Four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an unprecedented press meeting where they raised questions about the working of the top court. In a seven-page letter, the judges also made some other claims.

&quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said. The other three judges which were part of the open meet were Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Gogoi.

&quot;In this situation, democracy won&#39;t survive,&quot; Justice Chelameswar declared.

Here is the full text of the letter:

Dear Chief Justice,

It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India.

From the date of establishment of the three chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this court which came into existence almost a century after the above mentioned courts. These traditions have their roots in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and practice.

One of the well settled principles is that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with a privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which member/bench of this court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only the first amongst the equals - nothing more or nothing less.

In the matter of the determination of the roster there are well-settled and time honoured conventions guiding the chief justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof.

A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed.

Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.

We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches &quot;of their preference&quot; without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.

We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.

In the above context, we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the order dated October 27, 2017 in RP Luthra vs Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure (MoP) in the larger public interest. When the MoP was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this court, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Anr Vs Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other bench could have dealt with the matter.

The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the collegium of five judges (including myself) and the MoP was finalised and sent by the then Hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India to the Government of India in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the MoP as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this court in Supreme Court Advocates-on- record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the MoP or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.

On July 4, 2017, a bench of seven judges of this court decided in Re, Hon&#39;ble Justice C S Karnan [(2017)1 SCC1]. In that decision (referred to in RP Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven judges with regard to the MoP.

Any issue with regard to MoP should be discussed in the Chief Justices&#39; conference and by the full court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a constitution bench.

The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the collegium and at a later stage, if required, with other hon&#39;ble judges of this court.

Once the issue arising from the order dated October 27, 2017, in RP Luthra Vs UOI, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this court which would require to be similarly dealt with.

With kind regards, 
Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.

&nbsp;

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7497921862011637" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_88364" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/368980476/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-Akn0pnEm2oFWkIno7Ub5&amp;show_recommendations=true" title="Letter by Supreme Court judges" width="100%"></iframe>

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an unprecedented press meeting where they raised questions about the working of the top court.

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an unprecedented press meeting where they raised questions about the working of the top court. In a seven-page letter, the judges also made some other claims. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said. The other three judges which were part of the open meet were Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Gogoi. "In this situation, democracy won't survive," Justice Chelameswar declared. Here is the full text of the letter: Dear Chief Justice, It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. From the date of establishment of the three chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this court which came into existence almost a century after the above mentioned courts. These traditions have their roots in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and practice. One of the well settled principles is that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with a privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which member/bench of this court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only the first amongst the equals - nothing more or nothing less. In the matter of the determination of the roster there are well-settled and time honoured conventions guiding the chief justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof. A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed. Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure. We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches "of their preference" without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs. We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent. In the above context, we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the order dated October 27, 2017 in RP Luthra vs Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure (MoP) in the larger public interest. When the MoP was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this court, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Anr Vs Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other bench could have dealt with the matter. The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the collegium of five judges (including myself) and the MoP was finalised and sent by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to the Government of India in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the MoP as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this court in Supreme Court Advocates-on- record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the MoP or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period. On July 4, 2017, a bench of seven judges of this court decided in Re, Hon'ble Justice C S Karnan [(2017)1 SCC1]. In that decision (referred to in RP Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven judges with regard to the MoP. Any issue with regard to MoP should be discussed in the Chief Justices' conference and by the full court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a constitution bench. The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The hon'ble Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the collegium and at a later stage, if required, with other hon'ble judges of this court. Once the issue arising from the order dated October 27, 2017, in RP Luthra Vs UOI, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this court which would require to be similarly dealt with. With kind regards, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.

The 7-page letter 4 senior Supreme Court judges wrote to Chief Justice of India

Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Jasti Chelameswar&nbsp;and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences&nbsp;with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The judges criticised Supreme Court&#39;s distribution of cases to judges and <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> about judicial appointments.

&quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said on the lawns of his residence in New Delhi. &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; he added.

&quot;We wanted to let the nation know that it is important to preserve the institution of judiciary,&quot; the judge said.

&quot;We tried to convince the CJI again this morning, but nothing happened, the hallmark of a good democracy is an independent judiciary,&quot; he told reporters.

The justices gave few details of the incidents they were referring to, but <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 the letter, they mentioned instances of cases with &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without any rational &quot;basis for such assignment&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 said.

&quot;With no pleasure, we are compelled to take the decision to call a press conference. The administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months,&quot; the judge told the media.

We told the CJI that things are not in order and something should be done, but unfortunately our efforts went in vain.&nbsp;All Supreme Court judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in various courts in the country, including the high courts, he added.

&quot;We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls,&quot;&nbsp;Justice Chelameswar he said, adding, &quot;It is an extremely painful moment for all four of us and there is no pleasure in holding this press conference.&quot;

&quot;Nobody is breaking the rank and it is discharge of debt&nbsp;to nation which we have done,&quot; said Justice Gogoi, who would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year.

Highly placed government sources said the issues raised by the four judges are an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332">&quot;internal matter&quot; of the judiciary</a>, indicating that the government is unlikely to interfere.

However, the sources also added that the apex court should settle the issue at the earliest as the faith of the people in the judiciary is at stake.

&quot;It is a sad day for the judicial system,&quot; said Congress leader Ashwani Kumar, who is also a senior advocate.

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.

Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelmeshwar, Justice Gogoi will be addressing the media

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 the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The judges criticised Supreme Court's distribution of cases to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said on the lawns of his residence in New Delhi. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country," he added. "We wanted to let the nation know that it is important to preserve the institution of judiciary," the judge said. "We tried to convince the CJI again this morning, but nothing happened, the hallmark of a good democracy is an independent judiciary," he told reporters. The justices gave few details of the incidents they were referring to, but released a letter they had written to Misra. In the letter, they mentioned instances of cases with "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without any rational "basis for such assignment". "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 said. "With no pleasure, we are compelled to take the decision to call a press conference. The administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months," the judge told the media. We told the CJI that things are not in order and something should be done, but unfortunately our efforts went in vain. All Supreme Court judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in various courts in the country, including the high courts, he added. "We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls," Justice Chelameswar he said, adding, "It is an extremely painful moment for all four of us and there is no pleasure in holding this press conference." "Nobody is breaking the rank and it is discharge of debt to nation which we have done," said Justice Gogoi, who would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year. Highly placed government sources said the issues raised by the four judges are an "internal matter" of the judiciary, indicating that the government is unlikely to interfere. However, the sources also added that the apex court should settle the issue at the earliest as the faith of the people in the judiciary is at stake. "It is a sad day for the judicial system," said Congress leader Ashwani Kumar, who is also a senior advocate. Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was looking into the matter and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet

The Supreme Court on Friday posed searching questions to a petitioner seeking re-investigation in the assassination case of Mahatma Gandhi and asked him to satisfy it on aspects of delay and his locus to raise the issue.

The apex court made it clear that it would go only by law and not the stature of the person involved in the case.

A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao told the petitioner not to get carried away by the greatness of the person involved as the issue was whether there was any evidence available in the matter.

&quot;You (petitioner) have to answer a couple of very important points. One of them is delay. The other is locus. The third is the fact that because of the delay, every piece of evidence pertaining to the incident is lost,&quot; the bench said adding that almost all witnesses related to the case have passed away.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Mumbai-based Dr Pankaj Phadnis, a researcher and a trustee of Abhinav Bharat, who has sought reopening of investigation on several grounds, claiming it was one of the biggest cover-ups in the history.

Meanwhile, Phadnis requested for time to respond to the report filed by senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.

Sharan, in his report filed in the court, has said there was no need to re-investigate Mahatma&#39;s assassination case as the conspiracy behind the murder and identity of assailant Nathuram Vinayak Godse who had fired the bullets have already been duly established.

The bench granted four weeks time to the petitioner to file his response to the report of the amicus.

During the hearing, the bench told the petitioner that the issue was whether any admissible evidence was available at present.

&quot;Don&#39;t get carried away with the greatness of the person involved. This is about whether there is any evidence available or not,&quot; the bench observed adding, &quot;court will act according to the law and rule and not as per stature of person involved.&quot;

Sharan, in his report filed in the court, has said claims regarding existence of British special intelligence unit by the name &#39;Force 136&#39; and its alleged role in the assassination was not substantiated.

The report has said that records of the case established that an independent judiciary had adjudged the crimes of Nathuram Vinayak Godse and other accused in the matter and justice was served.

Gandhi was shot dead at point blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948 by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. The assassination case had led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Narayan Apte on November 15, 1949.

&quot;The bullets which pierced Mahatma Gandhi&#39;s body, the pistol from which it was fired, the assailant who fired the said bullets, the conspiracy which led to the assassination and the ideology which led to the said assassination have all been duly identified,&quot; the report has said.

The petitioner has questioned the &#39;three bullet theory&#39; relied upon by various courts to hold conviction of accused Godse and Apte, who were hanged, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who was given benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence.

Regarding the claim by the petitioner about the alleged fourth bullet, the amicus has said that as per records of the case, only three empty cartridges and two spent bullets were found at the place of occurrence and no fourth spent bullet or empty cartridge was found from there.

The report has also said Godse was arrested at the spot with the murder weapon, a semi automatic Beretta pistol which could load seven cartridges at a time, and the records suggested that only three bullets were fired.

Phadnis has challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016 had dismissed his PIL on two grounds - firstly, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court, and secondly, the Kapur Commission has submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition has been filed 46 years later.

A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao told the petitioner not to get carried away by the greatness of the person involved.

The Supreme Court on Friday posed searching questions to a petitioner seeking re-investigation in the assassination case of Mahatma Gandhi and asked him to satisfy it on aspects of delay and his locus to raise the issue. The apex court made it clear that it would go only by law and not the stature of the person involved in the case. A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao told the petitioner not to get carried away by the greatness of the person involved as the issue was whether there was any evidence available in the matter. "You (petitioner) have to answer a couple of very important points. One of them is delay. The other is locus. The third is the fact that because of the delay, every piece of evidence pertaining to the incident is lost," the bench said adding that almost all witnesses related to the case have passed away. The court was hearing a plea filed by Mumbai-based Dr Pankaj Phadnis, a researcher and a trustee of Abhinav Bharat, who has sought reopening of investigation on several grounds, claiming it was one of the biggest cover-ups in the history. Meanwhile, Phadnis requested for time to respond to the report filed by senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, who has been appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter. Sharan, in his report filed in the court, has said there was no need to re-investigate Mahatma's assassination case as the conspiracy behind the murder and identity of assailant Nathuram Vinayak Godse who had fired the bullets have already been duly established. The bench granted four weeks time to the petitioner to file his response to the report of the amicus. During the hearing, the bench told the petitioner that the issue was whether any admissible evidence was available at present. "Don't get carried away with the greatness of the person involved. This is about whether there is any evidence available or not," the bench observed adding, "court will act according to the law and rule and not as per stature of person involved." Sharan, in his report filed in the court, has said claims regarding existence of British special intelligence unit by the name 'Force 136' and its alleged role in the assassination was not substantiated. The report has said that records of the case established that an independent judiciary had adjudged the crimes of Nathuram Vinayak Godse and other accused in the matter and justice was served. Gandhi was shot dead at point blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948 by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. The assassination case had led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Narayan Apte on November 15, 1949. "The bullets which pierced Mahatma Gandhi's body, the pistol from which it was fired, the assailant who fired the said bullets, the conspiracy which led to the assassination and the ideology which led to the said assassination have all been duly identified," the report has said. The petitioner has questioned the 'three bullet theory' relied upon by various courts to hold conviction of accused Godse and Apte, who were hanged, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who was given benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence. Regarding the claim by the petitioner about the alleged fourth bullet, the amicus has said that as per records of the case, only three empty cartridges and two spent bullets were found at the place of occurrence and no fourth spent bullet or empty cartridge was found from there. The report has also said Godse was arrested at the spot with the murder weapon, a semi automatic Beretta pistol which could load seven cartridges at a time, and the records suggested that only three bullets were fired. Phadnis has challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016 had dismissed his PIL on two grounds - firstly, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court, and secondly, the Kapur Commission has submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition has been filed 46 years later.

Supreme Court asks petitioner's locus for seeking re-investigation into Mahatma Gandhi's assassination

The Supreme Court today termed as a &quot;serious matter&quot; the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, and sought response from Maharashtra government on pleas seeking an independent probe into it.

 
The top court said, &quot;This matter requires bi-party hearing rather than exparte&quot;.

 
A bench of justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar asked Maharasthra&nbsp;government counsel Nishant R Katneshwarkar to file reply by January 15.

 
At the outset, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing Bombay lawyers association, said the high court is seized of the matter and the apex court should not hear the pleas.

 
&quot;The Bombay High Court is seized of the matter and in my opinion the Supreme Court should not hear this matter. If the court goes ahead with the hearing, it may have implications before the high court,&quot; Dave said. 
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the petitioners Maharashtra-based journalist B R Lone, said that she has also instructions from Bombay lawyers association that this matter should not be heard by the top court. 
The bench, however, said it will look into the petitions but will also consider the objections raised.

