;

Good point, that.&nbsp; Just an hour after the SC&rsquo;s&nbsp; wonderful&nbsp;verdict theatre&nbsp;owners received&nbsp;renewed warnings.

A&nbsp; theatre owner in&nbsp;Bihar&nbsp;says he is not releasing&nbsp;the on&nbsp;January 25. &ldquo;Even ifNitishji&nbsp;doesn&rsquo;t&nbsp;ban the&nbsp;film I won&rsquo;t&nbsp;release&nbsp;the&nbsp;film on 25th. I will see how it goes&nbsp;with&nbsp;the&nbsp;other theatres on January 25 and&nbsp;&nbsp;release&nbsp;the&nbsp; film accordingly on January 26.&rdquo;

Long live democracy.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A close family member of Sanjay Bhansali said. “It’s great to hear the Supreme Court lift the ban. But will the States pay ahead? And more importantly, will the fringe groups listen to the verdict?”

On Wednesday there was uncertainty and fear surrounding the future of Padmavati. Will the producers Viacom 18 Motion Pictures actually be able to release the film in spite of the threat? The fringe group claiming to represent the Rajput community has sent out threatening letters to individual multiplex theatres across the country. A worried manager of a leading multiplex told me, “Even if we overlook the threat and decide to release the film the mall owners would be worried about the security of the shoppers. So if the mall owner says no, we can’t release Padmaavat. And what about the patrons who come to see PadMan? They will be scared away because of the violent treats for Padamavat.” But on Thursday the clouds of doubts were partially dispelled when the honourable Supreme Court ruled against the ban imposed on the film by 4 Indian states. Not just Sanjay Leela Bhansali the entire film industry, petrified to speak up, breathed a sigh of relief. One of the first filmmakers to react with unbridled joy at the SC’s verdict was R Balki whose PadMan gets directly affected by the release of Padmavati on the same day. Says Balki, “This is a victory democracy, the right to freedom of expression and for the film industry being held at ransom by fringe groups. I can’t even begin to imagine the relief that Viacom 18 and Sanjay Leela Bhansali must be feeling.” It is good to hear a voice from the film industry finally speak up. There has been a strange quietude among Sanjay Bhansali’s colleagues. Perhaps they are too scared to speak up. A prominent actor who is a member of parliament had promised to raise the Padmavat issue in parliament. That actor is now tightlipped, afraid to talk. “It is not fear of the fringe groups that keeps me from raising my voice in parliament. It is the fear of being proven wrong. What if tomorrow, when the film releases and it has something genuinely objectionable in it? Even earlier in Bajirao Mastani, Bhansali had portrayed the Maratha warrior as dancing to an aggressive song. What if something like that pops up in Padmavat?” asks this otherwise-fearless parliamentarian. Wait-and-watch seems to be the policy regarding Padmaavat. In the days before the release of the volatile film on January 25, we can expect several private screenings for various influential elements including perhaps some leaders from the fringe groups. Back at the Bhansalis’ residence, there was cautious optimism about the SC order to ban the ban, so to speak. Minutes after the SC verdict the filmmaker who hasn’t slept much in recent weeks was on the phone in a huddle over release plans. A close family member said. “It’s great to hear the Supreme Court lift the ban. But will the States pay ahead? And more importantly, will the fringe groups listen to the verdict?” Good point, that. Just an hour after the SC’s wonderful verdict theatre owners received renewed warnings. A theatre owner in Bihar says he is not releasing the on January 25. “Even ifNitishji doesn’t ban the film I won’t release the film on 25th. I will see how it goes with the other theatres on January 25 and release the film accordingly on January 26.” Long live democracy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: For Padmaavat, next challenge is movie hall owners

Aadhaar, literally meaning &ldquo;base&rdquo;, is now being used as the new age identity proof. It will be needed not only for accessing government benefits, but also for verification of identity in the banking services, digital communication system, education sectors and even in public and private employment sectors.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Aadhaar is basically an 11 digit proof of identity system that is meant to play a crucial role in availing government and non-government services. According to S.3(3) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (The Act), every resident (not a citizen, as this term has not been mentioned in the provision) is entitled to obtain Aadhaar number after submission of biometrics and other related data and proper verification of the same by the government agency.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Act also mentions that the unique identification authority of India will take special measures to issue Aadhaar number to specific groups of individuals, including senior citizens, women, disabled persons etc.&nbsp; While the recent government decisions to mandatorily connect Aadhar with the banking system and telecommunication services has created a wide range of controversies, one must also be concerned about the security of &lsquo;Aadhaar of information&rsquo;, especially for the senior citizens and women.&nbsp; Aadhaar biometrics include image of iris, finger prints and photograph of the face. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

When the concept of Aadhar was introduced way back in 2010-11, it was not mandatory. Consequently, senior citizens and women might not have taken much interest in the same. But later, the Aadhar verification number was made essential for availing some government-aided services, including cooking gas connection. This was one of the very first steps to include Aadhaar as an essential &lsquo;card&rsquo; or identity proof for individuals.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This essentialisation of Aadhaar remained questionable because several stakeholders raised the issue of limited awareness about it.&nbsp; Moreover, there were already too many verification processes needed for availing government schemes and there were not many Aadhaar card holders. Mostly, the cooking gas services were being availed by stakeholders by way of linking Aadhaar of the head of the families. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

This indeed questioned the basic understanding of the equal distribution of natural wealth through the social welfare system supported by the government. It was only with the demonetisation move in 2017 that Indian citizens, generally, became more concerned about mandatory nature of the Aadhaar card. Without the Card, banks would not extend their services equally to those who did not possess Aadhaar. It was at this juncture that individuals, irrespective of their gender and age, started registering for Aadhaar number and was also made aware of the privacy issues that was attached to this concept.

&nbsp;

Aadhaar may give unwarranted access to personal financial information as well as private mobile and landline numbers. Privacy right defenders have argued that this is against the basic norms of ensuring privacy as the Aadhaar system itself may not be foolproof. Recent report on possibilities Aadhaar information leakage has made their claim stronger.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

To check possible data leakages, the service providers, including the banking and telecom sector, are duty bound to ensure double verification system. The UIDIA itself is an &lsquo;authority&#39; to safeguard sensitive personal data like the biometrics. They have, time and again, released statements about their own strong mechanisms to prevent data leakage. However, this does not make the whole system free from concern.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Majority of the senior citizens in India are digitally illiterate and may have to depend on the younger generation to &lsquo;authenticate&rsquo; the Aadhaar online. The question of &lsquo;trust&rsquo; essentially arise here because the younger generation becomes the &lsquo;information conveyer&rsquo; to the older generation. The third party inclusion may automatically breach the privacy at the beginning. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Similarly, while senior citizens may possess mobile phone numbers, the recent call for linking Aadhaar number with telecom service industry has caused another havoc. Consider the plight of pensioners and other beneficiaries who may be availing financial benefits and depend majorly on the SMS system for receiving message regarding crediting or debiting of amounts in their accounts: the fear of blocking of the phone numbers&nbsp; because of not linking of Aadhaar with the same may create several health hazards for the senior citizens. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Indian government may not have an answer to such problems, particularly, at a time when the courts are being approached for ensuring senior citizen&rsquo;s rights. However, this constant tussle between government&rsquo;s responsibility towards ensuring holistic rights of senior citizens and the latter&rsquo;s silent suffering due to the problematic nature of &ldquo;Aadhaar of identity&quot; should not go unnoticed.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It is essential to make workable policies related to identity proof, which must not only provide assurance of safety but also should ensure the privacy of more vulnerable citizens of India.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

The constant tussle between government’s responsibility towards ensuring holistic rights of senior citizens and the latter’s silent suffering due to the problematic nature of “Aadhaar of identity" should not go unnoticed.

Aadhaar, literally meaning “base”, is now being used as the new age identity proof. It will be needed not only for accessing government benefits, but also for verification of identity in the banking services, digital communication system, education sectors and even in public and private employment sectors. Aadhaar is basically an 11 digit proof of identity system that is meant to play a crucial role in availing government and non-government services. According to S.3(3) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (The Act), every resident (not a citizen, as this term has not been mentioned in the provision) is entitled to obtain Aadhaar number after submission of biometrics and other related data and proper verification of the same by the government agency. The Act also mentions that the unique identification authority of India will take special measures to issue Aadhaar number to specific groups of individuals, including senior citizens, women, disabled persons etc. While the recent government decisions to mandatorily connect Aadhar with the banking system and telecommunication services has created a wide range of controversies, one must also be concerned about the security of ‘Aadhaar of information’, especially for the senior citizens and women. Aadhaar biometrics include image of iris, finger prints and photograph of the face. When the concept of Aadhar was introduced way back in 2010-11, it was not mandatory. Consequently, senior citizens and women might not have taken much interest in the same. But later, the Aadhar verification number was made essential for availing some government-aided services, including cooking gas connection. This was one of the very first steps to include Aadhaar as an essential ‘card’ or identity proof for individuals. This essentialisation of Aadhaar remained questionable because several stakeholders raised the issue of limited awareness about it. Moreover, there were already too many verification processes needed for availing government schemes and there were not many Aadhaar card holders. Mostly, the cooking gas services were being availed by stakeholders by way of linking Aadhaar of the head of the families. This indeed questioned the basic understanding of the equal distribution of natural wealth through the social welfare system supported by the government. It was only with the demonetisation move in 2017 that Indian citizens, generally, became more concerned about mandatory nature of the Aadhaar card. Without the Card, banks would not extend their services equally to those who did not possess Aadhaar. It was at this juncture that individuals, irrespective of their gender and age, started registering for Aadhaar number and was also made aware of the privacy issues that was attached to this concept. Aadhaar may give unwarranted access to personal financial information as well as private mobile and landline numbers. Privacy right defenders have argued that this is against the basic norms of ensuring privacy as the Aadhaar system itself may not be foolproof. Recent report on possibilities Aadhaar information leakage has made their claim stronger. To check possible data leakages, the service providers, including the banking and telecom sector, are duty bound to ensure double verification system. The UIDIA itself is an ‘authority' to safeguard sensitive personal data like the biometrics. They have, time and again, released statements about their own strong mechanisms to prevent data leakage. However, this does not make the whole system free from concern. Majority of the senior citizens in India are digitally illiterate and may have to depend on the younger generation to ‘authenticate’ the Aadhaar online. The question of ‘trust’ essentially arise here because the younger generation becomes the ‘information conveyer’ to the older generation. The third party inclusion may automatically breach the privacy at the beginning. Similarly, while senior citizens may possess mobile phone numbers, the recent call for linking Aadhaar number with telecom service industry has caused another havoc. Consider the plight of pensioners and other beneficiaries who may be availing financial benefits and depend majorly on the SMS system for receiving message regarding crediting or debiting of amounts in their accounts: the fear of blocking of the phone numbers because of not linking of Aadhaar with the same may create several health hazards for the senior citizens. The Indian government may not have an answer to such problems, particularly, at a time when the courts are being approached for ensuring senior citizen’s rights. However, this constant tussle between government’s responsibility towards ensuring holistic rights of senior citizens and the latter’s silent suffering due to the problematic nature of “Aadhaar of identity" should not go unnoticed. It is essential to make workable policies related to identity proof, which must not only provide assurance of safety but also should ensure the privacy of more vulnerable citizens of India. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: How Aadhar impacts the senior citizens of India

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners in the Aadhaar hearing, told a five-judge Constitution bench Wednesday that &quot;Aadhaar may cause death of citizens&#39; civil rights&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;A people&#39;s Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State&#39;s Constitution,&quot; &nbsp;he added.&nbsp;

The five-judge constitution bench -- headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and including Justices AM Khanwilkar, Adarsh Kumar Sikri, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan -- began <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-begins-hearing-on-aadhaar-29832" target="_blank">hearing a bunch of petitions against Aadhaar</a> Wednesday.&nbsp;

The petitions question the constitutional validity of linking citizens&#39; Aadhaar cards to government welfare schemes, and the validity of the Aadhaar scheme itself which aims to issue every Indian citizen a unique identification number. There have been a number of reports recently of people starving to death because they did not have Aadhaar cards and were therefore not given government rations at PDS (Public Distribution System) shops.&nbsp; 
 
The validity of Aadhaar and the possible <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-issues-virtual-id-against-aadhaar-to-strengthen-data-security-29128" target="_blank">leakage of citizens&#39; data</a> collected under the scheme has cropped up time and again. There was also a newspaper report recently of Aadhaar data being sold for as little as Rs 500. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had filed an FIR against the reporter who had filed that story, as well as against her newspaper.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has also received petitions questioning the linkage of the 12-digit number to mobile phones, bank accounts, and so forth, the last date for which was recently <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-pan-government-shelves-december-31-deadline-for-linking-aadhaar-with-bank-accounts-26646" target="_blank">extended to March 31</a> this year.