 
Advocate Varinder Kumar Sharma, appearing for another petitioner Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala, said this is a case where a mysterious death of a judge has taken place on December 1, 2014 and it needs to be investigated.

 
The bench then asked Katneshwarkar to file the mortem report and other relevant documents regarding the death of judge Loya besides taking instruction from the government.

 
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 15.

 
Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.

A bench of justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar asked Maharasthra government counsel Nishant R Katneshwarkar to file reply by January 15.

The Supreme Court today termed as a "serious matter" the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, and sought response from Maharashtra government on pleas seeking an independent probe into it. The top court said, "This matter requires bi-party hearing rather than exparte". A bench of justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar asked Maharasthra government counsel Nishant R Katneshwarkar to file reply by January 15. At the outset, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing Bombay lawyers association, said the high court is seized of the matter and the apex court should not hear the pleas. "The Bombay High Court is seized of the matter and in my opinion the Supreme Court should not hear this matter. If the court goes ahead with the hearing, it may have implications before the high court," Dave said. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the petitioners Maharashtra-based journalist B R Lone, said that she has also instructions from Bombay lawyers association that this matter should not be heard by the top court. The bench, however, said it will look into the petitions but will also consider the objections raised. Advocate Varinder Kumar Sharma, appearing for another petitioner Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala, said this is a case where a mysterious death of a judge has taken place on December 1, 2014 and it needs to be investigated. The bench then asked Katneshwarkar to file the mortem report and other relevant documents regarding the death of judge Loya besides taking instruction from the government. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 15. Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

Issue of alleged mysterious death of CBI judge Loya serious matter: Supreme Court

In an unprecedented move, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an open press conference where they 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.

Here are the highlights of what the judges said:

Justice J Chelameswar:

<ul>
	<li>We thought we were a repository team, we thought to persuade the Chief Justice of India that certain things were not in order and we need to do something</li>
	<li>We wanted to change things that raised doubts on the integrity of this precious institution</li>
	<li>The hallmark of a good democracy is an independent judiciary</li>
	<li>Unless the institution of Supreme Court is preserved, our democracy will not survive</li>
	<li>Many less than desirable things have happened in the judiciary in the last few months compelling us to hold this open meet because we owe a responsibility to the nation</li>
	<li>Couple of months back, the four of us went to the CJI and gave him a signed letter. We wanted something to be done - it was done but in a way that raised more questions</li>
	<li>We again met the CJI this morning. We had doubts about handling of certain cases and asked him to do something. But he again ignored us.</li>
</ul>

Reporter interjects and asks question: Is it about death of Justice Loya?

Justice Ranjan Gogoi

<ul>
	<li>Yes</li>
</ul>

The press conference was called at his Tughlaq Road residence in New Delhi.

In an unprecedented move, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an open press conference where they 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. Here are the highlights of what the judges said: Justice J Chelameswar: We thought we were a repository team, we thought to persuade the Chief Justice of India that certain things were not in order and we need to do something We wanted to change things that raised doubts on the integrity of this precious institution The hallmark of a good democracy is an independent judiciary Unless the institution of Supreme Court is preserved, our democracy will not survive Many less than desirable things have happened in the judiciary in the last few months compelling us to hold this open meet because we owe a responsibility to the nation Couple of months back, the four of us went to the CJI and gave him a signed letter. We wanted something to be done - it was done but in a way that raised more questions We again met the CJI this morning. We had doubts about handling of certain cases and asked him to do something. But he again ignored us. Reporter interjects and asks question: Is it about death of Justice Loya? Justice Ranjan Gogoi Yes

What Justice Chelameshwar and other senior Supreme Court judges said in open meet today

Warning that democracy is at risk,<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/all-you-should-know-about-sc-judges-who-addressed-media-today-29348" target="_blank"> four senior judges of the Supreme Court </a>on Friday mounted a virtual revolt against the country&#39;s chief justice, raising questions on &quot;selective&quot; case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.

Also read &mdash;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/press-conference-by-four-supreme-court-judges-could-have-been-avoided-attorney-general-29367" target="_blank">Press conference by four SC judges could have been avoided: Attorney General</a>

The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353" target="_blank">Chief Justice Dipak Misra</a>, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country&#39;s top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The apex court currently has 25 judges.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">&#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet</a>

Justice Chelameswar himself described as an &quot;extraordinary event&quot; in the annals of the Indian judiciary <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">when the judges addressed a joint news conference</a> during which he said, &quot;sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months.&quot;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-for-setting-up-of-sit-to-probe-into-judges-allegations-29331" target="_blank">Points they raised need to be looked into: Rahul Gandhi on Supreme Court judges&#39; revolt against CJI</a>

The judge accused Justice Misra of not taking any &quot;remedial measures&quot; on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017, and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year.

Also read &mdash;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353" target="_blank">Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile</a>

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive&quot; in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

In a scathing criticism and unvarnished self-reflection of the Supreme Court, Chelameswar, who was accompanied by Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph at the press conference, said they had met the chief justice this morning and &quot;raised issues affecting the institution.&quot; The CJI and the four judges comprise the Supreme Court collegium that selects judges for the higher judiciary.

&quot;Unless this institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said, adding that it was &quot;extremely painful&quot; to hold the press conference in such a manner. The conference was held at his residence here.

He said all the four judges &quot;failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed.

&quot;And all four of us are convinced that democracy is at stake and many things have happened in recent past,&quot; he said.

Asked what these issues were, he said they included the &quot;allocation of cases by CJI&quot;. The remarks assume significance as the apex court earlier in the day took up for consideration the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh &#39;fake encounter&#39; case.

Justice Chelameswar said &quot;we owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution.&quot;

&quot;This is an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, more particularly this nation and an extraordinary event in the institution of the judiciary ... It is with no pleasure that we are compelled to call this press conference.&quot;

There was no immediate official response from the CJI office.

Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

The Centre made it clear it is not going to intervene in the unprecedented development, saying the judiciary will resolve the issue itself.&nbsp;

&quot;Our judiciary is reputed all over the world, independent and they will sort the matter themselves,&quot; said minister of state for law P P Chaudhury.

The four judges, in their seven-page letter to the CJI, said, &quot;It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India.&quot;

The letter, that was released to the press, was sent a couple of months back, Justice Chelameswar said.

&quot;It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals &mdash; nothing more or nothing less.&quot;

The letter said that there have been instances where cases having &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation&quot; and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court &quot;selectively to the benches &#39;of their preference&#39; without any rational basis&quot; for such assignment.&nbsp;

&quot;This must be guarded against at all costs.&quot;

&quot;We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.&quot;

The letter also raised the concerns of the judges on the allocation of cases.

&quot;It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals -- nothing more or nothing less.

&quot;A necessary corollary to the above-mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed.

&quot;Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.

&quot;We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to,&quot; the letter said.

The legal fraternity said they were &quot;pained&quot; and &quot;sad&quot; at the outcome of events in the country&#39;s highest court.

&quot;It is very unfortunate,&quot; said former CJI K G Balakrishnan, while Congress leader Ashwani Kumar, who is also a senior advocate, observed, &quot;It is a sad day for the judicial system.&quot; Some senior advocates like K T S Tulsi said there could have been some &quot;compelling&quot; reasons for the four judges to lay bare their differences.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/press-conference-by-four-supreme-court-judges-could-have-been-avoided-attorney-general-29367" target="_blank">Attorney General K K Venugopal,</a> who had a meeting with Justice Misra after the joint news conference of the judges, said it &quot;could have been avoided&quot; and that all judges would now have to act in &quot;statesmanship&quot; to ensure total harmony.

At the news conference, the judges rubbished suggestions that they have broken ranks and said they will discharge their duties as usual.

Justice Gogoi said &quot;nobody is breaking the rank and it is a discharge of debt to a nation which we have done.&quot;&nbsp;

Gogoi would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year.

Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges said

Warning that democracy is at risk, four senior judges of the Supreme Court on Friday mounted a virtual revolt against the country's chief justice, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity. Also read — Press conference by four SC judges could have been avoided: Attorney General The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country's top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The apex court currently has 25 judges. Also read: 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet Justice Chelameswar himself described as an "extraordinary event" in the annals of the Indian judiciary when the judges addressed a joint news conference during which he said, "sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months." Also read: Points they raised need to be looked into: Rahul Gandhi on Supreme Court judges' revolt against CJI The judge accused Justice Misra of not taking any "remedial measures" on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017, and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year. Also read — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive" in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved. In a scathing criticism and unvarnished self-reflection of the Supreme Court, Chelameswar, who was accompanied by Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph at the press conference, said they had met the chief justice this morning and "raised issues affecting the institution." The CJI and the four judges comprise the Supreme Court collegium that selects judges for the higher judiciary. "Unless this institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Chelameswar said, adding that it was "extremely painful" to hold the press conference in such a manner. The conference was held at his residence here. He said all the four judges "failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed. "And all four of us are convinced that democracy is at stake and many things have happened in recent past," he said. Asked what these issues were, he said they included the "allocation of cases by CJI". The remarks assume significance as the apex court earlier in the day took up for consideration the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh 'fake encounter' case. Justice Chelameswar said "we owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution." "This is an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, more particularly this nation and an extraordinary event in the institution of the judiciary ... It is with no pleasure that we are compelled to call this press conference." There was no immediate official response from the CJI office. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." The Centre made it clear it is not going to intervene in the unprecedented development, saying the judiciary will resolve the issue itself. "Our judiciary is reputed all over the world, independent and they will sort the matter themselves," said minister of state for law P P Chaudhury. The four judges, in their seven-page letter to the CJI, said, "It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India." The letter, that was released to the press, was sent a couple of months back, Justice Chelameswar said. "It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals — nothing more or nothing less." The letter said that there have been instances where cases having "far-reaching consequences for the nation" and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court "selectively to the benches 'of their preference' without any rational basis" for such assignment. "This must be guarded against at all costs." "We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent." The letter also raised the concerns of the judges on the allocation of cases. "It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals -- nothing more or nothing less. "A necessary corollary to the above-mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed. "Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure. "We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to," the letter said. The legal fraternity said they were "pained" and "sad" at the outcome of events in the country's highest court. "It is very unfortunate," said former CJI K G Balakrishnan, while Congress leader Ashwani Kumar, who is also a senior advocate, observed, "It is a sad day for the judicial system." Some senior advocates like K T S Tulsi said there could have been some "compelling" reasons for the four judges to lay bare their differences. Attorney General K K Venugopal, who had a meeting with Justice Misra after the joint news conference of the judges, said it "could have been avoided" and that all judges would now have to act in "statesmanship" to ensure total harmony. At the news conference, the judges rubbished suggestions that they have broken ranks and said they will discharge their duties as usual. Justice Gogoi said "nobody is breaking the rank and it is a discharge of debt to a nation which we have done." Gogoi would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year.

Four Supreme Court judges take on Chief Justice of India, say democracy at risk

Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that there was no need for the Supreme Court judges to call for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">press conference</a> today. He said that the judges would now have to act in &quot;statesmanship&quot; to ensure complete harmony.

Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353">Dipak Misra</a> after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved.

&quot;Today&#39;s press conference could have been avoided, but the Supreme Court judges are all statesman with vast experience and knowledge, and I am sure by tomorrow, the entire issue would be resolved,&quot; Venugopal, main legal advisor to the government, said on Friday.

&quot;This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion,&quot; he added.

Sources said judges, other than the four senior most ones, also held a meeting during the recess and were concerned about the unprecedented development.

Warning that democracy is at stake, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today mounted a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324">virtual revolt against the CJI</a>, raising questions on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-7-page-letter-4-senior-supreme-court-judges-wrote-to-chief-justice-of-india-29321">&quot;selective&quot; case allocation</a> and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.

The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country&#39;s top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The Supreme Court currently has 25 judges.

The judge accused CJI Misra of not taking any &quot;remedial measures&quot; on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017 and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year.

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive&quot; in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved.

Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that there was no need for the Supreme Court judges to call for a press conference today. He said that the judges would now have to act in "statesmanship" to ensure complete harmony. Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved. "Today's press conference could have been avoided, but the Supreme Court judges are all statesman with vast experience and knowledge, and I am sure by tomorrow, the entire issue would be resolved," Venugopal, main legal advisor to the government, said on Friday. "This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion," he added. Sources said judges, other than the four senior most ones, also held a meeting during the recess and were concerned about the unprecedented development. Warning that democracy is at stake, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity. The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country's top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The Supreme Court currently has 25 judges. The judge accused CJI Misra of not taking any "remedial measures" on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017 and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive" in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

Press conference by four Supreme Court judges could have been avoided: Attorney General

It was an ordinary day made unprecedented by 4 extraordinary Supreme Court judges who made there point across to the nation through a nimble press conference. The message was loud and clear that certain issues require immediate attention as the system itself and those in charge have failed to resolve them.&nbsp;

What the press conference did was to make the issues, which have been a taboo and spoken in a hushed tone, now are part of public discourse. The issue of corruption and arbitrariness within the Indian judiciary is not new. The judges have ensured that the topic of judicial reform and corruption remains part of public knowledge for a long time.