If the phones, bank accounts etc are not linked to Aadhaar numbers by then, they will be deactivated.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

'A people's Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State's Constitution,' Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shyam Divan added

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners in the Aadhaar hearing, told a five-judge Constitution bench Wednesday that "Aadhaar may cause death of citizens' civil rights". "A people's Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State's Constitution," he added. The five-judge constitution bench -- headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and including Justices AM Khanwilkar, Adarsh Kumar Sikri, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan -- began hearing a bunch of petitions against Aadhaar Wednesday. The petitions question the constitutional validity of linking citizens' Aadhaar cards to government welfare schemes, and the validity of the Aadhaar scheme itself which aims to issue every Indian citizen a unique identification number. There have been a number of reports recently of people starving to death because they did not have Aadhaar cards and were therefore not given government rations at PDS (Public Distribution System) shops. The validity of Aadhaar and the possible leakage of citizens' data collected under the scheme has cropped up time and again. There was also a newspaper report recently of Aadhaar data being sold for as little as Rs 500. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had filed an FIR against the reporter who had filed that story, as well as against her newspaper. The Supreme Court has also received petitions questioning the linkage of the 12-digit number to mobile phones, bank accounts, and so forth, the last date for which was recently extended to March 31 this year. If the phones, bank accounts etc are not linked to Aadhaar numbers by then, they will be deactivated.

'Aadhaar may cause death of citizens' civil rights': Lawyer for petitioners tells Supreme Court

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing the matter related to the constitutional validity of linking Aadhaar card to a number of government schemes.

The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four other judges Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Adarsh Kumar Sikri, D.Y.Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-pils-against-aadhaar-29776"> will hear a number of petitions</a> filed challenging the validity of the identification number.

Since inception, the validity of the Aadhaar and possible leakage of data has cropped up time and again. The top court has also received petitions regarding the linkage of this 12-digit number with mobile phones, bank accounts and so on, the last date for which was extended to March 31 this year.

While data breach has been widely debated in the recent past, the government had refuted all claims of the same.

Most recently, The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) decided to enable &#39;Face Authentication&#39; infusion mode on registered devices by July 1, so that people facing difficulty in other existing modes of verification such as fingerprints, iris, and one-time-password (OTP) could easily authenticate.

While data breach has been widely debated in the recent past, the government had refuted all claims of the same

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing the matter related to the constitutional validity of linking Aadhaar card to a number of government schemes. The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four other judges Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Adarsh Kumar Sikri, D.Y.Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan will hear a number of petitions filed challenging the validity of the identification number. Since inception, the validity of the Aadhaar and possible leakage of data has cropped up time and again. The top court has also received petitions regarding the linkage of this 12-digit number with mobile phones, bank accounts and so on, the last date for which was extended to March 31 this year. While data breach has been widely debated in the recent past, the government had refuted all claims of the same. Most recently, The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) decided to enable 'Face Authentication' infusion mode on registered devices by July 1, so that people facing difficulty in other existing modes of verification such as fingerprints, iris, and one-time-password (OTP) could easily authenticate.

Supreme Court begins hearing on Aadhaar

A five-member constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the various petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar.

The PILs have also been filed regarding the linkage of the 12 digit number with mobile phones, bank accounts and others.&nbsp;

Debates on the validity of Aadhaar&nbsp;have been on the rise since the government introduced the identification number.&nbsp;

A recent media report had revealed a case of a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/whatsapp-group-sold-aadhaar-details-for-rs-500-uidai-denies-report-28548" target="_blank"> major data breach</a> involving access to personal details of the cardholder&nbsp;with only Rs 500.

The Unique&nbsp;Identification Authority has recently introduced a more secure process for keeping the Aadhaar details safe. The Authority&nbsp;introduced <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-issues-virtual-id-against-aadhaar-to-strengthen-data-security-29128" target="_blank">virtual IDs </a>for Aadhaar holders which can be used in lieu of a person&#39;s Aadhaar number. It will be a random 16 digit number which will provide limited details like the name, address, and photograph of the holder.&nbsp;

It&nbsp;also said that it would also allow <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-says-face-recognition-will-be-allowed-to-verify-aadhaar-cardholders-29579" target="_top">Aadhaar cardholders to be verified by face recognition</a>.&nbsp;The facial authentication is expected to add a further layer of security to Aadhaar cardholders.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Expecttoday?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Expecttoday</a>: Supreme Court to begin hearing petitions challenging validity of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aadhaar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Aadhaar</a> and its mandatory linkage with several services
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/953443574225317889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A five-member constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India will hear the various petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar

A five-member constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the various petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar. The PILs have also been filed regarding the linkage of the 12 digit number with mobile phones, bank accounts and others. Debates on the validity of Aadhaar have been on the rise since the government introduced the identification number. A recent media report had revealed a case of a major data breach involving access to personal details of the cardholder with only Rs 500. The Unique Identification Authority has recently introduced a more secure process for keeping the Aadhaar details safe. The Authority introduced virtual IDs for Aadhaar holders which can be used in lieu of a person's Aadhaar number. It will be a random 16 digit number which will provide limited details like the name, address, and photograph of the holder. It also said that it would also allow Aadhaar cardholders to be verified by face recognition. The facial authentication is expected to add a further layer of security to Aadhaar cardholders. #Expecttoday: Supreme Court to begin hearing petitions challenging validity of #Aadhaar and its mandatory linkage with several services — ANI (@ANI) January 17, 2018 ×

Supreme Court to hear PILs against Aadhaar

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/haryana-rape-and-murder-class-12th-suspect-found-dead-in-kurukshetra-29852">Haryana rape and murder: Class 12 suspect found dead in Kurukshetra</a>

The Haryana Police found the dead body of the main suspect in the brutal rape and murder case of a 15-year-old Dalit girl.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/sensex-crosses-35000-mark-for-first-time-nifty-closes-at-all-time-high-29831">Sensex crosses 35,000 </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/sensex-crosses-35000-mark-for-first-time-nifty-closes-at-all-time-high-29831">mark</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/sensex-crosses-35000-mark-for-first-time-nifty-closes-at-all-time-high-29831"> for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/sensex-crosses-35000-mark-for-first-time-nifty-closes-at-all-time-high-29831">first</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/sensex-crosses-35000-mark-for-first-time-nifty-closes-at-all-time-high-29831"> time, Nifty closes at all-time high Benchmark&nbsp;</a>

Sensex soared over 310 points today to close above the 35,000-mark for the first time ever, while the broader Nifty too ended at a fresh life-time high on unabated buying by participants.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-may-cause-death-of-citizens-civil-rights-lawyer-for-petitioners-29842">&#39;Aadhaar may cause death of citizens&#39; civil rights&#39;: Lawyer for petitioners tells Supreme Court</a>

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners in the Aadhaar hearing, told a five-judge Constitution bench Wednesday that &quot;Aadhaar may cause death of citizens&#39; civil rights&quot;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/seven-rakhine-killed-as-myanmar-police-fire-on-rioters-29846">Seven ethnic Rakhine killed as Myanmar Police fire on rioters</a>

Seven ethnic Rakhine Buddhists died after Myanmar police opened fire on a crowd trying to seize a government office, officials said Wednesday, in fresh violence in a febrile state already scarred by ethnic and religious hatred.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/czech-government-agrees-to-resign-after-losing-confidence-vote-29845">Czech government agrees to resign after losing confidence vote</a>

The Czech government led by Prime Minister Andrej Babis agreed to resign on Wednesday after the minority cabinet lost a confidence vote a day earlier.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/south-africas-cape-town-may-run-out-of-water-in-90-days-29865">South Africa&#39;s Cape Town may run out of water in 90 days</a>

South Africa&#39;s Cape Town, one of the world&#39;s iconic tourist destinations, could run out of water by April as the city&#39;s worst drought in a century risks forcing residents to join queues for emergency rations.

Haryana rape and murder: Class 12 suspect found dead in Kurukshetra The Haryana Police found the dead body of the main suspect in the brutal rape and murder case of a 15-year-old Dalit girl. Sensex crosses 35,000 mark for first time, Nifty closes at all-time high Benchmark Sensex soared over 310 points today to close above the 35,000-mark for the first time ever, while the broader Nifty too ended at a fresh life-time high on unabated buying by participants. 'Aadhaar may cause death of citizens' civil rights': Lawyer for petitioners tells Supreme Court Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners in the Aadhaar hearing, told a five-judge Constitution bench Wednesday that "Aadhaar may cause death of citizens' civil rights". Seven ethnic Rakhine killed as Myanmar Police fire on rioters Seven ethnic Rakhine Buddhists died after Myanmar police opened fire on a crowd trying to seize a government office, officials said Wednesday, in fresh violence in a febrile state already scarred by ethnic and religious hatred. Czech government agrees to resign after losing confidence vote The Czech government led by Prime Minister Andrej Babis agreed to resign on Wednesday after the minority cabinet lost a confidence vote a day earlier. South Africa's Cape Town may run out of water in 90 days South Africa's Cape Town, one of the world's iconic tourist destinations, could run out of water by April as the city's worst drought in a century risks forcing residents to join queues for emergency rations.

WION Evening News Brief, 17 January 2018

A day after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/crisis-in-supreme-court-over-attorney-general-k-k-venugopal-29562">he said </a>that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over, Attorney General of India KK Venugopal today said the row seemed to be unresolved and hoped it will be &quot;fully settled&quot; in a couple of days.

&quot;Yes, I think it has not been settled. Let&#39;s hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days,&quot; Venugopal told PTI.

Asked about reports about the impasse continuing, Venugopal said he has to agree with the view.

&quot;We are in the process of resolving the issue. It would be resolved shortly,&quot; he said.

The Attorney General denied having a meeting with any of the four &quot;rebel&quot; judges or the Chief Justice of India

&quot;Nothing of that sort has happened,&quot; he said when asked whether they had met.

Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh also said the crisis in Supreme Court is likely to be resolved by the end of this week. 
 
&quot;By the end of this week the crisis is likely to be resolved,&quot; he told PTI.

The statements come&nbsp;amid the news that Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-indias-new-constitution-bench-excludes-rebel-judges-29649">doesn&#39;t include the four judges</a> who went public with their grievances against him last week.

KK Venugopal had said yesterday that there was an informal meeting on Monday morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four Supreme Court judges.

&quot;All disputes settled, things are normal (now),&rdquo; Venugopal had said.

The Bar Council of India had said that the crisis has been resolved internally and the &quot;story is over now&quot;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">On January 12</a>, the four judges - Justice J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had held an unprecedented press conference and raised several concerns including the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice.&nbsp;

They had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts.