For the first time, the top judiciary will be evaluated for the reforms it has initiated from within rather than pushed from outside. The press conference also breaks the hubris and untouchability of the institution which in a democracy was never the right precedent.

&nbsp;It is not to say that the Apex Court has not done a great job but it also shied away from issues plaguing them, be it recruitment of judges to posting issues to a bench of one&rsquo;s own choice. Rather than persecute the messengers, it is a great opportunity for the judiciary to renew itself by looking into issues which is being publically debated in the country.&nbsp;

Today because of a lack of political decision-making by the elected members, the society&#39;s need for a fair judiciary is even more. From pollution to corruption, matters instead of getting resolved at political level have gone to the courts. The court must restore confidence by addressing itself. It cannot continue as an untouchable institution as that way it will end up losing people&rsquo;s trust. In a democracy, the trust of the people is the most sacred thing. It is even more sacred than the law itself as it is about faith.

&nbsp;Moreover, the people of the country would see as to as to how the government, the judiciary and the Opposition will behave on this issue. It will be difficult for the government to stay away from this issue for a long time. After a long time, the debate has also moved from the judiciary versus executive to the reforms in the judiciary, which is opposed to any interference from the political executive

For good or bad, with or without immediate change, things will not remain same for the Indian judiciary. The 4 judges have ensured that there will be a new normal when it comes to the Apex Court. If this press conference cannot move the judiciary to take action than nothing would it. The Chief Justice of India should be like Ceaser&rsquo;s wife and must walk the talk to ensure that correction takes place from within rather than outside as public outcry can swing the pendulum to another end. That for certain will not be healthy for democracy.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

If this press conference cannot move the judiciary to take action than nothing would it.

It was an ordinary day made unprecedented by 4 extraordinary Supreme Court judges who made there point across to the nation through a nimble press conference. The message was loud and clear that certain issues require immediate attention as the system itself and those in charge have failed to resolve them. What the press conference did was to make the issues, which have been a taboo and spoken in a hushed tone, now are part of public discourse. The issue of corruption and arbitrariness within the Indian judiciary is not new. The judges have ensured that the topic of judicial reform and corruption remains part of public knowledge for a long time. For the first time, the top judiciary will be evaluated for the reforms it has initiated from within rather than pushed from outside. The press conference also breaks the hubris and untouchability of the institution which in a democracy was never the right precedent. It is not to say that the Apex Court has not done a great job but it also shied away from issues plaguing them, be it recruitment of judges to posting issues to a bench of one’s own choice. Rather than persecute the messengers, it is a great opportunity for the judiciary to renew itself by looking into issues which is being publically debated in the country. Today because of a lack of political decision-making by the elected members, the society's need for a fair judiciary is even more. From pollution to corruption, matters instead of getting resolved at political level have gone to the courts. The court must restore confidence by addressing itself. It cannot continue as an untouchable institution as that way it will end up losing people’s trust. In a democracy, the trust of the people is the most sacred thing. It is even more sacred than the law itself as it is about faith. Moreover, the people of the country would see as to as to how the government, the judiciary and the Opposition will behave on this issue. It will be difficult for the government to stay away from this issue for a long time. After a long time, the debate has also moved from the judiciary versus executive to the reforms in the judiciary, which is opposed to any interference from the political executive For good or bad, with or without immediate change, things will not remain same for the Indian judiciary. The 4 judges have ensured that there will be a new normal when it comes to the Apex Court. If this press conference cannot move the judiciary to take action than nothing would it. The Chief Justice of India should be like Ceaser’s wife and must walk the talk to ensure that correction takes place from within rather than outside as public outcry can swing the pendulum to another end. That for certain will not be healthy for democracy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Can 4 Supreme Court judges, who had bell the cat, change judiciary?

<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">Let the nation decide on CJI&#39;s impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference</a>

India&#39;s Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI)&nbsp;of India&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">Dipak Misra</a>&nbsp;after four judges addressed the media for the first time.&nbsp;Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day.&nbsp;Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">&#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet</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. &quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said on the lawns of his residence in New Delhi. &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;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-takes-exception-to-indias-cartosat-2s-satellite-launch-29356" target="_blank">Pakistan takes exception to India&#39;s Cartosat-2s satellite launch</a>

Taking exception to India&#39;s 100th satellite+, Pakistan said that such pursuits should not be directed towards a build-up of destabilizing military capabilities, which can negatively impact the regional strategic stability.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/hafiz-saeed-criticises-pakistan-government-for-not-ushering-islamic-rule-in-country-29309" target="_blank">Hafiz Saeed criticises Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in country</a>

The Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief and UN-designated global terrorist Hafiz Saeed has lashed out at the Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in the country. &quot;They have started this work by finishing the message of Prophet Muhammad. Let us unite and pledge that we would not let it happen,&quot; Saeed has said at an event.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/why-do-teachers-in-jk-use-separate-map-for-state-asks-army-chief-29358" target="_blank">&#39;Why do teachers in J&amp;K use separate map for state?&#39; asks Army Chief</a>

Army Chief General Bipin Rawat on Friday said that schools in Jammu and Kashmir are instilling wrong information into students&#39; mind by showing them a separate map of their state and not as one Indian map.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference 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. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet The judges criticised Supreme Court's distribution of cases to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said on the lawns of his residence in New Delhi. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,". Pakistan takes exception to India's Cartosat-2s satellite launch Taking exception to India's 100th satellite+, Pakistan said that such pursuits should not be directed towards a build-up of destabilizing military capabilities, which can negatively impact the regional strategic stability. Hafiz Saeed criticises Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in country The Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief and UN-designated global terrorist Hafiz Saeed has lashed out at the Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in the country. "They have started this work by finishing the message of Prophet Muhammad. Let us unite and pledge that we would not let it happen," Saeed has said at an event. 'Why do teachers in J&K use separate map for state?' asks Army Chief Army Chief General Bipin Rawat on Friday said that schools in Jammu and Kashmir are instilling wrong information into students' mind by showing them a separate map of their state and not as one Indian map.

WION Evening News brief, January 12, 2018

In a complete reversal from its earlier Order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday &ldquo;modified&rdquo; its interim order which mandated playing of National Anthem in cinema halls. It declared that, henceforth, it will not be mandatory for cinema halls across the country to play National Anthem before the start of a movie.

&nbsp;

In a PIL filed in 2016, the Apex Court, making a reference to the &lsquo;Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971&rsquo;, had earlier emphasised that it was necessary to show requisite and necessary respect towards the National Anthem. The Petitioner in the PIL, the Government (represented by Attorney General) and also the Supreme Court, were all of the same view that making National Anthem necessary before screening in all movie halls is necessary to promote a spirit of unification, in a country which is as diverse as ours, and also to instill patriotism in the citizens.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Rather than promoting a spirit of unification, the Order, unfortunately, ended up giving a license to overzealous and alleged nationalists to abuse and even physically assault persons who chose not to stand up for the National Anthem in cinema theaters. In fact, several incidents were reported across the country where even disabled persons, who could not stand on their feet were also assaulted and abused (albeit at times under mistaken belief) by people, who stopped at nothing to give vent to their idea of nationalism.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Subsequently, two applications were filed by Kodangular Film Society and its President Anoop Kumaran seeking a recall of the Supreme Court order, mandating playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls. The Court modified its earlier order to the extent that the physically challenged, i.e. persons with disability as under section 2(i) and 2(t) of the Disability Act, 1995 shall not be asked to stand up. The Court asked the Central Government to lay down detailed guidelines in respect of disabled persons. It was clarified that though physically disabled persons need not stand during National Anthem in cinema halls, however, such persons must show such conduct which is commensurate with respect to the National Anthem. I must, respectfully, say that the latter direction was rather unusual and vague and Court chose to defer to the government&rsquo;s wisdom to frame guidelines on this sensitive issue.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, displaying shocking apathy towards the disabled, the Home Ministry came up with guidelines in January 2017, which were completely bereft of any wisdom, that the Court had expected the Government to use. The guidelines suggested that wheelchair users and people with locomotor disability should not move and position themselves &ldquo;maintaining the maximum possible attentiveness and alertness physically.&rdquo; For other disabilities, it prescribed that &ldquo;persons with mild intellectual disability can be trained to understand and respect the National Anthem.&rdquo;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

People in the disabled community raised questions about what in the public eye would constitute &lsquo;alert&rsquo; enough? Unfortunately, no answers were forthcoming from any quarter. It is at times like these that one does not know whether to feel angry or laugh at the acumen of our policymakers. Surely enough, even such mindless conditions were no guarantee of safety from abuse by fellow citizens and unsavoury incidents at cinema halls did not end there.

&nbsp;

The Court and the government had initially thought that such measures would unify the country and arouse patriotism amongst the citizens. However, the result was not what everyone had hoped for. Not just instances of violence, many moviegoers even used to make their displeasure known for the National Anthem, as they were forced to give certificates of nationalism before hoping to enjoy a movie with their friends and family. It does not matter how noble the intention is, if symbols are forced upon people, then people may ultimately develop contempt for those very symbols, thereby, having the completely opposite effect than what was intended.

&nbsp;

The PIL in question again came up on 23.10.2017, where the various issues faced by common people and disabled persons were highlighted. The Supreme Court was, thus, constrained to ask the Central Government to take a call and in its discretion, form certain guidelines or rules which regulate the present issue. One of the judges on Bench, Justice Chandrachud even asked the Attorney General &ndash; &ldquo;why should we insist on showing patriotism, when people go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment.... Tomorrow, there may be a demand to stop people from wearing shorts and T-shirts while going to cinema halls, because national anthem is being played. Where is the end for such moral policing?&rdquo;...&rdquo;

&nbsp;

Pursuant to this, the Centre represented by Attorney General submitted an Affidavit in Supreme Court stating that a 12-member inter-ministerial committee, set up by the Centre, would take a final call on the playing of the National Anthem in the cinemas. The Government stated that the Committee shall lay down guidelines in six months.

&nbsp;

Eventually, the Apex Court decided that the matter be best left to the government and passed an order restoring status quo ante and removing the mandate of playing of National Anthem in cinema halls before starting of a movie.

&nbsp;

A few disconcerting aspects emerge from the above facts. First, it begs the question whether the Supreme Court should have passed such sweeping directions without hearing all stakeholders concerned and on the mere asking of the Petitioner, not realising the repercussions thereof.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Not too long ago, then Chief Justice T.S. Thakur had cried openly in a public function that the Judges of the Supreme Court were not being able to dispense justice properly as they were getting crushed under a load of pendency. The situation in the present case is a complete contrast to the sentiment reflected by Justice Thakur. The Court heard the present case for several days and ultimately had to withdraw the very directions that it had initially given.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In my respectful opinion, the precious judicial time could have been put to better use than hearing a PIL which did not seek to address any real public interest or purpose. Second, rather than addressing real issues ailing our country like a fledgling economy, lack of growth, manufacturing sector being in a comatose situation, an inter-Ministerial Committee will now spend 6 months to deliberate how best to compel people to show patriotism before they can be allowed to enjoy movies. Clearly, the priorities seem to be skewed. Third, the arguments of the government in the Court of wanting to force nationalism and patriotism suggests the mindset of a military regime.

&nbsp;

People will love their country and develop a sense of pride for it if the governments make us feel that the country is headed in the correct direction and benefit of the citizenry is at the heart of every step that the government is taking. If a man who does not have a job despite qualification, is compelled every Friday to show love for his country, chances are that it may not yield the desired results that the government expects.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

If a man, who does not have a job despite qualification, is compelled every Friday to show love for his country, chances are that it may not yield the desired results that the government expects.