The four senior-most judges<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/judges-who-rebelled-against-cji-resume-work-in-supreme-court-29559"> yesterday attended court </a>and took up routine work.

(With inputs from agencies)

Asked about reports about the impasse continuing, Venugopal said he has to agree with the view

A day after he said that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over, Attorney General of India KK Venugopal today said the row seemed to be unresolved and hoped it will be "fully settled" in a couple of days. "Yes, I think it has not been settled. Let's hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days," Venugopal told PTI. Asked about reports about the impasse continuing, Venugopal said he has to agree with the view. "We are in the process of resolving the issue. It would be resolved shortly," he said. The Attorney General denied having a meeting with any of the four "rebel" judges or the Chief Justice of India "Nothing of that sort has happened," he said when asked whether they had met. Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh also said the crisis in Supreme Court is likely to be resolved by the end of this week. "By the end of this week the crisis is likely to be resolved," he told PTI. The statements come amid the news that Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn't include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him last week. KK Venugopal had said yesterday that there was an informal meeting on Monday morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four Supreme Court judges. "All disputes settled, things are normal (now),” Venugopal had said. The Bar Council of India had said that the crisis has been resolved internally and the "story is over now". On January 12, the four judges - Justice J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had held an unprecedented press conference and raised several concerns including the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice. They had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts. The four senior-most judges yesterday attended court and took up routine work. (With inputs from agencies)

Crisis in Supreme Court seems to be unresolved: Attorney General K K Venugopal

The Supreme Court of India today termed as &quot;absolutely illegal&quot; any attack by khap panchayats or associations against adult men and women opting for inter-caste marriages.

&quot;Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or girl who are adult, it is absolutely illegal,&quot; the bench said.

The top court said that if an adult man and a woman got married, no khap, panchayat or society could question them.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud asked the Centre for its response on suggestions earlier given by amicus curiae (friend of the court) Raju Ramachandran on ways to prevent harassment and killing of young couples in the name of family honour for marrying out of their caste or clan (gotra).

&quot;Whatever the amicus curiae says about khap, we are not concerned with that. What we are concerned is that if an adult girl or boy gets into marriage, no khap, no individual or no society can question them,&quot; the bench said.

The three-judge Supreme Court bench&nbsp;rapped the Centre for failure in controlling attacks on love marriages and diktats of khap panchayats.

The Supreme Court warned the centre that if it &quot;does not act towards banning Khap Panchayats, then the court will step in&quot;.

The court listed the matter for&nbsp;further hearing on February 5.

The top court had earlier sought suggestions from an NGO &#39;Shakti Vahini&#39;, the amicus curiae and khap panchayats on the matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active.

Khaps are caste or community organisations in villages which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on regressive and age-old customs and traditions.

The NGO had moved the top court in 2010 seeking directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control honour crimes by taking a number of measures.

The Centre had pleaded with the top court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, as the police was not able to protect women facing ordeal at their hands.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court warned the centre that if it 'does not act towards banning khap panchayats, then the court will step in'

The Supreme Court of India today termed as "absolutely illegal" any attack by khap panchayats or associations against adult men and women opting for inter-caste marriages. "Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or girl who are adult, it is absolutely illegal," the bench said. The top court said that if an adult man and a woman got married, no khap, panchayat or society could question them. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud asked the Centre for its response on suggestions earlier given by amicus curiae (friend of the court) Raju Ramachandran on ways to prevent harassment and killing of young couples in the name of family honour for marrying out of their caste or clan (gotra). "Whatever the amicus curiae says about khap, we are not concerned with that. What we are concerned is that if an adult girl or boy gets into marriage, no khap, no individual or no society can question them," the bench said. The three-judge Supreme Court bench rapped the Centre for failure in controlling attacks on love marriages and diktats of khap panchayats. The Supreme Court warned the centre that if it "does not act towards banning Khap Panchayats, then the court will step in". The court listed the matter for further hearing on February 5. The top court had earlier sought suggestions from an NGO 'Shakti Vahini', the amicus curiae and khap panchayats on the matter. The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active. Khaps are caste or community organisations in villages which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on regressive and age-old customs and traditions. The NGO had moved the top court in 2010 seeking directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control honour crimes by taking a number of measures. The Centre had pleaded with the top court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, as the police was not able to protect women facing ordeal at their hands. (With inputs from agencies)

Attacks by khap panchayats over inter-caste marriages 'absolutely illegal': Supreme Court

Supreme Court officers will now be entitled to get &quot;washing allowance&quot; of Rs 21,000 per annum, reports said on Tuesday.&nbsp;

The Special Protection Group (non-operational) has been granted composite and washing allowance of Rs 21,225 with a meagre difference. The SPG (operational) have been granted an allowance of Rs 27,000 -&nbsp; the highest among all services - reports further stated.&nbsp;

Soldiers of armed forces and paramilitary forces, CRPF and BSF will get an amount of Rs 10,000 for purchasing their uniform and washing them. The officers of Supreme Court including top-secretary general, however, will now get a washing allowance of Rs 1,750 per month.

As per direction given by the finance ministry,&nbsp;the non-clerical staff of the apex court will get washing allowance of Rs 1,350 a month and remaining staff of the SC will get Rs 1,250 per month.&nbsp;

The dress and washing allowance to the officers of the Army, Air Force and Navy has been fixed at Rs 20,000 per annum. The officers of the Delhi Police and DANIP service will get dress and washing allowance of Rs 15,000 annually.

This allowance will come into effect from December 14, 2017.&nbsp;

The decision came after several officers clashed with the government, saying that their allowances have been discounted post the seventh pay commission and permitted only in case of troops where it has been subsumed with the dress allowance, reports said.

The Special Protection Group (non-operational) has been granted composite and washing allowance of Rs 21,225 with a meagre difference. The SPG (operational) have been granted an allowance of Rs 27,000 - the highest among all services reports further stated

Supreme Court officers will now be entitled to get "washing allowance" of Rs 21,000 per annum, reports said on Tuesday. The Special Protection Group (non-operational) has been granted composite and washing allowance of Rs 21,225 with a meagre difference. The SPG (operational) have been granted an allowance of Rs 27,000 - the highest among all services - reports further stated. Soldiers of armed forces and paramilitary forces, CRPF and BSF will get an amount of Rs 10,000 for purchasing their uniform and washing them. The officers of Supreme Court including top-secretary general, however, will now get a washing allowance of Rs 1,750 per month. As per direction given by the finance ministry, the non-clerical staff of the apex court will get washing allowance of Rs 1,350 a month and remaining staff of the SC will get Rs 1,250 per month. The dress and washing allowance to the officers of the Army, Air Force and Navy has been fixed at Rs 20,000 per annum. The officers of the Delhi Police and DANIP service will get dress and washing allowance of Rs 15,000 annually. This allowance will come into effect from December 14, 2017. The decision came after several officers clashed with the government, saying that their allowances have been discounted post the seventh pay commission and permitted only in case of troops where it has been subsumed with the dress allowance, reports said.

Supreme Court law officers awarded Rs 21,000 as 'washing allowance'

The Supreme Court today said the attacks on those opting for inter-caste marriage were &quot;absolutely illegal&quot; and no &#39;khap panchayats, individual or the society can question any adult woman and man marrying of their own choice.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also pulled up the Centre for not taking the matter seriously and not filing its suggestions on the issue, saying such panchayats or bodies cannot threaten adult women and men for marrying each other.

Khaps are caste or community organisations, particularly in the rural areas of north India, which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on regressive and age-old customs and traditions.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,&#39; the court said</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,' the court said" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who represented the Centre, that if the government does not come out with its suggestions, then the court would pass order on the suggestions given by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae.

&quot;You take it from us, whatever the amicus says about khap, we are not concerned with that. What we are concerned is that when an adult girl or boy gets into marriage, no khap, no individual or no society can question them,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,&quot; it said.

The apex court also said such associations cannot collectively punish any men or women for marrying each other of their own choice.

When a man, who was appearing in person on behalf of the khap panchayats, told the court that khaps were not opposing such marriages and there was a social change now, the bench said they should not take it in a regressive manner.

&quot;Even if panchayat is a collective body, they cannot threaten a girl or a boy from marrying each other. Whatever it is, it shall not be archaic. It should be alive,&quot; the court said.

During the hearing, the ASG sought some time to file a response to the suggestions given by Ramachandran, who opposed it saying the plea relates to the issue of honour killings and the government should not delay the matter.

The amicus said the Law Commission, in its report, had dealt with this aspect and suggested a legislation to deal with issue, but the Centre was &quot;taking time&quot; to get responses from the respective state governments as to whether such a law could be passed.

&quot;If you (Centre) do not have suggestions, we will pass order on the suggestions of the amicus,&quot; the bench told the ASG, adding it might evolve a mechanism to deal with the issue.

The bench also reminded the ASG that the matter has been pending before the top court since 2010.

The ASG, however, said the government would respond to the suggestions and sought three weeks time for it.

The bench granted time to the Centre to file suggestions and posted the matter for hearing on February 5.

The apex court had earlier sought suggestions from the petitioner, an NGO &#39;Shakti Vahini&#39;, the amicus curiae and khap panchayats on the issue.

The NGO had moved the court in 2010 seeking directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control honour crimes by taking a number of measures.

Earlier, the court had invited khap panchayats to hear their views before issuing any order to stop them from harassing and killing couples and women in the name of honour.

The Centre had earlier pleaded with the apex court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, as the police was not able to protect women facing ordeal at their hands.

The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active.

It had summoned the Superintendents of Police of Rohtak and Jind districts of Haryana and that of Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh to apprise the court of the situation there.

Several cases of women and men falling victims to khap diktats have been reported over the years, particularly in states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

In 2007, a Haryana court had awarded capital punishment to five persons and life sentence to one for murdering a couple on the orders of a self-styled khap panchayat for marrying against societal norms.

Similarly, a woman from Rajasthan was ordered to live with a man whose wife had eloped with her husband by the Khap of Notara Bhopat village in April 2015.

In 2014, a community panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had banned girls from wearing jeans and keeping mobile phones, claiming that these were having a &quot;bad&quot; effect on them and were responsible for eve-teasing incidents.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud pulled up the Centre for not taking the matter seriously

The Supreme Court today said the attacks on those opting for inter-caste marriage were "absolutely illegal" and no 'khap panchayats, individual or the society can question any adult woman and man marrying of their own choice. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also pulled up the Centre for not taking the matter seriously and not filing its suggestions on the issue, saying such panchayats or bodies cannot threaten adult women and men for marrying each other. Khaps are caste or community organisations, particularly in the rural areas of north India, which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on regressive and age-old customs and traditions. Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,' the court said × The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who represented the Centre, that if the government does not come out with its suggestions, then the court would pass order on the suggestions given by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae. "You take it from us, whatever the amicus says about khap, we are not concerned with that. What we are concerned is that when an adult girl or boy gets into marriage, no khap, no individual or no society can question them," the bench said. "Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal," it said. The apex court also said such associations cannot collectively punish any men or women for marrying each other of their own choice. When a man, who was appearing in person on behalf of the khap panchayats, told the court that khaps were not opposing such marriages and there was a social change now, the bench said they should not take it in a regressive manner. "Even if panchayat is a collective body, they cannot threaten a girl or a boy from marrying each other. Whatever it is, it shall not be archaic. It should be alive," the court said. During the hearing, the ASG sought some time to file a response to the suggestions given by Ramachandran, who opposed it saying the plea relates to the issue of honour killings and the government should not delay the matter. The amicus said the Law Commission, in its report, had dealt with this aspect and suggested a legislation to deal with issue, but the Centre was "taking time" to get responses from the respective state governments as to whether such a law could be passed. "If you (Centre) do not have suggestions, we will pass order on the suggestions of the amicus," the bench told the ASG, adding it might evolve a mechanism to deal with the issue. The bench also reminded the ASG that the matter has been pending before the top court since 2010. The ASG, however, said the government would respond to the suggestions and sought three weeks time for it. The bench granted time to the Centre to file suggestions and posted the matter for hearing on February 5. The apex court had earlier sought suggestions from the petitioner, an NGO 'Shakti Vahini', the amicus curiae and khap panchayats on the issue. The NGO had moved the court in 2010 seeking directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control honour crimes by taking a number of measures. Earlier, the court had invited khap panchayats to hear their views before issuing any order to stop them from harassing and killing couples and women in the name of honour. The Centre had earlier pleaded with the apex court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, as the police was not able to protect women facing ordeal at their hands. The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active. It had summoned the Superintendents of Police of Rohtak and Jind districts of Haryana and that of Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh to apprise the court of the situation there. Several cases of women and men falling victims to khap diktats have been reported over the years, particularly in states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. In 2007, a Haryana court had awarded capital punishment to five persons and life sentence to one for murdering a couple on the orders of a self-styled khap panchayat for marrying against societal norms. Similarly, a woman from Rajasthan was ordered to live with a man whose wife had eloped with her husband by the Khap of Notara Bhopat village in April 2015. In 2014, a community panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had banned girls from wearing jeans and keeping mobile phones, claiming that these were having a "bad" effect on them and were responsible for eve-teasing incidents.