In a complete reversal from its earlier Order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday “modified” its interim order which mandated playing of National Anthem in cinema halls. It declared that, henceforth, it will not be mandatory for cinema halls across the country to play National Anthem before the start of a movie. In a PIL filed in 2016, the Apex Court, making a reference to the ‘Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971’, had earlier emphasised that it was necessary to show requisite and necessary respect towards the National Anthem. The Petitioner in the PIL, the Government (represented by Attorney General) and also the Supreme Court, were all of the same view that making National Anthem necessary before screening in all movie halls is necessary to promote a spirit of unification, in a country which is as diverse as ours, and also to instill patriotism in the citizens. Rather than promoting a spirit of unification, the Order, unfortunately, ended up giving a license to overzealous and alleged nationalists to abuse and even physically assault persons who chose not to stand up for the National Anthem in cinema theaters. In fact, several incidents were reported across the country where even disabled persons, who could not stand on their feet were also assaulted and abused (albeit at times under mistaken belief) by people, who stopped at nothing to give vent to their idea of nationalism. Subsequently, two applications were filed by Kodangular Film Society and its President Anoop Kumaran seeking a recall of the Supreme Court order, mandating playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls. The Court modified its earlier order to the extent that the physically challenged, i.e. persons with disability as under section 2(i) and 2(t) of the Disability Act, 1995 shall not be asked to stand up. The Court asked the Central Government to lay down detailed guidelines in respect of disabled persons. It was clarified that though physically disabled persons need not stand during National Anthem in cinema halls, however, such persons must show such conduct which is commensurate with respect to the National Anthem. I must, respectfully, say that the latter direction was rather unusual and vague and Court chose to defer to the government’s wisdom to frame guidelines on this sensitive issue. However, displaying shocking apathy towards the disabled, the Home Ministry came up with guidelines in January 2017, which were completely bereft of any wisdom, that the Court had expected the Government to use. The guidelines suggested that wheelchair users and people with locomotor disability should not move and position themselves “maintaining the maximum possible attentiveness and alertness physically.” For other disabilities, it prescribed that “persons with mild intellectual disability can be trained to understand and respect the National Anthem.” People in the disabled community raised questions about what in the public eye would constitute ‘alert’ enough? Unfortunately, no answers were forthcoming from any quarter. It is at times like these that one does not know whether to feel angry or laugh at the acumen of our policymakers. Surely enough, even such mindless conditions were no guarantee of safety from abuse by fellow citizens and unsavoury incidents at cinema halls did not end there. The Court and the government had initially thought that such measures would unify the country and arouse patriotism amongst the citizens. However, the result was not what everyone had hoped for. Not just instances of violence, many moviegoers even used to make their displeasure known for the National Anthem, as they were forced to give certificates of nationalism before hoping to enjoy a movie with their friends and family. It does not matter how noble the intention is, if symbols are forced upon people, then people may ultimately develop contempt for those very symbols, thereby, having the completely opposite effect than what was intended. The PIL in question again came up on 23.10.2017, where the various issues faced by common people and disabled persons were highlighted. The Supreme Court was, thus, constrained to ask the Central Government to take a call and in its discretion, form certain guidelines or rules which regulate the present issue. One of the judges on Bench, Justice Chandrachud even asked the Attorney General – “why should we insist on showing patriotism, when people go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment.... Tomorrow, there may be a demand to stop people from wearing shorts and T-shirts while going to cinema halls, because national anthem is being played. Where is the end for such moral policing?”...” Pursuant to this, the Centre represented by Attorney General submitted an Affidavit in Supreme Court stating that a 12-member inter-ministerial committee, set up by the Centre, would take a final call on the playing of the National Anthem in the cinemas. The Government stated that the Committee shall lay down guidelines in six months. Eventually, the Apex Court decided that the matter be best left to the government and passed an order restoring status quo ante and removing the mandate of playing of National Anthem in cinema halls before starting of a movie. A few disconcerting aspects emerge from the above facts. First, it begs the question whether the Supreme Court should have passed such sweeping directions without hearing all stakeholders concerned and on the mere asking of the Petitioner, not realising the repercussions thereof. Not too long ago, then Chief Justice T.S. Thakur had cried openly in a public function that the Judges of the Supreme Court were not being able to dispense justice properly as they were getting crushed under a load of pendency. The situation in the present case is a complete contrast to the sentiment reflected by Justice Thakur. The Court heard the present case for several days and ultimately had to withdraw the very directions that it had initially given. In my respectful opinion, the precious judicial time could have been put to better use than hearing a PIL which did not seek to address any real public interest or purpose. Second, rather than addressing real issues ailing our country like a fledgling economy, lack of growth, manufacturing sector being in a comatose situation, an inter-Ministerial Committee will now spend 6 months to deliberate how best to compel people to show patriotism before they can be allowed to enjoy movies. Clearly, the priorities seem to be skewed. Third, the arguments of the government in the Court of wanting to force nationalism and patriotism suggests the mindset of a military regime. People will love their country and develop a sense of pride for it if the governments make us feel that the country is headed in the correct direction and benefit of the citizenry is at the heart of every step that the government is taking. If a man who does not have a job despite qualification, is compelled every Friday to show love for his country, chances are that it may not yield the desired results that the government expects. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: The National Anthem case was bound to fail. This is why.

The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the apex court, sources said today.

Along with her, Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph, who was part of the bench which in 2016 had quashed the imposition of President&#39;s Rule in the state, has also been cleared for elevation to the apex court.

Malhotra, who was designated as a senior advocate in 2007, would be the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the top court, instead of being elevated from a high court.

She will be the seventh woman judge since independence to make it to the Supreme Court. At present, Justice R Banumathi is the lone woman judge in the apex court.

The first woman to be appointed as a judge of the apex court was Justice M Fathima Beevi in 1989.

Thereafter, Justice Sujata V Manohar, Justice Ruma Pal, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai made it to the top court as judges.

Along with Malhotra, the collegium has also recommended Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph's name as a Supreme Court judge

The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the apex court, sources said today. Along with her, Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph, who was part of the bench which in 2016 had quashed the imposition of President's Rule in the state, has also been cleared for elevation to the apex court. Malhotra, who was designated as a senior advocate in 2007, would be the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the top court, instead of being elevated from a high court. She will be the seventh woman judge since independence to make it to the Supreme Court. At present, Justice R Banumathi is the lone woman judge in the apex court. The first woman to be appointed as a judge of the apex court was Justice M Fathima Beevi in 1989. Thereafter, Justice Sujata V Manohar, Justice Ruma Pal, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai made it to the top court as judges.

Indu Malhotra may be first woman lawyer to be directly appointed SC judge

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/let-us-not-overblow-this-issue-of-privacy-law-minister-29239" target="_blank">Aadhaar breach row: &#39;Let us not overblow this issue of privacy,&#39; says Law Minister</a>

Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today appealed not to &quot;overblow&quot; the issue of data breach, even as he asserted that innovations taking place in the country as part of digital revolution, cannot be killed under the garb of privacy.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/islamabad-police-register-fir-after-abduction-attempt-on-wions-pakistan-bureau-chief-29225" target="_blank">Islamabad Police register FIR after abduction attempt on WION&#39;s Pakistan bureau chief</a>

Islamabad Police have lodged an FIR after the&nbsp;attempted abduction of WION&#39;s Pakistan bureau chief Taha Siddiqui.&nbsp;&quot;FIR has been registered. Islamabad police just confirmed. Thankful for prompt action,&quot; Taha tweeted on Thursday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-clears-indu-malhotra-k-m-joseph-as-supreme-court-judges-29246" target="_blank">Collegium clears Indu Malhotra, KM Joseph as Supreme Court judges</a>

The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the apex court, sources said today.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-sit-to-supervise-probe-in-186-anti-sikh-riot-cases-set-up-29242" target="_blank">Justice (retd) Dhingra to head new SIT probing 186 anti-Sikh riot cases</a>

The Supreme Court today set up a three-member special investigation team (SIT) headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice S N Dhingra to supervise&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-case-supreme-court-orders-re-investigation-of-186-cases-29114" target="_blank">further probe into 186 anti-Sikh riot cases</a>.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lamborghini-launches-super-suv-urus-at-rs-3-crore-29222" target="_blank">Lamborghini launches super SUV &#39;Urus&#39; in India at Rs 3 crore</a>

Italian super sports car maker Lamborghini on Wednesday launched its first super sports utility vehicle &#39;Urus&#39; in India, priced at Rs 3 crore. With the launch of a new model, Lamborghini expects its volumes to surge 2.5-3 times, the company said.

Aadhaar breach row: 'Let us not overblow this issue of privacy,' says Law Minister Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today appealed not to "overblow" the issue of data breach, even as he asserted that innovations taking place in the country as part of digital revolution, cannot be killed under the garb of privacy. Islamabad Police register FIR after abduction attempt on WION's Pakistan bureau chief Islamabad Police have lodged an FIR after the attempted abduction of WION's Pakistan bureau chief Taha Siddiqui. "FIR has been registered. Islamabad police just confirmed. Thankful for prompt action," Taha tweeted on Thursday. Collegium clears Indu Malhotra, KM Joseph as Supreme Court judges The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the apex court, sources said today. Justice (retd) Dhingra to head new SIT probing 186 anti-Sikh riot cases The Supreme Court today set up a three-member special investigation team (SIT) headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice S N Dhingra to supervise further probe into 186 anti-Sikh riot cases. Lamborghini launches super SUV 'Urus' in India at Rs 3 crore Italian super sports car maker Lamborghini on Wednesday launched its first super sports utility vehicle 'Urus' in India, priced at Rs 3 crore. With the launch of a new model, Lamborghini expects its volumes to surge 2.5-3 times, the company said.

WION Evening News brief, January 11, 2018

The Supreme Court on Wednesday has ordered re-investigation of 186 cases in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. These cases had earlier been closed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case.

The court said it will set up a three-member committee to re-investigate these cases.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the Centre to suggest names today itself for its consideration and appointment in the proposed Special Investigation Team (SIT).&nbsp;

The bench, also comprising justices A M&nbsp;Khanwilkar&nbsp;and D Y&nbsp;Chandrachud, said the proposed committee will be headed by a former high court judge and consist of one retired and one serving police officer.&nbsp;

It also made it clear the retired police officer shall not be below the rank of DIG at the time of superannuation.&nbsp;

Earlier in December 2017, the SC took on record the final report submitted by a supervisory body appointed by it to look into the closure of 241 riot cases from 1984.&nbsp;

Supreme Court said the supervisory body, appointed by it has found that out of 241 cases, 186 cases were closed without investigation

The 1984 riots, which had erupted after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, had claimed the lives of about 3,000 people across India.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The court said it will set up a three-member committee, headed by a retired High Court judge, to re-investigate these cases.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday has ordered re-investigation of 186 cases in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. These cases had earlier been closed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case. The court said it will set up a three-member committee to re-investigate these cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the Centre to suggest names today itself for its consideration and appointment in the proposed Special Investigation Team (SIT). The bench, also comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said the proposed committee will be headed by a former high court judge and consist of one retired and one serving police officer. It also made it clear the retired police officer shall not be below the rank of DIG at the time of superannuation. Earlier in December 2017, the SC took on record the final report submitted by a supervisory body appointed by it to look into the closure of 241 riot cases from 1984. Supreme Court said the supervisory body, appointed by it has found that out of 241 cases, 186 cases were closed without investigation The 1984 riots, which had erupted after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, had claimed the lives of about 3,000 people across India.

1984 anti-Sikh riots: SC orders reinvestigation of 186 cases

A plea claiming that all students of the Kendriya Vidyalayas, irrespective of their faith and belief, have to compulsorily recite a prayer based on the Hindu religion at the morning assembly, on Wednesday led the Supreme Court to seek the government&#39;s response.&nbsp;

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha issued a notice to the government on the plea which said that the morning assembly prayer was being enforced throughout the country in all the Kendriya Vidyalayas, which are also known as Central Schools.&nbsp;

The petition filed by Madhya Pradesh resident Veenayak Shah said the practice of prayer created obstacles in developing scientific temperament among students as the whole idea of God and religious faith is given immense priority and instilled as a thought-process among the students.&nbsp;

&quot;Students, as a result, learn to develop an inclination towards seeking refuge from the Almighty instead of developing a practical outcome towards the obstacles and hurdles faced in everyday life, and the spirit of enquiry and reform seems to be lost somewhere,&quot; the plea said.&nbsp;

The petition also said that since the prayer is being enforced, the parents and children of the minority communities, as well as atheists and others, find the imposition constitutionally impermissible.&nbsp;

Shah also submitted before the court that the common prayer is a &quot;religious instruction&quot; within the meaning of Article 28 of the Constitution and should, therefore, be prohibited.&nbsp;

Article 28(1) of the Constitution says that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds.&nbsp;

&quot;A perusal of the prayer shows that it is based on Hindu religion and it is very different both in substance and form from the prayers of the other religious/non-religious orientations mentioned above.&nbsp;

&quot;The issue that arises, therefore, is whether the state may impose the above mentioned &quot;common prayer&quot; on students and teachers throughout the country,&quot; the plea said.&nbsp;

&quot;Issue direction to respondents (Centre and KV) to forthwith discontinue any form of prayer from the morning assembly or otherwise in Kendriya Vidhalaya Sangathans and to promote scientific learning among the students,&quot; it said.&nbsp;

The Kendriya Vidyalayas are a system of Central Government schools in India which were instituted under the aegis of the Ministry Of Human Resource Development.&nbsp;

The network expands to about 1,125 schools, ensuring a uniform curriculum and syllabus all over India, thus making it one of world&#39;s largest chain of schools. These schools have been operational for over 50 years now.

The petition filed by Madhya Pradesh resident Veenayak Shah said the practice of prayer created obstacles in developing scientific temperament among students

A plea claiming that all students of the Kendriya Vidyalayas, irrespective of their faith and belief, have to compulsorily recite a prayer based on the Hindu religion at the morning assembly, on Wednesday led the Supreme Court to seek the government's response. A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha issued a notice to the government on the plea which said that the morning assembly prayer was being enforced throughout the country in all the Kendriya Vidyalayas, which are also known as Central Schools. The petition filed by Madhya Pradesh resident Veenayak Shah said the practice of prayer created obstacles in developing scientific temperament among students as the whole idea of God and religious faith is given immense priority and instilled as a thought-process among the students. "Students, as a result, learn to develop an inclination towards seeking refuge from the Almighty instead of developing a practical outcome towards the obstacles and hurdles faced in everyday life, and the spirit of enquiry and reform seems to be lost somewhere," the plea said. The petition also said that since the prayer is being enforced, the parents and children of the minority communities, as well as atheists and others, find the imposition constitutionally impermissible. Shah also submitted before the court that the common prayer is a "religious instruction" within the meaning of Article 28 of the Constitution and should, therefore, be prohibited. Article 28(1) of the Constitution says that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds. "A perusal of the prayer shows that it is based on Hindu religion and it is very different both in substance and form from the prayers of the other religious/non-religious orientations mentioned above. "The issue that arises, therefore, is whether the state may impose the above mentioned "common prayer" on students and teachers throughout the country," the plea said. "Issue direction to respondents (Centre and KV) to forthwith discontinue any form of prayer from the morning assembly or otherwise in Kendriya Vidhalaya Sangathans and to promote scientific learning among the students," it said. The Kendriya Vidyalayas are a system of Central Government schools in India which were instituted under the aegis of the Ministry Of Human Resource Development. The network expands to about 1,125 schools, ensuring a uniform curriculum and syllabus all over India, thus making it one of world's largest chain of schools. These schools have been operational for over 50 years now.

Kendriya Vidyalayas promoting Hinduism? SC seeks government's reply

Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reiterated its direction to restrain JAL directors from alienating their personal properties.

The court has also asked Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL) to give details of its ongoing housing projects across the country.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice De, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, noted that it would take a decisive action at a later stage on RBI&#39;s plea.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rbi-moves-supreme-court-to-initiate-insolvency-proceedings-against-jaypee-associates-28987">The RBI moved the Supreme Court on Monday</a> seeking insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Associates Ltd.

The bench has prohibited JAL&#39;s independent directors from leaving the country without prior permission.

The directors are also not allowed to alienate or create third party interests on their personal properties.

Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Advocate Anupam Lal Das, appearing for JAL, have assured that the company would deposit Rs 125 crores by January 25, 2018.

The supreme court had previously asked JAL to deposit Rs 2,000 crores of which company managed to pay around Rs 425 crores.

Jaypee Associates Ltd. reels under debts worth Rs 29,000 crore.

The company was dragged to court by flat buyers overs delays in project delivery. 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Supreme Court reiterated its direction to restrain JAL directors from alienating their personal properties

Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reiterated its direction to restrain JAL directors from alienating their personal properties. The court has also asked Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL) to give details of its ongoing housing projects across the country. A bench, headed by Chief Justice De, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, noted that it would take a decisive action at a later stage on RBI's plea. The RBI moved the Supreme Court on Monday seeking insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Associates Ltd. The bench has prohibited JAL's independent directors from leaving the country without prior permission. The directors are also not allowed to alienate or create third party interests on their personal properties. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Advocate Anupam Lal Das, appearing for JAL, have assured that the company would deposit Rs 125 crores by January 25, 2018. The supreme court had previously asked JAL to deposit Rs 2,000 crores of which company managed to pay around Rs 425 crores. Jaypee Associates Ltd. reels under debts worth Rs 29,000 crore. The company was dragged to court by flat buyers overs delays in project delivery.

Supreme Court orders Jaypee to submit details of ongoing projects

It&#39;s a season of revisions in the Supreme Court. Just on the heels of its revisionist decision on Art 377, the Supreme Court today has reversed its order of November, 2016 where it had made mandatory for all cinema owners to play the national anthem and for all viewers to sing it before commencement of a movie all across the country. The court came out with this modification following the changed stance of the Centre, which suggested the court to make the singing of national anthem optional at the place of mandatory.&nbsp;A detailed guideline may come up on the matter once a 12-member inter-ministerial group constituted by the government formulates its recommendation on the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, which may suggest how better we can respect our national symbols.

However, before you rejoice on the end of the so-called &lsquo;patriotic vigilantism&rsquo;, let me mention that the court made it clear that although playing the national anthem is optional for cinema halls if the same is chosen to be played then standing and singing the same shall remain mandatory.

To begin with, let&rsquo;s be straight. If patriotism brews within your heart, it will gush out. It will show up in your looks, body language, gestures and mannerism; no matter whether it&rsquo;s a school or a cinema, a place doesn&rsquo;t change the equation. However, if you haven&rsquo;t got what it takes, you&rsquo;ll look out for curious excuses. It&rsquo;s oxymoronic to have patriotism in your heart and not to rise for the national anthem.

At present, the intellectual landscape in India is rife with many such excuses over why one shouldn&rsquo;t rise and sing the national anthem.&nbsp;While listening to a petition of Cinema Association against the 2016 order, Justice Chandrachud had wondered in 2017 &ndash; &ldquo;Why do people have to wear their patriotism on their sleeves&hellip;People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment&hellip;Society needs that entertainment?&rdquo; He took the matter a bit farther &ndash; &ldquo;In a movie theatre, people may be in shorts etc. So someone may say people are wearing shorts and showing disrespect to the national anthem. Where do we then draw the line on moral policing?&rdquo;

Of course, India is not a totalitarian state where all the activities of individual&rsquo;s life would be directed towards the glorification of the state, yet one must appreciate that in a land of staggering diversity like India, certain threads are required to keep us bonded. It&rsquo;s important to protect, preserve and promote such threads.

The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of the state. Let me phrase the debate precisely &ndash; can a modern, progressive state intrude upon an individual&rsquo;s right to choice through coercive powers? Or more precisely, can the state force a particular notion of patriotism on its subjects and direct them to respect the national symbols as per its whims?

Actually, too many of them, the argument is existential. It&rsquo;s a part of the larger debate that runs in the society through the broader divide of liberalism versus conservatism. Whether India would promote the progressive values of liberty, freedom and choice or would she eventually drift to totalitarianism? A decisive resolution of this question would settle many subsequent debates.

No nation can survive if it couldn&rsquo;t enforce certain basic minimum obligations on its citizens. We call it &lsquo;Fundamental Duties&rsquo; in our constitution. Respect for one&rsquo;s national symbols and expecting all citizens to commit to it is one such fundamental duty, which no citizen can escape. It&rsquo;s necessary for instilling in the psyche of the society a sense of unity, camaraderie and belongingness.

Now, let&rsquo;s come to those curious excuses. &lsquo;Is standing up and singing the national anthem is the only way to prove one&rsquo;s patriotism?&rsquo; &ndash; many growls on social media.

Well, not the only way, but it&rsquo;s the most emphatic way. To show your patriotism, you need to commit yourself to many other cherished values of the nation such as, cleaning and ensuring cleanliness of the surroundings, integrity and honesty in public life, respecting public properties, following traffic rules, standing for weaker and disadvantaged sections, respecting and protecting the honour of women in society, desisting from sectarian feelings of cast, sect, regions and many more. Now, count within, how many of these do you carry with you to compensate for seeking exemption from singing the national anthem. Hmmm&hellip;maybe, hardly any! You see, singing the national anthem is easiest among the above list to learn patriotism. Proceeding to other values becomes easier.

Being a patriot is not easy. You&rsquo;ve to commit a lot, sacrifice a lot. It&rsquo;s not like being a consumerist-hedonist-metrosexual egoist whom nobody cares. But, the society cares for the patriot in the same way the patriot cares for society. Moreover, respecting the national symbols is a constitutional act. The fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizens of India to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, national flag and the National Anthem.

The next man asks&nbsp; &ndash; &lsquo;WTF this unity? Aren&rsquo;t we already united?&rsquo; No sir. You aren&rsquo;t. Your unity is shaky and hollow and stands tattered over years of cumulative suspicion and distrust fostered by competing ideologies of identities. But, these national symbols cut through the identities and bring us closer.

Some others lament that forcing something down somebody&rsquo;s throat even if he or she didn&rsquo;t like it is unjust. They believe one must act as per one&rsquo;s feelings and if someone doesn&rsquo;t feel to sing the anthem from within, the state shouldn&rsquo;t force.

Why! The state must force it! Patriotism is not born with us. It&rsquo;s learnt. If you failed to cultivate respect for national symbols in your formative days doesn&rsquo;t mean you&rsquo;ll go around disrespecting it. You need to learn it now.

Now, let&#39;s come to the argument - &ldquo;People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment. Society needs that entertainment.&rdquo;

Of course, Society needs it. Go and have your undiluted entertainment. But, before that, spare a fleeting 52 seconds to foster a sense of unity with those who are slogging it out in the glaciers, ravines and deserts away from their homes and families to keep India together and to give you the moments of your &lsquo;undiluted entertainment&rsquo;.&nbsp;Just 52 seconds, even before that entertainment actually begins.&nbsp;After you pass the test of this 52 seconds torture, your entertainment will begin and remain undiluted till the end. Shake your buttocks or roll over the floor laughing without dilution. After all, you&rsquo;re blessed with 2 legs and a shoulder to carry the burden of uniting with the pride of India. What is missing is a little spirit. Kindle it.

As far wearing the patriotism on our sleeves is concerned, I wonder where people take pride in wearing its arrogance, prejudices, bigotry, egoism and hubris on their sleeves, what harm is there in wearing the lesser evil, patriotism?

Moreover, We shouldn&rsquo;t miss the larger symbolism of the act. Standing up and singing the song inspires, motivates and teaches others to respect it. Those who detest the idea of standing up for singing the national anthem must have been in the company of someone doing the same, in their childhood days. Orientations are shaped; negatives orientations are shaped more easily. That&rsquo;s why we must watch our behavior because we&rsquo;re influencing someone watching us, especially those credulous children. Set a positive example for them. Don&rsquo;t play a spoiler in their lives.

Yes, when it comes to playing the anthem in cinema halls, it&rsquo;s prone to misuse. At times, zealots jump to do moral policing by harassing those who carry reservations on it.&nbsp;In a horrible show of &lsquo;patriotism&rsquo; in Goa this year, a couple assaulted a writer and an award-winning disability rights activist, Salil Chaturvedi, from behind who didn&rsquo;t stand up for the national anthem. The couple didn&rsquo;t realize that he was disabled. There have been few other cases of such violence in cinema halls.

Now, it&rsquo;s up to the state how to take proper safeguards against misuse of such provisions. Education and sensitization play the key role in making people behave as citizens. There is no point in respecting the national symbols when you&rsquo;re jumping to take law in your hands. A rowdy can&rsquo;t be a patriot because he&rsquo;s dangerous for the society. Such instances lend credence to the fact that the nation is heading towards fascism. Hence, the government must criminalise any act of intimidation or physical violence or any form of vigilantism to enforce patriotic behaviour or else we&rsquo;ll be losing credibility of being a liberal democracy and society.

In the balance sheet of arguments, it&rsquo;s good that the Supreme Court has made the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls an optional act. However, whosoever chooses to play the same, there&rsquo;s no harm in getting up, tucking away your drink under the seat and holding those half-munched popcorns in your mouth, for 52 seconds and singing aloud &ndash; &ldquo;Jan Gana Mana&hellip;&rdquo;&nbsp;before a ruffling tricolor on the screen. Mind, the child beside you is watching!

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of state.