Attacks on couples by khap panchayats 'absolutely illegal': Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn&#39;t include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him last week.

The news comes even as the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-row-resolved-kahani-khatam-says-bar-council-29596">Bar Council of India</a> and the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/crisis-in-supreme-court-over-attorney-general-k-k-venugopal-29562">Attorney General had said</a> yesterday that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over.

Attorney General KK Venugopal had said there was an informal meeting on Monday&nbsp;morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four Supreme Court judges.

&quot;All disputes settled, things are normal (now),&rdquo; Venugopal had said.

The Bar Council of India had said that the crisis has been resolved internally and the &quot;story is over now&quot;.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who led a seven-member delegation and held hectic discussions with 15 judges including the CJI yesterday, said the controversial issues flagged by the four revolting judges were &quot;internal issues of the family&quot; which have been resolved internally.

&quot;We met around 15 judges yesterday and all of them said that BCI has done a very good job and this mediation was required. They have now resolved the issue.&quot;

&quot;BCI has been successful in its effort. No outside interference was required in the matter and even we will not impose any condition on them and they themselves would solve their differences over a cup of tea,&quot; he added.

On January 12, the four judges - Justice&nbsp;J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had held an unprecedented press conference and raised several&nbsp;concerns including the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice.&nbsp;

They had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts.

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn't include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn't include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him last week. The news comes even as the Bar Council of India and the Attorney General had said yesterday that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over. Attorney General KK Venugopal had said there was an informal meeting on Monday morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four Supreme Court judges. "All disputes settled, things are normal (now),” Venugopal had said. The Bar Council of India had said that the crisis has been resolved internally and the "story is over now". BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who led a seven-member delegation and held hectic discussions with 15 judges including the CJI yesterday, said the controversial issues flagged by the four revolting judges were "internal issues of the family" which have been resolved internally. "We met around 15 judges yesterday and all of them said that BCI has done a very good job and this mediation was required. They have now resolved the issue." "BCI has been successful in its effort. No outside interference was required in the matter and even we will not impose any condition on them and they themselves would solve their differences over a cup of tea," he added. On January 12, the four judges - Justice J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had held an unprecedented press conference and raised several concerns including the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice. They had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts. The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra's new constitution bench excludes 'rebel' judges

Never has India&#39;s judiciary been under the kind of strain we witnessed last week when four Supreme Court judges effectively came out against the Chief Justice of India, ostensibly on procedural issues. There is no clear evidence of wilful impropriety on either side but a weekend on social media is enough to see the sad fact that the independent judiciary is being measured through political prisms. Not since the resignation of three SC judges during the Emergency, when they were superseded to the post of the Chief Justice of India during Mrs Indira Gandhi&#39;s reign as prime minister, has the judiciary witnessed such tumult.

The whole thing is so complex, that it reminded me of the tales of King Vikramaditya and his ghostly companion of dubious virtue, Vetal (Betaal). These were tales of wisdom for rulers, focusing often on tricky situations and moral dilemmas. So I decided to write a tale inspired by the Supreme Court crisis. Be informed it is only fiction and the characters are fictional. And draw your own perspectives. Like an abstract, modern art painting, this is for you to figure out.

* * *

Vikram grabbed the corpse-like Betaal from the tree and started his silent march to attain occult power, when Betaal giggled as usual and said: &quot;Today I want to tell you not a tale from the past but one from the future, when judges of a country challenged their own chief, in a time when it is not the king but independent judges pronounce verdicts and hold their society together as nobles and merchants join ordinary subjects in choosing their rulers.&quot;

And so the tale began.

* * *

The Chief Justice of India, due to retire in two weeks, is about to deliver a verdict on a man accused of aiding a terrorist attack when he receives an anonymous call, threatening harm to his wife if his verdict confirmed a death sentence given by the lower courts. The CJI is in a dilemma. He does not know who issued the threat and whether it is real but he fears for his wife&#39;s safety. After all, she is the one who stood by him as he delivered a series of perfect judgements in the public interest, never worrying about what others said. On the other hand, if his verdict was influenced by the threat, he would be failing in his duty. Strangely, he had already written a verdict acquitting the accused because the evidence against him was more circumstantial conjecture than real and under the principles of democratic jurisprudence, he could not give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution. However, he thought, if the threat had come from comrades of the accused, he would be setting a bad precedent of allowing blackmailers to influence the judiciary.

Now, one of his junior judges had gone to the same boarding school as one of the influential cabinet ministers, and this had already complicated perceptions in the coffee houses of the country.&nbsp;

The CJI thought hard about all the judges serving in his council and looked at his own responsibilities as defined by guidelines. He decided then to change the duty roster of various judges.

To a judge who was a media favourite for ruling in favour of woman victims and corruption in sport, he allocated a nondescript case on cooperative banking.

To a judge who was said to be close to the cabinet minister, he allocated a case that involved allegations of impropriety in loans given to the minister&#39;s family company. 
To the judge who was due to succeed him, he allocated a political case that would embarrass the ruling party if the verdict went against it.

To a fourth judge, who was known for labour cases, he allotted a patent case that was out of his normal specialisation.

The CJI went off on a weekend holiday to a mountain resort where cellphone signals were not easy to catch and switched off his phone. Now, the judges in question were outraged and met over some filter coffee at the residence of one, and in the best traditions of the judiciary, decided to act on the hard fact that one of the judges had gone to the same school as an accused minister. The entire business of roster changes seemed uncomfortable for them. They called a press conference and protested against the CJI&#39;s arbitrary ways, underlining the &quot;first among equals&quot; principle at the highest level of the judiciary.

The CJI returned from his vacation to find that his roster change had snowballed into a political controversy. He immediately sent his resignation to the President of India, saying his integrity was being questioned and public perceptions were important. The President, a wise old man, sent back the resignation for reconsideration, saying it was equally important for him, the President, to not accept a resignation while he was bound by cabinet advice, as that would be seen as the executive interfering in the independent judiciary.

Meanwhile, bar councils across India and the Supreme Court Bar Association rose up to underline the independence of the judiciary and demanded that issues be discussed at a full meeting of all sitting Supreme Court judges. The CJI readily complied and said it was for the council in its wisdom to decide what to do next. But he posed some questions: &quot;What, gentlemen and ladies, is the meaning of the word &quot;first&quot; when put alongside equals? What added privilege or responsibility does it entail? Will I be failing in my duty if I did not take the words seriously? And what evidence do we have to suggest that a judge should not examine a case involving his schoolmate when there were hundreds in his time who were his schoolmates?&quot;

The judges, in the best traditions of the judiciary, in their collective wisdom, agreed that innuendos do not amount to evidence, though there were murmurs all around. Under pressure from the bar associations, they also decided it was not proper to invite any executive interference. They told the CJI that rosters must be made in line with procedures and conventions.

Now, the CJI said: &quot;If conventions alone mattered, we would be riding horses and not motor cars. If there was no special meaning attached to the word &quot;first&quot; or &quot;chief&quot; there would be no need to have the title such as I do. I would be failing in my duty towards the letter and spirit of the law as I see it, and hence I resign.&quot;

The President of India was now forced to accept the resignation. After all, only one more week was left for the end of the CJI&#39;s term and everything was now a technicality.

What would happen to pending verdicts? The CJI opined that both the roster and the collective wisdom of the judiciary mattered and hence left it to his successor and the judges&#39; council. Now, his successor was known to be a hardliner on national security issues. The judges&#39; council in its collective wisdom decided that serious cases must be considered by larger benches. The terrorism case was opened again to a large bench, while a panel of senior judges was appointed to revisit procedures and conventions on why and how cases must be allocated so that neither individual biases nor individual specialisation was ignored in allocation of cases.

The CJI retired a happy man.&nbsp;

***

Now, Betaal asked King Vikram: Was the CJI right? Or were the judges right? Was justice done and delivered?

Replied King Vikram: &quot;The CJI did the right thing because judges have their duties in their personal lives and as common citizens as well. By making things vague, he left the matter to the God above and the wise men below. He also made sure whoever issued the threat did not have his way.&quot;

&quot;The President did well to insulate himself from the judiciary because that would damage the image of the party he came from.

&quot;The judges only adhered to established conventions and were rightly concerned about propriety. Bound by the chatter of the bar associations and the CJI, they were rightly talked into contemplating on issues going beyond conventions so that a higher sense of justice would prevail.

&quot;Those who issued the threats would never find out what really happened because whatever the CJI did was seen as part of his wider duties and not influenced by threats.

&quot;The terrorism case rightfully deserved a larger bench and it was better for the judges&#39; council to set the conditions for this than a diktat from above because the media had become shrill and stupid.

&quot;Above all, the CJI retired in peace because he had done all his duties well as much as an individual could, and the institution of the judiciary was only maturing through his actions.&quot;

On hearing Vikram&#39;s response, Betaal replied: &quot;Your comprehensive sense of justice is remarkable but you have shattered the peace of this place. So I have to leave you.&quot;&nbsp;

Betaal then laughed out loud, rose up and looked for a tree but realised it had travelled in time to tell its tale better. It found itself near Pragati Maidan from where it could get a good view of the Supreme Court of India. Not finding a tree easily in the concrete jungle, it swooped down only to see a dark night over the venue where the World Book Fair was on. It picked up a book at random and sat atop a skyscraper before heading to its familiar tree in the past. The book was one by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Not since the resignation of three SC judges during the Emergency, when they were superseded to the post of the Chief Justice of India during Mrs Indira Gandhi's reign as prime minister, has the judiciary witnessed such tumult.