It's a season of revisions in the Supreme Court. Just on the heels of its revisionist decision on Art 377, the Supreme Court today has reversed its order of November, 2016 where it had made mandatory for all cinema owners to play the national anthem and for all viewers to sing it before commencement of a movie all across the country. The court came out with this modification following the changed stance of the Centre, which suggested the court to make the singing of national anthem optional at the place of mandatory. A detailed guideline may come up on the matter once a 12-member inter-ministerial group constituted by the government formulates its recommendation on the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, which may suggest how better we can respect our national symbols. However, before you rejoice on the end of the so-called ‘patriotic vigilantism’, let me mention that the court made it clear that although playing the national anthem is optional for cinema halls if the same is chosen to be played then standing and singing the same shall remain mandatory. To begin with, let’s be straight. If patriotism brews within your heart, it will gush out. It will show up in your looks, body language, gestures and mannerism; no matter whether it’s a school or a cinema, a place doesn’t change the equation. However, if you haven’t got what it takes, you’ll look out for curious excuses. It’s oxymoronic to have patriotism in your heart and not to rise for the national anthem. At present, the intellectual landscape in India is rife with many such excuses over why one shouldn’t rise and sing the national anthem. While listening to a petition of Cinema Association against the 2016 order, Justice Chandrachud had wondered in 2017 – “Why do people have to wear their patriotism on their sleeves…People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment…Society needs that entertainment?” He took the matter a bit farther – “In a movie theatre, people may be in shorts etc. So someone may say people are wearing shorts and showing disrespect to the national anthem. Where do we then draw the line on moral policing?” Of course, India is not a totalitarian state where all the activities of individual’s life would be directed towards the glorification of the state, yet one must appreciate that in a land of staggering diversity like India, certain threads are required to keep us bonded. It’s important to protect, preserve and promote such threads. The question of singing the national anthem is enveloped in the larger debate of freedom of individual versus the intrusive nature of the state. Let me phrase the debate precisely – can a modern, progressive state intrude upon an individual’s right to choice through coercive powers? Or more precisely, can the state force a particular notion of patriotism on its subjects and direct them to respect the national symbols as per its whims? Actually, too many of them, the argument is existential. It’s a part of the larger debate that runs in the society through the broader divide of liberalism versus conservatism. Whether India would promote the progressive values of liberty, freedom and choice or would she eventually drift to totalitarianism? A decisive resolution of this question would settle many subsequent debates. No nation can survive if it couldn’t enforce certain basic minimum obligations on its citizens. We call it ‘Fundamental Duties’ in our constitution. Respect for one’s national symbols and expecting all citizens to commit to it is one such fundamental duty, which no citizen can escape. It’s necessary for instilling in the psyche of the society a sense of unity, camaraderie and belongingness. Now, let’s come to those curious excuses. ‘Is standing up and singing the national anthem is the only way to prove one’s patriotism?’ – many growls on social media. Well, not the only way, but it’s the most emphatic way. To show your patriotism, you need to commit yourself to many other cherished values of the nation such as, cleaning and ensuring cleanliness of the surroundings, integrity and honesty in public life, respecting public properties, following traffic rules, standing for weaker and disadvantaged sections, respecting and protecting the honour of women in society, desisting from sectarian feelings of cast, sect, regions and many more. Now, count within, how many of these do you carry with you to compensate for seeking exemption from singing the national anthem. Hmmm…maybe, hardly any! You see, singing the national anthem is easiest among the above list to learn patriotism. Proceeding to other values becomes easier. Being a patriot is not easy. You’ve to commit a lot, sacrifice a lot. It’s not like being a consumerist-hedonist-metrosexual egoist whom nobody cares. But, the society cares for the patriot in the same way the patriot cares for society. Moreover, respecting the national symbols is a constitutional act. The fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizens of India to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, national flag and the National Anthem. The next man asks – ‘WTF this unity? Aren’t we already united?’ No sir. You aren’t. Your unity is shaky and hollow and stands tattered over years of cumulative suspicion and distrust fostered by competing ideologies of identities. But, these national symbols cut through the identities and bring us closer. Some others lament that forcing something down somebody’s throat even if he or she didn’t like it is unjust. They believe one must act as per one’s feelings and if someone doesn’t feel to sing the anthem from within, the state shouldn’t force. Why! The state must force it! Patriotism is not born with us. It’s learnt. If you failed to cultivate respect for national symbols in your formative days doesn’t mean you’ll go around disrespecting it. You need to learn it now. Now, let's come to the argument - “People go to a movie theatre for undiluted entertainment. Society needs that entertainment.” Of course, Society needs it. Go and have your undiluted entertainment. But, before that, spare a fleeting 52 seconds to foster a sense of unity with those who are slogging it out in the glaciers, ravines and deserts away from their homes and families to keep India together and to give you the moments of your ‘undiluted entertainment’. Just 52 seconds, even before that entertainment actually begins. After you pass the test of this 52 seconds torture, your entertainment will begin and remain undiluted till the end. Shake your buttocks or roll over the floor laughing without dilution. After all, you’re blessed with 2 legs and a shoulder to carry the burden of uniting with the pride of India. What is missing is a little spirit. Kindle it. As far wearing the patriotism on our sleeves is concerned, I wonder where people take pride in wearing its arrogance, prejudices, bigotry, egoism and hubris on their sleeves, what harm is there in wearing the lesser evil, patriotism? Moreover, We shouldn’t miss the larger symbolism of the act. Standing up and singing the song inspires, motivates and teaches others to respect it. Those who detest the idea of standing up for singing the national anthem must have been in the company of someone doing the same, in their childhood days. Orientations are shaped; negatives orientations are shaped more easily. That’s why we must watch our behavior because we’re influencing someone watching us, especially those credulous children. Set a positive example for them. Don’t play a spoiler in their lives. Yes, when it comes to playing the anthem in cinema halls, it’s prone to misuse. At times, zealots jump to do moral policing by harassing those who carry reservations on it. In a horrible show of ‘patriotism’ in Goa this year, a couple assaulted a writer and an award-winning disability rights activist, Salil Chaturvedi, from behind who didn’t stand up for the national anthem. The couple didn’t realize that he was disabled. There have been few other cases of such violence in cinema halls. Now, it’s up to the state how to take proper safeguards against misuse of such provisions. Education and sensitization play the key role in making people behave as citizens. There is no point in respecting the national symbols when you’re jumping to take law in your hands. A rowdy can’t be a patriot because he’s dangerous for the society. Such instances lend credence to the fact that the nation is heading towards fascism. Hence, the government must criminalise any act of intimidation or physical violence or any form of vigilantism to enforce patriotic behaviour or else we’ll be losing credibility of being a liberal democracy and society. In the balance sheet of arguments, it’s good that the Supreme Court has made the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls an optional act. However, whosoever chooses to play the same, there’s no harm in getting up, tucking away your drink under the seat and holding those half-munched popcorns in your mouth, for 52 seconds and singing aloud – “Jan Gana Mana…” before a ruffling tricolor on the screen. Mind, the child beside you is watching! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Does singing the national anthem mean wearing patriotism on your sleeves?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for moving a petition to make Aadhaar card mandatory for individuals seeking entry at night shelter.

&quot;What happens to people who don&#39;t have Aadhaar? Do they not exist for the government of India?&quot; the court asked Uttar Pradesh government.

The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Uttar Pradesh, that the authorities should keep in mind that this matter related to human beings.

&quot;There are a few things. We are talking about human beings who have no place to stay. Those who have no place to stay have to be given place to live,&quot; the court said.

ASG Mehta said the state was alive to the situation and was doing its best to provide shelter to urban homeless. He clarified that it was not correct to say that those who do not have Aadhaar do not exist, as they have other identification cards like voter IDs which contain their address.

During the hearing, ASG Mehta referred to the vision document prepared by Uttar Pradesh government to deal with the issue of urban homeless and said that as per 2011 census, there were around 1.80 lakh urban homeless in the state.

He said a scientific study was going on to get the latest figure but the vision document has been prepared keeping in mind the data of 1.80 lakh such persons in the state.

The bench also asked the state about the funds given to it by the Centre under the scheme.

Earlier, it was reported that people seeking night shelters in Hyderbad were not allowed to enter unless they presented Aadhaar card as identity proof.

Interestingly, there is no order either by the government or Supreme Court that makes Aadhaar compulsory. In December 2017, the Supreme Court passed an order extending the deadline to link Aadhaar with various schemes and said it will take up the issue of its constitutional validity in January this year.

The bench made the remarks after Uttar Pradesh government moved court to make Aadhaar card mandatory for individuals seeking entry at night shelter.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for moving a petition to make Aadhaar card mandatory for individuals seeking entry at night shelter. "What happens to people who don't have Aadhaar? Do they not exist for the government of India?" the court asked Uttar Pradesh government. The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Uttar Pradesh, that the authorities should keep in mind that this matter related to human beings. "There are a few things. We are talking about human beings who have no place to stay. Those who have no place to stay have to be given place to live," the court said. ASG Mehta said the state was alive to the situation and was doing its best to provide shelter to urban homeless. He clarified that it was not correct to say that those who do not have Aadhaar do not exist, as they have other identification cards like voter IDs which contain their address. During the hearing, ASG Mehta referred to the vision document prepared by Uttar Pradesh government to deal with the issue of urban homeless and said that as per 2011 census, there were around 1.80 lakh urban homeless in the state. He said a scientific study was going on to get the latest figure but the vision document has been prepared keeping in mind the data of 1.80 lakh such persons in the state. The bench also asked the state about the funds given to it by the Centre under the scheme. Earlier, it was reported that people seeking night shelters in Hyderbad were not allowed to enter unless they presented Aadhaar card as identity proof. Interestingly, there is no order either by the government or Supreme Court that makes Aadhaar compulsory. In December 2017, the Supreme Court passed an order extending the deadline to link Aadhaar with various schemes and said it will take up the issue of its constitutional validity in January this year.

Those who don't have Aadhaar, do they not exist? Supreme Court asks UP government

The Supreme Court today expressed anguish over the criticism that it was trying to &quot;run the government&quot;, saying the judiciary is blamed if it points out that the executive is not doing its job.&nbsp;

The stinging remarks by the apex court came when it was hearing a matter relating to providing shelter to the urban homeless in the country, during which it took the Uttar Pradesh government to task, saying &quot;your machinery appears to have failed&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;If you people cannot work, say so, that you are not able to do it,&quot; a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said.&nbsp;

&quot;We are not the executive. You do not do your work and when we say something, we are criticised by everybody in the country that we are trying to run the government, run the country,&quot; the bench said.&nbsp;

The court said the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) scheme has existed since 2014 but the Uttar Pradesh government has virtually done nothing.&nbsp;

The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Uttar Pradesh, that the authorities should keep in mind that this matter related to human beings.&nbsp;

&quot;There are a few things. We are talking about human beings who have no place to stay. Those who have no place to stay have to be given place to live,&quot; the court said.&nbsp;

ASG Mehta said the state was alive to the situation and was doing its best to provide shelter to urban homeless.&nbsp;

The court also mulled over the issue of having state-wise committees to deal with the issue relating to urban homeless and implementation of the NULM as suggested by the Centre.&nbsp; 
The Centre has suggested to the apex court that it could be appropriate if a two-member committee was appointed in each state to deal with these issues.&nbsp;

On hearing the submissions, the bench asked the Centre to coordinate with the state governments to suggest names of officer, who has retired from the level of secretary at the Centre, a senior official of the urban development department and a member from civil society who is sensitive to the issue. It said the petitioner should suggest the name of one person from the civil society.&nbsp; 
The court asked them to do the needful within two weeks and posted the matter for hearing on February 8.&nbsp;

During the hearing, ASG Mehta referred to the vision document prepared by Uttar Pradesh government to deal with the issue of urban homeless and said that as per 2011 census, there were around 1.80 lakh urban homeless in the state.&nbsp;

He said a scientific study was going on to get the latest figure but the vision document has been prepared keeping in mind the data of 1.80 lakh such persons in the state.&nbsp;

The bench also asked the state about the funds given to it by the Centre under the scheme.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that the &quot;task was huge&quot; in Uttar Pradesh as till date, the capacity of such shelter homes was only around 7,000 while the requirement was for 1.80 lakh.&nbsp;

Bhushan said the court could appoint a national level committee to look into these issues state-wise and then appraise the top court about it.&nbsp;

However, ASG A N S Nadkarni, representing the Centre, told the bench that they have suggested having state-wise committees.&nbsp;

The apex court had earlier expressed shock that welfare schemes were not being effectively implemented even after spending thousands of crore on them.&nbsp;

The court is first dealing with the status of three states -- Haryana, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh -- among 11 and two Union Territories which have been highlighted by the apex court-appointed committee to oversee implementation of NULM across the country.&nbsp;

The petitioners had earlier referred to the report of the apex court-appointed committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Kailash Gambhir and said the number of shelter homes in these states were much less than what was required.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

'We are not the executive. You do not do your work and when we say something, we are criticised by everybody in the country that we are trying to run the government, run the country,' the court said

The Supreme Court today expressed anguish over the criticism that it was trying to "run the government", saying the judiciary is blamed if it points out that the executive is not doing its job. The stinging remarks by the apex court came when it was hearing a matter relating to providing shelter to the urban homeless in the country, during which it took the Uttar Pradesh government to task, saying "your machinery appears to have failed". "If you people cannot work, say so, that you are not able to do it," a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said. "We are not the executive. You do not do your work and when we say something, we are criticised by everybody in the country that we are trying to run the government, run the country," the bench said. The court said the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) scheme has existed since 2014 but the Uttar Pradesh government has virtually done nothing. The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Uttar Pradesh, that the authorities should keep in mind that this matter related to human beings. "There are a few things. We are talking about human beings who have no place to stay. Those who have no place to stay have to be given place to live," the court said. ASG Mehta said the state was alive to the situation and was doing its best to provide shelter to urban homeless. The court also mulled over the issue of having state-wise committees to deal with the issue relating to urban homeless and implementation of the NULM as suggested by the Centre. The Centre has suggested to the apex court that it could be appropriate if a two-member committee was appointed in each state to deal with these issues. On hearing the submissions, the bench asked the Centre to coordinate with the state governments to suggest names of officer, who has retired from the level of secretary at the Centre, a senior official of the urban development department and a member from civil society who is sensitive to the issue. It said the petitioner should suggest the name of one person from the civil society. The court asked them to do the needful within two weeks and posted the matter for hearing on February 8. During the hearing, ASG Mehta referred to the vision document prepared by Uttar Pradesh government to deal with the issue of urban homeless and said that as per 2011 census, there were around 1.80 lakh urban homeless in the state. He said a scientific study was going on to get the latest figure but the vision document has been prepared keeping in mind the data of 1.80 lakh such persons in the state. The bench also asked the state about the funds given to it by the Centre under the scheme. Meanwhile, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that the "task was huge" in Uttar Pradesh as till date, the capacity of such shelter homes was only around 7,000 while the requirement was for 1.80 lakh. Bhushan said the court could appoint a national level committee to look into these issues state-wise and then appraise the top court about it. However, ASG A N S Nadkarni, representing the Centre, told the bench that they have suggested having state-wise committees. The apex court had earlier expressed shock that welfare schemes were not being effectively implemented even after spending thousands of crore on them. The court is first dealing with the status of three states -- Haryana, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh -- among 11 and two Union Territories which have been highlighted by the apex court-appointed committee to oversee implementation of NULM across the country. The petitioners had earlier referred to the report of the apex court-appointed committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Kailash Gambhir and said the number of shelter homes in these states were much less than what was required.