Never has India's judiciary been under the kind of strain we witnessed last week when four Supreme Court judges effectively came out against the Chief Justice of India, ostensibly on procedural issues. There is no clear evidence of wilful impropriety on either side but a weekend on social media is enough to see the sad fact that the independent judiciary is being measured through political prisms. Not since the resignation of three SC judges during the Emergency, when they were superseded to the post of the Chief Justice of India during Mrs Indira Gandhi's reign as prime minister, has the judiciary witnessed such tumult. The whole thing is so complex, that it reminded me of the tales of King Vikramaditya and his ghostly companion of dubious virtue, Vetal (Betaal). These were tales of wisdom for rulers, focusing often on tricky situations and moral dilemmas. So I decided to write a tale inspired by the Supreme Court crisis. Be informed it is only fiction and the characters are fictional. And draw your own perspectives. Like an abstract, modern art painting, this is for you to figure out. * * * Vikram grabbed the corpse-like Betaal from the tree and started his silent march to attain occult power, when Betaal giggled as usual and said: "Today I want to tell you not a tale from the past but one from the future, when judges of a country challenged their own chief, in a time when it is not the king but independent judges pronounce verdicts and hold their society together as nobles and merchants join ordinary subjects in choosing their rulers." And so the tale began. * * * The Chief Justice of India, due to retire in two weeks, is about to deliver a verdict on a man accused of aiding a terrorist attack when he receives an anonymous call, threatening harm to his wife if his verdict confirmed a death sentence given by the lower courts. The CJI is in a dilemma. He does not know who issued the threat and whether it is real but he fears for his wife's safety. After all, she is the one who stood by him as he delivered a series of perfect judgements in the public interest, never worrying about what others said. On the other hand, if his verdict was influenced by the threat, he would be failing in his duty. Strangely, he had already written a verdict acquitting the accused because the evidence against him was more circumstantial conjecture than real and under the principles of democratic jurisprudence, he could not give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution. However, he thought, if the threat had come from comrades of the accused, he would be setting a bad precedent of allowing blackmailers to influence the judiciary. Now, one of his junior judges had gone to the same boarding school as one of the influential cabinet ministers, and this had already complicated perceptions in the coffee houses of the country. The CJI thought hard about all the judges serving in his council and looked at his own responsibilities as defined by guidelines. He decided then to change the duty roster of various judges. To a judge who was a media favourite for ruling in favour of woman victims and corruption in sport, he allocated a nondescript case on cooperative banking. To a judge who was said to be close to the cabinet minister, he allocated a case that involved allegations of impropriety in loans given to the minister's family company. To the judge who was due to succeed him, he allocated a political case that would embarrass the ruling party if the verdict went against it. To a fourth judge, who was known for labour cases, he allotted a patent case that was out of his normal specialisation. The CJI went off on a weekend holiday to a mountain resort where cellphone signals were not easy to catch and switched off his phone. Now, the judges in question were outraged and met over some filter coffee at the residence of one, and in the best traditions of the judiciary, decided to act on the hard fact that one of the judges had gone to the same school as an accused minister. The entire business of roster changes seemed uncomfortable for them. They called a press conference and protested against the CJI's arbitrary ways, underlining the "first among equals" principle at the highest level of the judiciary. The CJI returned from his vacation to find that his roster change had snowballed into a political controversy. He immediately sent his resignation to the President of India, saying his integrity was being questioned and public perceptions were important. The President, a wise old man, sent back the resignation for reconsideration, saying it was equally important for him, the President, to not accept a resignation while he was bound by cabinet advice, as that would be seen as the executive interfering in the independent judiciary. Meanwhile, bar councils across India and the Supreme Court Bar Association rose up to underline the independence of the judiciary and demanded that issues be discussed at a full meeting of all sitting Supreme Court judges. The CJI readily complied and said it was for the council in its wisdom to decide what to do next. But he posed some questions: "What, gentlemen and ladies, is the meaning of the word "first" when put alongside equals? What added privilege or responsibility does it entail? Will I be failing in my duty if I did not take the words seriously? And what evidence do we have to suggest that a judge should not examine a case involving his schoolmate when there were hundreds in his time who were his schoolmates?" The judges, in the best traditions of the judiciary, in their collective wisdom, agreed that innuendos do not amount to evidence, though there were murmurs all around. Under pressure from the bar associations, they also decided it was not proper to invite any executive interference. They told the CJI that rosters must be made in line with procedures and conventions. Now, the CJI said: "If conventions alone mattered, we would be riding horses and not motor cars. If there was no special meaning attached to the word "first" or "chief" there would be no need to have the title such as I do. I would be failing in my duty towards the letter and spirit of the law as I see it, and hence I resign." The President of India was now forced to accept the resignation. After all, only one more week was left for the end of the CJI's term and everything was now a technicality. What would happen to pending verdicts? The CJI opined that both the roster and the collective wisdom of the judiciary mattered and hence left it to his successor and the judges' council. Now, his successor was known to be a hardliner on national security issues. The judges' council in its collective wisdom decided that serious cases must be considered by larger benches. The terrorism case was opened again to a large bench, while a panel of senior judges was appointed to revisit procedures and conventions on why and how cases must be allocated so that neither individual biases nor individual specialisation was ignored in allocation of cases. The CJI retired a happy man. *** Now, Betaal asked King Vikram: Was the CJI right? Or were the judges right? Was justice done and delivered? Replied King Vikram: "The CJI did the right thing because judges have their duties in their personal lives and as common citizens as well. By making things vague, he left the matter to the God above and the wise men below. He also made sure whoever issued the threat did not have his way." "The President did well to insulate himself from the judiciary because that would damage the image of the party he came from. "The judges only adhered to established conventions and were rightly concerned about propriety. Bound by the chatter of the bar associations and the CJI, they were rightly talked into contemplating on issues going beyond conventions so that a higher sense of justice would prevail. "Those who issued the threats would never find out what really happened because whatever the CJI did was seen as part of his wider duties and not influenced by threats. "The terrorism case rightfully deserved a larger bench and it was better for the judges' council to set the conditions for this than a diktat from above because the media had become shrill and stupid. "Above all, the CJI retired in peace because he had done all his duties well as much as an individual could, and the institution of the judiciary was only maturing through his actions." On hearing Vikram's response, Betaal replied: "Your comprehensive sense of justice is remarkable but you have shattered the peace of this place. So I have to leave you." Betaal then laughed out loud, rose up and looked for a tree but realised it had travelled in time to tell its tale better. It found itself near Pragati Maidan from where it could get a good view of the Supreme Court of India. Not finding a tree easily in the concrete jungle, it swooped down only to see a dark night over the venue where the World Book Fair was on. It picked up a book at random and sat atop a skyscraper before heading to its familiar tree in the past. The book was one by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Vikram, Betaal and 4 Supreme Court judges - A 21st Century fantasy

The crisis in Supreme Court is over. Attorney General K K Venugopal has said there was an informal meeting this morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four Supreme Court judges who took on him publicly where the disputes were resolved.

&quot;All disputes settled, things are normal (now),&rdquo; Venugopal said. The Attorney General termed these developments as &quot;a storm in a tea cup&quot;.

He has also confirmed that the courts are functioning normally.

On January 12, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/judges-who-rebelled-against-cji-resume-work-in-supreme-court-29559">four senior judges of the Supreme Court</a> - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - took on CJI Misra in an extraordinary press conference.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-met-cji-in-congenial-atmosphere-everything-will-be-sorted-out-says-bar-council-29503">Also read: &#39;Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,&#39; says Bar Council </a>

They alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to &quot;select benches&quot; headed by junior judges in the last few months. That charge was intended to directly target Chief Justice Misra.

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

&quot;The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference.

The justices <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488">released a letter</a> they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;.

On January 12, four senior judges of the Supreme Court - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - took on CJI Misra in an extraordinary press conference.

The crisis in Supreme Court is over. Attorney General K K Venugopal has said there was an informal meeting this morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four Supreme Court judges who took on him publicly where the disputes were resolved. "All disputes settled, things are normal (now),” Venugopal said. The Attorney General termed these developments as "a storm in a tea cup". He has also confirmed that the courts are functioning normally. On January 12, four senior judges of the Supreme Court - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - took on CJI Misra in an extraordinary press conference. Also read: 'Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,' says Bar Council They alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to "select benches" headed by junior judges in the last few months. That charge was intended to directly target Chief Justice Misra. The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference. The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment".

Crisis in Supreme Court over: Attorney General K K Venugopal

The four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who went public with their issues against the chief justice, today attended court and took up routine work.

Yesterday, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had met a seven-member delegation of the Bar Council of India and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh and had assured them that the crisis would be sorted out soon and congeniality would prevail.&nbsp;

On January 12, the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had held an unprecedented press conference and raised many concerns including the assignment of cases by the chief justice.&nbsp; 
 
Also Read - <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-met-cji-in-congenial-atmosphere-everything-will-be-sorted-out-says-bar-council-29503">Supreme Court crisis: &#39;Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,&#39; says Bar Council&nbsp;</a>

On Friday, in an unprecedented development, the top court&#39;s four next highest-ranking judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts.

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

&quot;The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference.

The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;. 
&nbsp;

The four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who went public with their issues against the chief justice, today attended court and took up routine work

The four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who went public with their issues against the chief justice, today attended court and took up routine work. Yesterday, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had met a seven-member delegation of the Bar Council of India and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh and had assured them that the crisis would be sorted out soon and congeniality would prevail. On January 12, the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had held an unprecedented press conference and raised many concerns including the assignment of cases by the chief justice. Also Read - Supreme Court crisis: 'Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,' says Bar Council On Friday, in an unprecedented development, the top court's four next highest-ranking judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts. The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference. The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment".

Judges who rebelled against CJI resume work in Supreme Court

The Four Supreme Court Judges versus Chief Justice of India case has so many strands and multiple knots that it is difficult to identify the principal thread. Fresh developments over the last two days have made the task more onerous. It is possible that the crisis will blow over &mdash; as most crises do if they are addressed across the table with honest intent &mdash; but the stench generated will linger for a while. Meanwhile, it is amusing that the players who did the most to bring the issue into the public domain and create a public tamasha are now claiming it to be the judiciary&rsquo;s internal matter, best resolved within closed doors and without outside interference.

&nbsp;

There is already much written on the trigger for the Friday rebellion of four senior-most judges of the apex court. The Justices took the unprecedented step of addressing the media to say that &ldquo;the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order&rdquo; and that &ldquo;many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months&rdquo;. They stressed that they were compelled to bring the matter before the public because the Chief Justice of India had refused to act on a letter they had written to him, which laid down their grievances over the administrative functioning of the apex court, especially the allocation of cases to judges through the roster system.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

One argument can be that the four judges&rsquo; decision to wash dirty linen in public was a courageous act to clean up the system. Indeed, one of them, Justice J Chelamaeswar, sought to take the moral high ground by stating, &ldquo;We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls&hellip;&rdquo; On the lines of this contention, it can be further argued that one among the group, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, could have imperiled his prospects of succeeding incumbent Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the post, given that he is the senior-most in line to be around when the CJI debits office.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The counter-argument is that no amount of justification can set right the wrong done by judges of the Supreme Court going public against the Chief Justice of India. Since they admit it to be the judiciary&rsquo;s internal matter, the issue ought to have been settled internally. If they were dissatisfied with the Chief Justice&rsquo;s response, or lack of it, they could have tried other avenues, such as requesting respectable names from the legal fraternity, to intervene. Damning the judiciary&rsquo;s image through a publicity stunt for self-glorification is simply not done.

&nbsp;

There has been at least one undesirable fallout that the four judges cannot deny: It has allowed politicians to wade into the controversy and make the issue sectarian. Communist Party of India leader D Raja met Justice Chelameswar soon after the latter&rsquo;s Press meet; Congress president Rahul Gandhi addressed a Press conference hours after the four judges did; the Shiv Sena praised the rebel judges; dissident Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha advised BJP leaders to take a leaf out of the judges&rsquo; book and &lsquo;speak out&rsquo;, ostensibly against the party leadership &mdash; a clarion call which is certain to go unheeded.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The other undesirability has been that the controversy has split the legal fraternity as well &mdash; the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association took somewhat different positions, though both agreed on the need for a quick internal resolution, whereas retired judges have also taken sides. Brazen partisanship has been displayed.