Supreme Court angry over criticism it is trying to run government

If anything can be concluded from the verdict today on the subject of the national anthem, it is that the debate around the duty to stand up for the national anthem versus the right to freedom of speech and expression, particularly the right to dissent, must be answered effectively by the executive by introducing clarity in the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 as well as the Flag Code.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The debate has now moved away from the judicial platform to that of an executive or legislative platform and one hopes that the culture of freedom of speech and expression, that makes this debate possible will make room for a respectful right to dissent while deciding on the national anthem and its significance.

&nbsp;

In what is an enlightened move, the Union Government appears to have walked the path of reason and understood the challenges to the compulsory playing of national anthems before cinema is played. Every time the anthem is played, my instinct causes me to stand up in the &ldquo;attention&rdquo; position and mouth its lyrics. It is precisely because I respect the anthem so much that I question the utility of playing something as venerable just before the start of a film that often comes with questionable scripts and even more questionable music, dialogues and lyrics.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The greater threat of dilution of the importance of the national anthem is that of its usage in vain and for trivial contexts. Nationalist sentiment carries the same risk that any other sentiment carries, which is that with widespread usage especially in more trivial settings, any sentiment no matter how serious will find its significance diluted. As much of an atheist I am, I recognise the utility of the Christian caution against taking the Lord&#39;s name in vain and that logic, applies equally to the national anthem.

&nbsp;

The Inter-Ministerial Committee is expected to comprehensively review the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 and the Flag Code to lay down specific guidelines for preserving and enhancing respect for the national anthem. This in effect, relegates the law to the position it was in before the 2016 verdict made it compulsory.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Prior to 2016, particularly in view of the judgement of Bijoe Emannuel v. State of Kerala, the law of the land made room for not standing up for the national anthem if such an act of dissent was an exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to freedom of religion.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Court further held that regardless of its personal views, a conscientious and genuine belief justifying the act of not standing up for the national anthem is not only permitted but protected within our constitutional culture. The emphasis remained on asserting the minority&rsquo;s right to find an identity within India&rsquo;s pluralistic polity.&nbsp; The question of minority belief then was premised on the debate around minority religious rights.

&nbsp;

Today, however, the debate is on the ideological minority, the dissenters. Clarence Darrow, arguably one of the greatest trial lawyers in American jurisprudence, said that when a new truth comes upon the earth, or a great idea necessary for mankind is born, it does not come from attorneys, judges, lawyers or doctors, but it comes from the despised, the outcasts and from men who have dared to be rebels and who believe that their faith is the faith of rebels. The Inter-Ministerial Committee which now takes over where the Supreme Court left off, have now to ask themselves whether they want to make room for such rebels, for newer truths to emerge, which though offensive now may prove to shape and define the culture of Indian democracy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

One could fairly ask what good it is to listen to the dissenters?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

To that, I refer to the verdict on the right to privacy. A good part of that wonderful verdict was born out of the principles enunciated by Justice H.R. Khanna in his minority dissenting note in ADM Jabalpur v. Shukla. Not standing up for the national anthem may be just that, i.e., not standing up for the national anthem.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The limits on our imagination, cast by the conditioning we have been subjected to, may prohibit us from seeing the larger message in that act of not standing up. For my part, I don&rsquo;t agree with the rebels not standing up, but I also remain humble enough to admit that I may not know or understand what they stand for.&nbsp; The Committee too must acknowledge this limitation and make room for its correction tomorrow.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Instead of formulating regulations, maybe, the answer to one person not standing up for the national anthem is simply another person standing up. I promise myself that every time the anthem plays, even if I am the only soul standing up in the hall, I will do just that: stand up with respect and pride.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

I won&rsquo;t judge the ones not standing up nor will I fight them, but I will stand up and demonstrate my idea with pride. To my mind enhancing the respect for the national anthem is about fostering healthy debate and making the anthem synonymous with that culture of debate. I don&rsquo;t find the solution to rest in regulation or, worse, an imposition by the mob. The national anthem celebrates the idea of India itself and I hope we respect that in the days ahead.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

For my part, I don’t agree with the rebels not standing up, but I also remain humble enough to admit that I may not know or understand what they stand for.

If anything can be concluded from the verdict today on the subject of the national anthem, it is that the debate around the duty to stand up for the national anthem versus the right to freedom of speech and expression, particularly the right to dissent, must be answered effectively by the executive by introducing clarity in the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 as well as the Flag Code. The debate has now moved away from the judicial platform to that of an executive or legislative platform and one hopes that the culture of freedom of speech and expression, that makes this debate possible will make room for a respectful right to dissent while deciding on the national anthem and its significance. In what is an enlightened move, the Union Government appears to have walked the path of reason and understood the challenges to the compulsory playing of national anthems before cinema is played. Every time the anthem is played, my instinct causes me to stand up in the “attention” position and mouth its lyrics. It is precisely because I respect the anthem so much that I question the utility of playing something as venerable just before the start of a film that often comes with questionable scripts and even more questionable music, dialogues and lyrics. The greater threat of dilution of the importance of the national anthem is that of its usage in vain and for trivial contexts. Nationalist sentiment carries the same risk that any other sentiment carries, which is that with widespread usage especially in more trivial settings, any sentiment no matter how serious will find its significance diluted. As much of an atheist I am, I recognise the utility of the Christian caution against taking the Lord's name in vain and that logic, applies equally to the national anthem. The Inter-Ministerial Committee is expected to comprehensively review the Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 and the Flag Code to lay down specific guidelines for preserving and enhancing respect for the national anthem. This in effect, relegates the law to the position it was in before the 2016 verdict made it compulsory. Prior to 2016, particularly in view of the judgement of Bijoe Emannuel v. State of Kerala, the law of the land made room for not standing up for the national anthem if such an act of dissent was an exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to freedom of religion. The Court further held that regardless of its personal views, a conscientious and genuine belief justifying the act of not standing up for the national anthem is not only permitted but protected within our constitutional culture. The emphasis remained on asserting the minority’s right to find an identity within India’s pluralistic polity. The question of minority belief then was premised on the debate around minority religious rights. Today, however, the debate is on the ideological minority, the dissenters. Clarence Darrow, arguably one of the greatest trial lawyers in American jurisprudence, said that when a new truth comes upon the earth, or a great idea necessary for mankind is born, it does not come from attorneys, judges, lawyers or doctors, but it comes from the despised, the outcasts and from men who have dared to be rebels and who believe that their faith is the faith of rebels. The Inter-Ministerial Committee which now takes over where the Supreme Court left off, have now to ask themselves whether they want to make room for such rebels, for newer truths to emerge, which though offensive now may prove to shape and define the culture of Indian democracy. One could fairly ask what good it is to listen to the dissenters? To that, I refer to the verdict on the right to privacy. A good part of that wonderful verdict was born out of the principles enunciated by Justice H.R. Khanna in his minority dissenting note in ADM Jabalpur v. Shukla. Not standing up for the national anthem may be just that, i.e., not standing up for the national anthem. The limits on our imagination, cast by the conditioning we have been subjected to, may prohibit us from seeing the larger message in that act of not standing up. For my part, I don’t agree with the rebels not standing up, but I also remain humble enough to admit that I may not know or understand what they stand for. The Committee too must acknowledge this limitation and make room for its correction tomorrow. Instead of formulating regulations, maybe, the answer to one person not standing up for the national anthem is simply another person standing up. I promise myself that every time the anthem plays, even if I am the only soul standing up in the hall, I will do just that: stand up with respect and pride. I won’t judge the ones not standing up nor will I fight them, but I will stand up and demonstrate my idea with pride. To my mind enhancing the respect for the national anthem is about fostering healthy debate and making the anthem synonymous with that culture of debate. I don’t find the solution to rest in regulation or, worse, an imposition by the mob. The national anthem celebrates the idea of India itself and I hope we respect that in the days ahead. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: To stand or not to stand during the national anthem

The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) on Tuesday continued its sealing drive in Delhi&#39;s premium Khan Market.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Many other shops in the area remain closed due to the fear of action.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
NDMC continues sealing drive in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a>&#39;s Khan Market. Many other shops closed due to fear of action. <a href="https://t.co/0EX2bAEDwm">pic.twitter.com/0EX2bAEDwm</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950615224867893249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 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>

According to media reports, about eight establishments that had expanded to rooftops and balconies were sealed partially.

The drive to seal commercial establishment in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-sealing-drive-begins-in-khan-market-28897">Khan Market </a>began on Monday after an order by Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee for allegedly violating the provisions of the 2021 master plan.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Master Plan for Delhi 2021 states that any property used for mixed purposes must pay a one-time conversion charge at the rate notified by the government, for the same use.

After the violations were found, the monitoring committee ordered to seal the first and above floors of Khan Market for misuse of land.&nbsp;

The team has no list of particular offenders and they are visiting each shop particularly to check the documents of the shops.

There have been media reports saying that about <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ndmc-may-seal-30-restaurants-in-khan-market-today-28843">30 restaurants</a> and seven other commercial establishments in the market will be sealed.

Many other shops in the area remain closed due to the fear of action

The New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) on Tuesday continued its sealing drive in Delhi's premium Khan Market. Many other shops in the area remain closed due to the fear of action. NDMC continues sealing drive in #Delhi's Khan Market. Many other shops closed due to fear of action. pic.twitter.com/0EX2bAEDwm — ANI (@ANI) January 9, 2018 × According to media reports, about eight establishments that had expanded to rooftops and balconies were sealed partially. The drive to seal commercial establishment in Khan Market began on Monday after an order by Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee for allegedly violating the provisions of the 2021 master plan. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Master Plan for Delhi 2021 states that any property used for mixed purposes must pay a one-time conversion charge at the rate notified by the government, for the same use. After the violations were found, the monitoring committee ordered to seal the first and above floors of Khan Market for misuse of land. The team has no list of particular offenders and they are visiting each shop particularly to check the documents of the shops. There have been media reports saying that about 30 restaurants and seven other commercial establishments in the market will be sealed.

NDMC continues sealing drive in Khan Market

In a bid to initiate insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL), the Reserve Bank of India has moved the Supreme Court today.&nbsp;

Jaypee Associates, also known as Jaiprakash Associates, is the parent company of Jaypee Infratech.

The company has been reeling under debts worth Rs 29,000 crore and is now reported to sell its assets to repay the same.

The infrastructure major was dragged to court by buyers disgruntled over delays in project delivery.

The Supreme Court has asked the company to deposit Rs 2,000 crore.

The construction giant was previously asked to pay Rs 275 crore by December 31, 2017.

So far, the company has managed to deposit around Rs 425 crore; the balance amount (Rs 2,000) is yet to be deposited.

The initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) would discontinue all legal proceedings against JAL.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The apex court will hear the case on January 10.&nbsp;

The construction giant was previously asked to pay Rs 275 crore by December 31, 2017

In a bid to initiate insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL), the Reserve Bank of India has moved the Supreme Court today. Jaypee Associates, also known as Jaiprakash Associates, is the parent company of Jaypee Infratech. The company has been reeling under debts worth Rs 29,000 crore and is now reported to sell its assets to repay the same. The infrastructure major was dragged to court by buyers disgruntled over delays in project delivery. The Supreme Court has asked the company to deposit Rs 2,000 crore. The construction giant was previously asked to pay Rs 275 crore by December 31, 2017. So far, the company has managed to deposit around Rs 425 crore; the balance amount (Rs 2,000) is yet to be deposited. The initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) would discontinue all legal proceedings against JAL. The apex court will hear the case on January 10.

RBI moves Supreme Court to initiate insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Associates

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a lower court&#39;s order that quashed central government rules mandating larger health warnings on tobacco packages, in a setback for the country&#39;s $11 billion tobacco industry.&nbsp;

The High Court of Karnataka state last month struck down central government rules requiring 85 percent of a tobacco pack&#39;s surface to be covered in health warnings, up from 20 percent earlier. The rules had been in force since 2016.