&nbsp;

At the Press conference on Friday, one of the judges admitted that the issue of allotting a Bench to hear the case of the death of CBI judge BH Loya, had been a flashpoint. He hinted the four dissenting judges had been in favour of giving the case to a Bench with a composition which was different from the one then decided by the Chief Justice of India. Apparently, the CJI had not relented, on the ground that he was the master of the roster and that it had been past practice for the Chief Justice to have a final say on the allotment of cases.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Loya issue is signifiant because it became the focal one for opposition parties to condemn the Modi Government. Judge Loya had been hearing a murder case in which BJP president Amit Shah had been dragged, when he died of cardiac arrest. Last year, the judge&rsquo;s family members raised doubts over his death and demanded a probe. Tehseen Poonawala, an activist with leanings towards the Congress, filed a petition in the apex court. Over the last two days, two developments took place which have muddied the waters.

&nbsp;

The first is Poonawala&rsquo;s disclosures. He said that, as a petitioner, he had no issues with the Bench that had been allotted the case. He added that his lawyer had tried to persuade him to withdraw the case on the ground that a similar matter pending before the High Court in Maharashtra would get delayed in case he went ahead with his plea in the apex court. But the real reason, which Poonawala further said, was that his lawyer believed the judge to whom the matter had been given for hearing in the Supreme Court, was a &ldquo;henchman&rdquo; of the Chief Justice of India. Poonawala alleged that his lawyer had sought to &ldquo;bully&rdquo; him.

&nbsp;

The second development involved family members of the deceased judge, Loya. His son addressed the media and said he no longer harboured suspicions and that medical records of his father&rsquo;s death were clear enough. He admitted to having entertained doubts in the immediate aftermath of the death because he was going through an emotional turmoil. He asked politicians, media and NGOs to leave the family alone.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Taken together, these two twists give rise to the following questions: If the family has no doubts about the cause of death, why is the opposition raising a brouhaha? Why are activist-lawyers lobbying for Benches of their choice? By doing so, are these lawyers not casting aspersions on the integrity of the Justices they would rather not appear before in the case? Finally, if they fault the Chief Justice of India for being &lsquo;selective&rsquo; in allotting cases, what about their own games, which too amount to fixing Benches? Interestingly, the letter which the four judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India has no mention of the Loya case. And yet, it has today become the pivot for heated debates in television studios and outside.

&nbsp;

There is, however, one principal issue that deserves attention, and if there is anything positive that can come out of this unsavoury fracas, it is this: There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest &mdash; as some are arguing &mdash; that &lsquo;sensitive&rsquo; case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the first place, such an arrangement would make some judges more equal than the others. Second, it would be tantamount to questioning the professional integrity and competence of the rest of the judges. It must not be forgotten that some of the most politically sensitive cases in recent years were heard and adjudicated upon with a great degree of competence, by not so senior Justices of the Supreme Court. Here are a few of these: 2G Spectrum case, the coal block allocation case, the Aadhaar case, the Vijay Mallya case, the validity of Section 66A case. None of these was handled by senior-most judges of the apex court who occupy court numbers one to four, and yet their verdict had far-reaching and welcome consequences for the country.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest that ‘sensitive’ case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices.

The Four Supreme Court Judges versus Chief Justice of India case has so many strands and multiple knots that it is difficult to identify the principal thread. Fresh developments over the last two days have made the task more onerous. It is possible that the crisis will blow over — as most crises do if they are addressed across the table with honest intent — but the stench generated will linger for a while. Meanwhile, it is amusing that the players who did the most to bring the issue into the public domain and create a public tamasha are now claiming it to be the judiciary’s internal matter, best resolved within closed doors and without outside interference. There is already much written on the trigger for the Friday rebellion of four senior-most judges of the apex court. The Justices took the unprecedented step of addressing the media to say that “the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order” and that “many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months”. They stressed that they were compelled to bring the matter before the public because the Chief Justice of India had refused to act on a letter they had written to him, which laid down their grievances over the administrative functioning of the apex court, especially the allocation of cases to judges through the roster system. One argument can be that the four judges’ decision to wash dirty linen in public was a courageous act to clean up the system. Indeed, one of them, Justice J Chelamaeswar, sought to take the moral high ground by stating, “We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls…” On the lines of this contention, it can be further argued that one among the group, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, could have imperiled his prospects of succeeding incumbent Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the post, given that he is the senior-most in line to be around when the CJI debits office. The counter-argument is that no amount of justification can set right the wrong done by judges of the Supreme Court going public against the Chief Justice of India. Since they admit it to be the judiciary’s internal matter, the issue ought to have been settled internally. If they were dissatisfied with the Chief Justice’s response, or lack of it, they could have tried other avenues, such as requesting respectable names from the legal fraternity, to intervene. Damning the judiciary’s image through a publicity stunt for self-glorification is simply not done. There has been at least one undesirable fallout that the four judges cannot deny: It has allowed politicians to wade into the controversy and make the issue sectarian. Communist Party of India leader D Raja met Justice Chelameswar soon after the latter’s Press meet; Congress president Rahul Gandhi addressed a Press conference hours after the four judges did; the Shiv Sena praised the rebel judges; dissident Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha advised BJP leaders to take a leaf out of the judges’ book and ‘speak out’, ostensibly against the party leadership — a clarion call which is certain to go unheeded. The other undesirability has been that the controversy has split the legal fraternity as well — the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association took somewhat different positions, though both agreed on the need for a quick internal resolution, whereas retired judges have also taken sides. Brazen partisanship has been displayed. At the Press conference on Friday, one of the judges admitted that the issue of allotting a Bench to hear the case of the death of CBI judge BH Loya, had been a flashpoint. He hinted the four dissenting judges had been in favour of giving the case to a Bench with a composition which was different from the one then decided by the Chief Justice of India. Apparently, the CJI had not relented, on the ground that he was the master of the roster and that it had been past practice for the Chief Justice to have a final say on the allotment of cases. The Loya issue is signifiant because it became the focal one for opposition parties to condemn the Modi Government. Judge Loya had been hearing a murder case in which BJP president Amit Shah had been dragged, when he died of cardiac arrest. Last year, the judge’s family members raised doubts over his death and demanded a probe. Tehseen Poonawala, an activist with leanings towards the Congress, filed a petition in the apex court. Over the last two days, two developments took place which have muddied the waters. The first is Poonawala’s disclosures. He said that, as a petitioner, he had no issues with the Bench that had been allotted the case. He added that his lawyer had tried to persuade him to withdraw the case on the ground that a similar matter pending before the High Court in Maharashtra would get delayed in case he went ahead with his plea in the apex court. But the real reason, which Poonawala further said, was that his lawyer believed the judge to whom the matter had been given for hearing in the Supreme Court, was a “henchman” of the Chief Justice of India. Poonawala alleged that his lawyer had sought to “bully” him. The second development involved family members of the deceased judge, Loya. His son addressed the media and said he no longer harboured suspicions and that medical records of his father’s death were clear enough. He admitted to having entertained doubts in the immediate aftermath of the death because he was going through an emotional turmoil. He asked politicians, media and NGOs to leave the family alone. Taken together, these two twists give rise to the following questions: If the family has no doubts about the cause of death, why is the opposition raising a brouhaha? Why are activist-lawyers lobbying for Benches of their choice? By doing so, are these lawyers not casting aspersions on the integrity of the Justices they would rather not appear before in the case? Finally, if they fault the Chief Justice of India for being ‘selective’ in allotting cases, what about their own games, which too amount to fixing Benches? Interestingly, the letter which the four judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India has no mention of the Loya case. And yet, it has today become the pivot for heated debates in television studios and outside. There is, however, one principal issue that deserves attention, and if there is anything positive that can come out of this unsavoury fracas, it is this: There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest — as some are arguing — that ‘sensitive’ case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices. In the first place, such an arrangement would make some judges more equal than the others. Second, it would be tantamount to questioning the professional integrity and competence of the rest of the judges. It must not be forgotten that some of the most politically sensitive cases in recent years were heard and adjudicated upon with a great degree of competence, by not so senior Justices of the Supreme Court. Here are a few of these: 2G Spectrum case, the coal block allocation case, the Aadhaar case, the Vijay Mallya case, the validity of Section 66A case. None of these was handled by senior-most judges of the apex court who occupy court numbers one to four, and yet their verdict had far-reaching and welcome consequences for the country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Did rebel SC judges want to save democracy or be heroes?

One man died at a Jallikattu event in Palamedu in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu on Monday.

News reports said the man, 19, was a spectator. He has been identified as S Kalimuthu of Sanarpatti in Dindigul.

Kalimuthu was gored to death by a bull near the finish point of the bull run where owners collect&nbsp;their animals.

News reports said more than 25 people were injured at the event, of which six people have been admitted to hospital.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a>: Bull-taming sport <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Jallikattu?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Jallikattu</a> performed in Tamil Nadu&#39;s Madurai, earlier today. <a href="https://t.co/PaIzFrLuVW">pic.twitter.com/PaIzFrLuVW</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952937565690056704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The reports said some 1,200 bulls were used at the event. And that an equal number of policeman were present.

On the first day of the event, on Sunday, some 79 people were injured.

Revenue minister RB Udaykumar and President of Jallikattu, Peravai P Rajasekar were seen attending the event.

Jallikattu was banned by the Supreme Court in 2014, the petitioners had alleged extreme cruelty to the animals.

But after massive protest and campaigns, Tamil Nadu enacted a law to bypass the court&#39;s verdict.

&nbsp;

The man, identified as a S Kalimuthu, was a spectator

One man died at a Jallikattu event in Palamedu in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu on Monday. News reports said the man, 19, was a spectator. He has been identified as S Kalimuthu of Sanarpatti in Dindigul. Kalimuthu was gored to death by a bull near the finish point of the bull run where owners collect their animals. News reports said more than 25 people were injured at the event, of which six people have been admitted to hospital. #WATCH: Bull-taming sport #Jallikattu performed in Tamil Nadu's Madurai, earlier today. pic.twitter.com/PaIzFrLuVW — ANI (@ANI) January 15, 2018 × The reports said some 1,200 bulls were used at the event. And that an equal number of policeman were present. On the first day of the event, on Sunday, some 79 people were injured. Revenue minister RB Udaykumar and President of Jallikattu, Peravai P Rajasekar were seen attending the event. Jallikattu was banned by the Supreme Court in 2014, the petitioners had alleged extreme cruelty to the animals. But after massive protest and campaigns, Tamil Nadu enacted a law to bypass the court's verdict.

19-year-old gored to death at Jallikattu event in Tamil Nadu

The Delhi Bar Association (DBA) today threatened to take to the streets if the matter remains&nbsp;unresolved.&nbsp;

&quot;If the matter isn&#39;t resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware,&quot; noted the officials.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If the matter isn&#39;t resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware: Delhi Bar Association <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://t.co/YzXxPisPLm">pic.twitter.com/YzXxPisPLm</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952508257800564738?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The DBA officials called the incident &quot;one of its kind&quot;. They criticised the Chief Justice of India for not looking into the matter beforehand.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This was a first of its kind incident &amp; a black day for us. The Chief Justice of India should have looked into the matter beforehand. He should have called a meeting to handle things: Delhi Bar Association <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://t.co/j6XyXypwr2">pic.twitter.com/j6XyXypwr2</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952504765774114817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Meanwhile, Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra noted that &quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-internal-matter-will-be-resolved-soon-says-bar-councilof-india-29484">a solution will be found&quot;&nbsp;in a few days</a>.

&quot;We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days,&quot; Mishra said earlier today after meeting with Justice Chelameswar.&nbsp;

In addition to this, four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, today wrote <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488">an open letter to the chief justice of India</a>. &nbsp;

The letter described the judges&#39; agreement with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over the allocation of cases. The retired judges called for the crisis to be resolved &quot;within the judiciary&quot;.

Four Supreme Court judges went public about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Friday.

The Bar Council of India, on Saturday, announced the formation a 7-member delegation with an aim to reconcile the matter.&nbsp;

The DBA officials called the incident "one of its kind". They criticised the Chief Justice of India for not looking into the matter beforehand

The Delhi Bar Association (DBA) today threatened to take to the streets if the matter remains unresolved. "If the matter isn't resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware," noted the officials. If the matter isn't resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware: Delhi Bar Association #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/YzXxPisPLm — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2018 × The DBA officials called the incident "one of its kind". They criticised the Chief Justice of India for not looking into the matter beforehand. This was a first of its kind incident & a black day for us. The Chief Justice of India should have looked into the matter beforehand. He should have called a meeting to handle things: Delhi Bar Association #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/j6XyXypwr2 — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2018 × Meanwhile, Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra noted that "a solution will be found" in a few days. "We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days," Mishra said earlier today after meeting with Justice Chelameswar. In addition to this, four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, today wrote an open letter to the chief justice of India. The letter described the judges' agreement with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over the allocation of cases. The retired judges called for the crisis to be resolved "within the judiciary". Four Supreme Court judges went public about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Friday. The Bar Council of India, on Saturday, announced the formation a 7-member delegation with an aim to reconcile the matter.

SC crisis: 'Will take to streets if matter remains unresolved,' threatens Delhi Bar Association

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-internal-matter-will-be-resolved-soon-says-bar-councilof-india-29484">Supreme Court crisis: &#39;Internal matter, will be resolved soon,&#39; says Bar Council of India</a>

The Bar Council made the statement after meeting with Justice Chelameswar, one of the four judges to have called an unprecedented press conference on Friday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-live-updates-israeli-pm-bejamin-netanyahu-lands-in-india-modi-breaks-protocol-to-receive-him-at-airport-29470">Live Updates:&nbsp;Israeli PM, PM Modi laud role of Indian soldiers in liberating Haifa</a>

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in New Delhi this afternoon, six months after PM Modi&#39;s first-ever visit to Israel.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488">Supreme Court crisis: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI</a>

The four retired judges, including one from the Supreme Court, said they agree with the issues raised by the Supreme Court judges.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-a-global-power-says-israeli-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-29478">India a global power, says Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu</a>

The statement was made before Netanyahu, who landed in New Delhi on Sunday, left Israel for India.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-releases-video-on-pm-modis-hugplomacy-29487">Congress releases video on PM Modi&#39;s &#39;</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-releases-video-on-pm-modis-hugplomacy-29487">hugplomacy</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-releases-video-on-pm-modis-hugplomacy-29487">&#39;</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke protocol today to receive his Israeli counterpart at the airport. PM Netanyahu was received with a warm hug.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Supreme Court crisis: 'Internal matter, will be resolved soon,' says Bar Council of India The Bar Council made the statement after meeting with Justice Chelameswar, one of the four judges to have called an unprecedented press conference on Friday. Live Updates: Israeli PM, PM Modi laud role of Indian soldiers in liberating Haifa Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in New Delhi this afternoon, six months after PM Modi's first-ever visit to Israel. Supreme Court crisis: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI The four retired judges, including one from the Supreme Court, said they agree with the issues raised by the Supreme Court judges. India a global power, says Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu The statement was made before Netanyahu, who landed in New Delhi on Sunday, left Israel for India. Congress releases video on PM Modi's 'hugplomacy' Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke protocol today to receive his Israeli counterpart at the airport. PM Netanyahu was received with a warm hug.

WION Evening News brief, January 14, 2018

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray on Saturday termed SC judges presser against Chief Justice of India as &nbsp;&#39;disturbing&#39; and sought action against those judges but we should try to understand as to why the four judges have taken such a step.

The Shiv Sena said one should try to understand the reason behind the mutiny of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court against the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

With the judges turning against the judiciary itself, Thackeray opined that faith of the people in Judiciary will decrease.

&quot;All 4 pillars of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other, it will collapse,&quot; he added.

In the press conference held yesterday, Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurien Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and Jasti Chelameswar questioned the conduct of the CJI, alleging that selective Benches were being appointed to preside over certain cases in the apex court.

The case of the CBI judge Justice Loya&#39;s death is one among the certain cases hinted by the four judges.

&quot;If there is anything suspicious behind the death of Justice Loya, it should come out,&quot; Thackeray said.

&quot;All the four pillar of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other it will all collapse,&quot; the Shiv Sena chief further remarked.

Thackeray also took a swipe at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), &quot;What is happening now is just to win elections and make their Chief Ministers and put their people at important posts, but their duties towards the people are ignored.&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(With ANI inputs)&nbsp;

With the judges turning against the judiciary itself, Thackeray opined that faith of the people in Judiciary will decrease.

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray on Saturday termed SC judges presser against Chief Justice of India as 'disturbing' and sought action against those judges but we should try to understand as to why the four judges have taken such a step. The Shiv Sena said one should try to understand the reason behind the mutiny of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court against the Chief Justice of India (CJI). With the judges turning against the judiciary itself, Thackeray opined that faith of the people in Judiciary will decrease. "All 4 pillars of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other, it will collapse," he added. In the press conference held yesterday, Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurien Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and Jasti Chelameswar questioned the conduct of the CJI, alleging that selective Benches were being appointed to preside over certain cases in the apex court. The case of the CBI judge Justice Loya's death is one among the certain cases hinted by the four judges. "If there is anything suspicious behind the death of Justice Loya, it should come out," Thackeray said. "All the four pillar of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other it will all collapse," the Shiv Sena chief further remarked. Thackeray also took a swipe at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), "What is happening now is just to win elections and make their Chief Ministers and put their people at important posts, but their duties towards the people are ignored." (With ANI inputs)

SC judges' presser against CJI 'disturbing': Shiv Sena

The Supreme Court Bar Association will today&nbsp;hold a meeting over<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/four-supreme-court-judges-take-on-chief-justice-of-india-say-democracy-at-risk-29371"> allegations made by judges of the Supreme Court</a> against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The bar association will also address the press later in the day.

The bar association&nbsp;today expressed his disapproval over the manner in which the press conference was conducted, stating that &quot;just creating doubts in the minds of people will not serve the interest of the judiciary.&quot;

&quot;If they had to come for a press conference then they should have said something substantial. Just creating doubts in the minds of people will not serve the interest of the judiciary. This was not properly planned. They didn&#39;t say anything about justice Loya,&quot; Vikas Singh, Supreme Court Bar Association president said.

The Bar Council of India also threw its weight behind the chief justice.

The chairman of the Bar Council of India said the judges should not have held a press conference on a &quot;minor issue of roster&quot;. He said a delegation from the council would meet the senior judges and the chief justice of India tomorrow and request them not to bring such issues before the public.

&quot;Holding a press conference on a minor issue of the roster is saddening. We have a meeting at 5pm today and tomorrow our delegation will meet those senior judges, CJI and other judges and request them to not bring issues like these in front of public,&quot; Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India said.

On Friday, in an unprecedented development, the top court&#39;s four next highest-ranking judges,&nbsp;Justices Kurian Joseph,&nbsp;Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments.&nbsp;They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts, they added.&nbsp; 
 
Also read:<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314"> &#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet</a>

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

&quot;The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference.

The judges did not give specific details of their concerns during the press conference, but said &quot;it is an issue of assignment of a case&quot;.&nbsp;

When reporters asked whether it was related to the case of a lower court judge B Loya, who died in December 2014 while hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh &#39;fake encounter&#39; case, one of the four judges said &quot;yes&quot;. BJP President Amit Shah is also an accused in the case.

The justices <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-7-page-letter-4-senior-supreme-court-judges-wrote-to-chief-justice-of-india-29321">released a letter </a>they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The bar association will also address the press later in the day

The Supreme Court Bar Association will today hold a meeting over allegations made by judges of the Supreme Court against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The bar association will also address the press later in the day. The bar association today expressed his disapproval over the manner in which the press conference was conducted, stating that "just creating doubts in the minds of people will not serve the interest of the judiciary." "If they had to come for a press conference then they should have said something substantial. Just creating doubts in the minds of people will not serve the interest of the judiciary. This was not properly planned. They didn't say anything about justice Loya," Vikas Singh, Supreme Court Bar Association president said. The Bar Council of India also threw its weight behind the chief justice. The chairman of the Bar Council of India said the judges should not have held a press conference on a "minor issue of roster". He said a delegation from the council would meet the senior judges and the chief justice of India tomorrow and request them not to bring such issues before the public. "Holding a press conference on a minor issue of the roster is saddening. We have a meeting at 5pm today and tomorrow our delegation will meet those senior judges, CJI and other judges and request them to not bring issues like these in front of public," Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India said. On Friday, in an unprecedented development, the top court's four next highest-ranking judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts, they added. Also read: 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference. The judges did not give specific details of their concerns during the press conference, but said "it is an issue of assignment of a case". When reporters asked whether it was related to the case of a lower court judge B Loya, who died in December 2014 while hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh 'fake encounter' case, one of the four judges said "yes". BJP President Amit Shah is also an accused in the case. The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment". (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court bar association to hold meeting over allegations of judges against chief justice

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court came to limelight Friday after they held an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316" target="_blank">unprecedented press conference</a>&nbsp;and talked about their <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra</a>.

The judges in the press conference&nbsp;said that the administration of the apex court is &quot;sometimes not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable things&quot; have taken place.

The four judges who spoke out today were Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph.

Justice Chelameswar

Justice Chelameswar, who is currently the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court was born on June 23, 1953. He has served as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court in 2007. On October 10, 2011, he was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court.

He gave major judgements on freedom of speech, aadhaar and National judicial&nbsp;appointments commission.

In a two-judge bench of Supreme Court, Chelameswar along with Rohinton Fali Nariman struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The judges held the section as unconstitutional. The law awarded three years imprisonment to anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which &quot;causes annoyance or inconvenience&quot;.&nbsp;

In a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, he along with Sharad Arvind Bobde and Chokkalingam Nagappan approved an earlier order of the apex court clarifying that Indian citizens would not be deprived of basic services and government subsidies in absence of aadhaar.&nbsp;

Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Justice Ranjan Gogoi was born on November 18, 1954. He was appointed as the permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on February 18, 2001 and was elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana Court on February 12, 2011.&nbsp; He was appointed as Judge to the Supreme Court on April 23, 2012.&nbsp;

Justice Gogoi has been part of several judgements that have reformed the structure of the Indian judiciary system.&nbsp;

His bench had passed the order bringing in new electoral reforms. After the remarkable judgement, a candidate can contest elections only after making full and honest disclosure of his assets, educational and criminal background.

His bench restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders/prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.&nbsp;

He along with other judges in a bench had declined to consider Jat community under the backward status.&nbsp;

A bench of seven judges including him issued a contempt order against Justice CS Karnan on the charge of contempt of court and degrading the judiciary.&nbsp;

Justice Madan B Lokur

Justice Madan B Lokur was born on December 31, 1953. He has vast experience in Civil, Criminal, Constitution, Revenue and Service Law and was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court in 2011.&nbsp;

He was part of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Divisional Bench in 2012 that had struck down Government of India&#39;s decision to allocate 4.5 per cent sub-quota (within the 27% Other Backward Classes quota) for minorities. The bench ruled out the government&#39;s decision saying it was based on religion.&nbsp;

While serving as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, he suspended Special CBI Judge T Pattabhirama Rao and ordered his prosecution in a Mining scam case relating to the Reddy brothers.

Justice Kurian Joseph

Justice Kurian Joseph, born on November 30,&nbsp;1953, was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court in 2013. He had served as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2010. His retirement is scheduled for November 30, 2018.&nbsp;

Justice Joseph along with two other judges is hearing the controversial Coal Allocation Scam case.

He was also part of a three-judge bench that overruled the Afzal Guru decision on the point of admissibility of electronic evidence.

&nbsp;

The judges in the press conference said that the administration of the apex court is 'sometimes not in order' and many 'less than desirable things' have taken place

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court came to limelight Friday after they held an unprecedented press conference and talked about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The judges in the press conference said that the administration of the apex court is "sometimes not in order" and many "less than desirable things" have taken place. The four judges who spoke out today were Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph. Justice Chelameswar Justice Chelameswar, who is currently the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court was born on June 23, 1953. He has served as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court in 2007. On October 10, 2011, he was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court. He gave major judgements on freedom of speech, aadhaar and National judicial appointments commission. In a two-judge bench of Supreme Court, Chelameswar along with Rohinton Fali Nariman struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The judges held the section as unconstitutional. The law awarded three years imprisonment to anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which "causes annoyance or inconvenience". In a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, he along with Sharad Arvind Bobde and Chokkalingam Nagappan approved an earlier order of the apex court clarifying that Indian citizens would not be deprived of basic services and government subsidies in absence of aadhaar. Justice Ranjan Gogoi Justice Ranjan Gogoi was born on November 18, 1954. He was appointed as the permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on February 18, 2001 and was elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana Court on February 12, 2011. He was appointed as Judge to the Supreme Court on April 23, 2012. Justice Gogoi has been part of several judgements that have reformed the structure of the Indian judiciary system. His bench had passed the order bringing in new electoral reforms. After the remarkable judgement, a candidate can contest elections only after making full and honest disclosure of his assets, educational and criminal background. His bench restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders/prominent persons in government-funded advertisements. He along with other judges in a bench had declined to consider Jat community under the backward status. A bench of seven judges including him issued a contempt order against Justice CS Karnan on the charge of contempt of court and degrading the judiciary. Justice Madan B Lokur Justice Madan B Lokur was born on December 31, 1953. He has vast experience in Civil, Criminal, Constitution, Revenue and Service Law and was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court in 2011. He was part of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Divisional Bench in 2012 that had struck down Government of India's decision to allocate 4.5 per cent sub-quota (within the 27% Other Backward Classes quota) for minorities. The bench ruled out the government's decision saying it was based on religion. While serving as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, he suspended Special CBI Judge T Pattabhirama Rao and ordered his prosecution in a Mining scam case relating to the Reddy brothers. Justice Kurian Joseph Justice Kurian Joseph, born on November 30, 1953, was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court in 2013. He had served as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2010. His retirement is scheduled for November 30, 2018. Justice Joseph along with two other judges is hearing the controversial Coal Allocation Scam case. He was also part of a three-judge bench that overruled the Afzal Guru decision on the point of admissibility of electronic evidence.

Things you should know about SC judges who addressed media on Friday

The current <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324" target="_blank">Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra&nbsp;</a>was born on October 3, 1953, in Cuttack, Odisha.

He was appointed as the CJI by President Ram Nath Kovind on August 28, 2017.&nbsp;

Justice Misra succeeded Justice JS Khehar&nbsp;as the 45th chief justice of India.

He has previously served as the Chief Justice of Patna and Delhi High Courts.

He was also the judge of the Supreme Court before being appointed as the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

Justice Misra has been part of several remarkable judgements.

He awarded death penalty to the four convicts in the brutal Delhi gang rape.&nbsp;

He also led the bench which rejected Yakub Memon&#39;s appeal against his death penalty. Yakub Memon was the convict in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. After his decision of turning&nbsp;down the death sentence of the serial bomb blast convict the justice had received death threats through an anonymous letter which said: &quot;irrespective of the protection you may avail, we will eliminate you.&quot;&nbsp;

CJI Dipak Misra came into controversy on Friday after four sitting <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/all-you-should-know-about-sc-judges-who-addressed-media-today-29348" target="_blank">Supreme Court judges</a> Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Jasti Chelameswar&nbsp;and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">differences&nbsp;with him</a>.

The judges criticised Supreme Court&#39;s distribution of cases to judges and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">raised concerns</a>&nbsp;about judicial appointments.

&nbsp;

CJI Dipak Misra came into controversy on Friday after four sitting Supreme Court judges addressed the media for the first time on differences with him

The current Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was born on October 3, 1953, in Cuttack, Odisha. He was appointed as the CJI by President Ram Nath Kovind on August 28, 2017. Justice Misra succeeded Justice JS Khehar as the 45th chief justice of India. He has previously served as the Chief Justice of Patna and Delhi High Courts. He was also the judge of the Supreme Court before being appointed as the Chief Justice of India. Justice Misra has been part of several remarkable judgements. He awarded death penalty to the four convicts in the brutal Delhi gang rape. He also led the bench which rejected Yakub Memon's appeal against his death penalty. Yakub Memon was the convict in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. After his decision of turning down the death sentence of the serial bomb blast convict the justice had received death threats through an anonymous letter which said: "irrespective of the protection you may avail, we will eliminate you." CJI Dipak Misra came into controversy on Friday after four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences with him. The judges criticised Supreme Court's distribution of cases to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile

India&#39;s Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI)&nbsp;of India <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">Dipak Misra</a> after four judges addressed the media for the first time.

Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">addressed the media</a> for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day.&nbsp;

At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was &quot;not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable&quot; things have taken place.

The judges said they had written a letter to CJI Dipak Misra some time back, raising important issues. &quot;But all of them failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said.

&quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said.

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; the four judges said.

Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

&quot;A couple of months back, four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI and we wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the thing was done, but in a way, that it raises doubt on the integrity of the institution,&quot; Justice Chelameswar had said.

Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324">looking into the matter</a> and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.

India's Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI) of India Dipak Misra after four judges addressed the media for the first time. Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day. At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. The judges said they had written a letter to CJI Dipak Misra some time back, raising important issues. "But all of them failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed," Justice Chelameswar said. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges said. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." "A couple of months back, four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI and we wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the thing was done, but in a way, that it raises doubt on the integrity of the institution," Justice Chelameswar had said. Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was looking into the matter and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference

The Constitution helps, judicial decisions also help but, basically and truly, it is the vigorous public opinion that safeguards democracy and enables the country to adhere to the democratic way of life. If the public conscience is shrunken, then a stage is set for letting loose forces which may pose a danger to a democracy. This is precisely what happened today when in an unprecedented and extraordinary move, four senior-most judges of the apex court came out of the court on a working day and met the people of the country through media.

Serious questions of far-reaching consequence were raised which seriously doubted the credibility of the institution, which claims it to be the conscience keeper of people of India. &nbsp;

One of the issues raised by four senior-most judges was the functioning of the Collegium. It has been condemned for not being transparent and objective, the reasons for which it was evolved. It failed to institutionalise the process and the parameters of appointment, elevation and transfer of judges.

It has been about two years since the five-judge Constitution Bench, after striking down the government&rsquo;s NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) law, tasked the Centre (December 2015) to draft a fresh Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) with the objective of making judicial appointments transparent. But the Chief Justice of India apparently did not keep his senior colleagues in a loop while referring the matter of MoP to a different bench namely R P Luthara v. Union of India on 27th Oct. 2017.&nbsp;

The second contentious issue is the formation of benches and allocation of cases to it. How is it decided as to which judge will sit on which bench of the Supreme Court? The simple answer is that the public does not know.

The reason is the Supreme Court&rsquo;s general attitude against the application of the Right to Information Act, to it, despite its judgments declaring how vital the public&rsquo;s right to know is for a democracy. The public has a right to know how its public institutions and its public functionaries are functioning. This current chaos in the Supreme Court revolves around the disconcerting trends arising out of bench formation in the apex court.&nbsp;

Though the matter has been raised many times in the past, it received serious attention when &lsquo;Campaign for Judicial Accountability&rsquo; filed a petition, seeking a special investigation team under the supervision of a former CJI to thoroughly probe the case relating to granting recognition to medical colleges since the matter might involve sitting and former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The plea sought recusal of the CJI, contending the medical admission cases were being heard by his bench in the apex court and that his role might also need to be examined.&nbsp;

However, nullifying the order passed by Justice Chelameswar, the larger bench headed by the Chief Justice held that any such order shall be &quot;ineffective&quot; and will not be binding since only the CJI can decide where and how a case is to be listed for hearing. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Another sensitive issue was concerning an independent probe into the death of CBI&nbsp;Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, who presided over the&nbsp;Sohrabuddin Sheikh&nbsp;staged shooting case. &nbsp;Bharatiya Janata President&nbsp;Amit Shah&nbsp;was one of the accused (but later discharged), besides other top&nbsp;Gujarat&nbsp;police officers among the accused. Chief Justice allegedly picked up a handmaid bench to hear this matter ignoring the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

It would now be unavoidable for the Chief Justice of India to disentangle the crisis by safeguarding genuinely contested issues of transparency, accountability and credibility of the institution otherwise the conscience of the people is bound to be dismayed.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

It would now be unavoidable for the Chief Justice of India to disentangle the crisis by safeguarding genuinely contested issues of transparency, accountability and credibility of the institution otherwise the conscience of the people is bound to be dismayed.

The Constitution helps, judicial decisions also help but, basically and truly, it is the vigorous public opinion that safeguards democracy and enables the country to adhere to the democratic way of life. If the public conscience is shrunken, then a stage is set for letting loose forces which may pose a danger to a democracy. This is precisely what happened today when in an unprecedented and extraordinary move, four senior-most judges of the apex court came out of the court on a working day and met the people of the country through media. Serious questions of far-reaching consequence were raised which seriously doubted the credibility of the institution, which claims it to be the conscience keeper of people of India. One of the issues raised by four senior-most judges was the functioning of the Collegium. It has been condemned for not being transparent and objective, the reasons for which it was evolved. It failed to institutionalise the process and the parameters of appointment, elevation and transfer of judges. It has been about two years since the five-judge Constitution Bench, after striking down the government’s NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) law, tasked the Centre (December 2015) to draft a fresh Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) with the objective of making judicial appointments transparent. But the Chief Justice of India apparently did not keep his senior colleagues in a loop while referring the matter of MoP to a different bench namely R P Luthara v. Union of India on 27th Oct. 2017. The second contentious issue is the formation of benches and allocation of cases to it. How is it decided as to which judge will sit on which bench of the Supreme Court? The simple answer is that the public does not know. The reason is the Supreme Court’s general attitude against the application of the Right to Information Act, to it, despite its judgments declaring how vital the public’s right to know is for a democracy. The public has a right to know how its public institutions and its public functionaries are functioning. This current chaos in the Supreme Court revolves around the disconcerting trends arising out of bench formation in the apex court. Though the matter has been raised many times in the past, it received serious attention when ‘Campaign for Judicial Accountability’ filed a petition, seeking a special investigation team under the supervision of a former CJI to thoroughly probe the case relating to granting recognition to medical colleges since the matter might involve sitting and former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The plea sought recusal of the CJI, contending the medical admission cases were being heard by his bench in the apex court and that his role might also need to be examined. However, nullifying the order passed by Justice Chelameswar, the larger bench headed by the Chief Justice held that any such order shall be "ineffective" and will not be binding since only the CJI can decide where and how a case is to be listed for hearing. Another sensitive issue was concerning an independent probe into the death of CBI Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, who presided over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh staged shooting case. Bharatiya Janata President Amit Shah was one of the accused (but later discharged), besides other top Gujarat police officers among the accused. Chief Justice allegedly picked up a handmaid bench to hear this matter ignoring the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It would now be unavoidable for the Chief Justice of India to disentangle the crisis by safeguarding genuinely contested issues of transparency, accountability and credibility of the institution otherwise the conscience of the people is bound to be dismayed. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: How bad is the situation in India's Supreme Court

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