The Supreme Court, which heard petitions brought forward by tobacco-control activists, stayed the Karnataka court&#39;s order on Monday, citing the need to protect the health of citizens.

&quot;Health of a citizen has primacy and he or she should be aware of that which can affect or deteriorate the condition of health,&quot; the Supreme Court said in its 13-page order.&nbsp;

&quot;Deterioration may be a milder word and, therefore, in all possibility the expression &#39;destruction of health&#39;&nbsp;is opposite.&quot;

The court&#39;s decision comes as a relief for health advocates and central health ministry who say bigger health warnings deter tobacco consumption. More than 900,000 people die each year in India due to tobacco-related illnesses, the government estimates.

India&#39;s tobacco packaging rules are among the world&#39;s most stringent. A government survey last year found that 62 percent of cigarette smokers thought of quitting because of such warning labels on the packets.

The court&#39;s decision is a blow to cigarette makers such as India&#39;s ITC Ltd and Philip Morris International Inc&#39;s Indian partner, Godfrey Phillips India Ltd, whose representatives call the rules extreme. In protest at the health warning measures, the industry briefly shut its factories across the country in 2016 and filed dozens of legal cases.

On Monday, both central health ministry officials and tobacco industry executives were in attendance inside a packed courtroom to hear the proceedings which lasted for about 40 minutes. The three judges took time to look over examples of health warning pictures used on cigarette packs.

Kapil Sibal, a lawyer who argued for the industry, urged the court to reduce the size of tobacco pack warnings. At one point, he cited the absence of health warnings on a glass of whisky to argue against such displays on tobacco products.

The attorney general of India, K. K. Venugopal, defended the government&#39;s stringent rules, saying they were &quot;one of the most progressive&quot; steps to protect the health of people.

The case will next be heard on March 12. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court stayed the Karnataka court`s order on Monday

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a lower court's order that quashed central government rules mandating larger health warnings on tobacco packages, in a setback for the country's $11 billion tobacco industry. The High Court of Karnataka state last month struck down central government rules requiring 85 percent of a tobacco pack's surface to be covered in health warnings, up from 20 percent earlier. The rules had been in force since 2016. The Supreme Court, which heard petitions brought forward by tobacco-control activists, stayed the Karnataka court's order on Monday, citing the need to protect the health of citizens. "Health of a citizen has primacy and he or she should be aware of that which can affect or deteriorate the condition of health," the Supreme Court said in its 13-page order. "Deterioration may be a milder word and, therefore, in all possibility the expression 'destruction of health' is opposite." The court's decision comes as a relief for health advocates and central health ministry who say bigger health warnings deter tobacco consumption. More than 900,000 people die each year in India due to tobacco-related illnesses, the government estimates. India's tobacco packaging rules are among the world's most stringent. A government survey last year found that 62 percent of cigarette smokers thought of quitting because of such warning labels on the packets. The court's decision is a blow to cigarette makers such as India's ITC Ltd and Philip Morris International Inc's Indian partner, Godfrey Phillips India Ltd, whose representatives call the rules extreme. In protest at the health warning measures, the industry briefly shut its factories across the country in 2016 and filed dozens of legal cases. On Monday, both central health ministry officials and tobacco industry executives were in attendance inside a packed courtroom to hear the proceedings which lasted for about 40 minutes. The three judges took time to look over examples of health warning pictures used on cigarette packs. Kapil Sibal, a lawyer who argued for the industry, urged the court to reduce the size of tobacco pack warnings. At one point, he cited the absence of health warnings on a glass of whisky to argue against such displays on tobacco products. The attorney general of India, K. K. Venugopal, defended the government's stringent rules, saying they were "one of the most progressive" steps to protect the health of people. The case will next be heard on March 12.

'Health of a citizen has primacy': Supreme Court for larger tobacco health warnings in India

The New Delhi Municipal corporation (NDMC) on Monday began the drive to seal nearly 30 restaurants and commercial establishments in Delhi&rsquo;s upscale Khan Market

The drive was initiated after a Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee ordered to seal the shops for allegedly violating the provisions of the 2021 master plan.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sealing of shops and restaurants being done in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a>&#39;s Khan Market. About 30 restaurants &amp; several other shops in the area could be sealed today following alleged violations of provisions of the 2021 Master Plan. <a href="https://t.co/4JGGR5TfLG">pic.twitter.com/4JGGR5TfLG</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950313773566341121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Master Plan for Delhi 2021 states that any property used for mixed purposes must pay a one-time conversion charge at the rate notified by the government, for the same use.

After the violations were found, the monitoring committee ordered to seal the first and above floors of Khan Market for misuse of land.&nbsp;

President of Khan market association, Sanjeev Mehra, had objected to the order claiming there were no violations of laws.

&quot;The Khan Market owners have paid the conversion charges at the rate of Rs 86-89,000 per square metre while the current rates stand at Rs 22,600 per square metre,&quot; Mehra said.

A number of establishments in this area operate on the floors above the ground floor, often with a shopping establishment on one floor, and an eatery or other restaurants on the first and second floors.

The monitoring committee ordered to seal the first and above floors of Khan Market for misuse of land

The New Delhi Municipal corporation (NDMC) on Monday began the drive to seal nearly 30 restaurants and commercial establishments in Delhi’s upscale Khan Market The drive was initiated after a Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee ordered to seal the shops for allegedly violating the provisions of the 2021 master plan. Sealing of shops and restaurants being done in #Delhi's Khan Market. About 30 restaurants & several other shops in the area could be sealed today following alleged violations of provisions of the 2021 Master Plan. pic.twitter.com/4JGGR5TfLG — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018 × The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Master Plan for Delhi 2021 states that any property used for mixed purposes must pay a one-time conversion charge at the rate notified by the government, for the same use. After the violations were found, the monitoring committee ordered to seal the first and above floors of Khan Market for misuse of land. President of Khan market association, Sanjeev Mehra, had objected to the order claiming there were no violations of laws. "The Khan Market owners have paid the conversion charges at the rate of Rs 86-89,000 per square metre while the current rates stand at Rs 22,600 per square metre," Mehra said. A number of establishments in this area operate on the floors above the ground floor, often with a shopping establishment on one floor, and an eatery or other restaurants on the first and second floors.

Delhi: Sealing drive begins in Khan Market

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday likely review its order making the national anthem compulsory in cinema halls before the screening of a film.&nbsp;

Contrary to its earlier stand, the&nbsp;centre is also in favour of the top court withdrawing its earlier order, news reports said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/singing-national-anthem-in-theatres-not-a-measure-of-patriotism-supreme-court-22766">In October last year</a>, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to consider amending the national flag code for regulating the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls across the country.

A bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said the Centre has to take a call uninfluenced by its earlier order on the playing of national anthem in the theatres.

&quot;Just because someone doesn&#39;t sing the national anthem in cinema halls, they do not become less patriotic,&quot; Justice Chandrachud had said.

In November 2016, the Supreme Court had ordered that the national anthem be played in cinema halls across the country for instilling a sense of patriotism and nationalism. 
&nbsp;

Contrary to its earlier stand, the centre is also in favour of the top court withdrawing its earlier order, news reports said

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday likely review its order making the national anthem compulsory in cinema halls before the screening of a film. Contrary to its earlier stand, the centre is also in favour of the top court withdrawing its earlier order, news reports said. In October last year, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to consider amending the national flag code for regulating the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls across the country. A bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said the Centre has to take a call uninfluenced by its earlier order on the playing of national anthem in the theatres. "Just because someone doesn't sing the national anthem in cinema halls, they do not become less patriotic," Justice Chandrachud had said. In November 2016, the Supreme Court had ordered that the national anthem be played in cinema halls across the country for instilling a sense of patriotism and nationalism.

Supreme Court to review order on playing of national anthem in movie theatres on Tuesday

The Supreme Court has put a stay on Karnataka High Court&#39;s order of putting down 85 per cent pictorial warning on tobacco packs.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court stayed Karnataka High Court&#39;s order of quashing 85% pictorial warning on tobacco packs.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950386757324845056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The tobacco companies will now have to switch back to carrying a pictorial warning covering 85 per cent of cigarette and tobacco packing.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6gh_GCxMEHA" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

The court&#39;s decision came citing the importance of public health and the harmful effects of tobacco products.

The decision came in response to a plea filed by a non-government&nbsp;organisation, Health for Millions Trust. The petition sought an interim stay on the High Court ruling.&nbsp;

The Karnataka High Court had struck down the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014&nbsp;for being unconstitutional on December 15.&nbsp;

The Apex Court&#39;s decision has come as a relief for the Government but a setback for the tobacco industry.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The court's decision came citing the importance of public health and the harmful effects of tobacco products

The Supreme Court has put a stay on Karnataka High Court's order of putting down 85 per cent pictorial warning on tobacco packs. Supreme Court stayed Karnataka High Court's order of quashing 85% pictorial warning on tobacco packs. — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018 × The tobacco companies will now have to switch back to carrying a pictorial warning covering 85 per cent of cigarette and tobacco packing. × The court's decision came citing the importance of public health and the harmful effects of tobacco products. The decision came in response to a plea filed by a non-government organisation, Health for Millions Trust. The petition sought an interim stay on the High Court ruling. The Karnataka High Court had struck down the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014 for being unconstitutional on December 15. The Apex Court's decision has come as a relief for the Government but a setback for the tobacco industry.

85% pictorial warning to continue on tobacco products as Supreme Court quashes Karnataka High Court stay

An amicus curiae who was asked by the Supreme Court to determine whether there was any &quot;mysterious&quot; person who fired the fourth bullet which killed Mahatma Gandhi, told the top court on Monday that there was no evidence which pointed to this and that the father of the nation was killed by no one but Nathuram Godse, media reports said.

The top court had asked senior advocate Amrendra Sharan to examine all documents pertaining to Mahatma Gandhi assassination case and determine whether there was any evidence to prove the four bullet theory raised by Pankaj Phadnis, a trustee of Abhinav Bharat, who insisted that four shots were fired at Mahatma Gandhi and the fourth bullet fired by a mysterious person took the life of the father of the nation.

Mr Sharan, who was assisted by two more advocates, filed the report after examining nearly 4,000 pages of trial court records and the Jeevan Lal Kapur Inquiry Commission report of 1969 in the assassination case, media reports said.

The court had passed the order on a petition filed by Pankaj Phadnis seeking re-investigation of the case.

In his petition, Phadnis had said that Veer Savarkar, the founder of Abhinav Bharat, was not behind the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and had asked for the constitution of a new Commission of Inquiry to look into the issue.

An amicus curiae who was asked by the Supreme Court to determine whether there was any 'mysterious' person who fired the fourth bullet which killed Mahatma Gandhi, told the top court on Monday that there was no evidence which pointed to this

An amicus curiae who was asked by the Supreme Court to determine whether there was any "mysterious" person who fired the fourth bullet which killed Mahatma Gandhi, told the top court on Monday that there was no evidence which pointed to this and that the father of the nation was killed by no one but Nathuram Godse, media reports said. The top court had asked senior advocate Amrendra Sharan to examine all documents pertaining to Mahatma Gandhi assassination case and determine whether there was any evidence to prove the four bullet theory raised by Pankaj Phadnis, a trustee of Abhinav Bharat, who insisted that four shots were fired at Mahatma Gandhi and the fourth bullet fired by a mysterious person took the life of the father of the nation. Mr Sharan, who was assisted by two more advocates, filed the report after examining nearly 4,000 pages of trial court records and the Jeevan Lal Kapur Inquiry Commission report of 1969 in the assassination case, media reports said. The court had passed the order on a petition filed by Pankaj Phadnis seeking re-investigation of the case. In his petition, Phadnis had said that Veer Savarkar, the founder of Abhinav Bharat, was not behind the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and had asked for the constitution of a new Commission of Inquiry to look into the issue.

Mahatma Gandhi killed only by Nathuram Godse: Amicus Curiae to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has decided to &quot;refer&nbsp;to a larger bench&quot; a plea that seeks to decriminalise gay sex.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rJoDCS3oFuA" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The SC bench will be headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra to reconsider and examine the constitutional validity of Section 377.

Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud will also constitute the bench.&nbsp;

The Central government has been nudged by the Supreme Court for a response to a writ petition filed by a group of the LGBT community led by Navtej Singh Johar.&nbsp;

&quot;You can&#39;t put in jail two adults who are involved in consenting unnatural sex,&quot; Johar&#39;s advocate, Arvind Datar noted.&nbsp;

Datar also referred to the 2009 Delhi High Court judgement delivered on a plea of NGO &#39;Naz Foundation&#39; in which the provision was held unconstitutional.

The Delhi High Court had in July 2009 de-criminalised consensual homosexual acts in private saying &ldquo;the section (377) denies a gay person a right to full personhood&hellip;&rdquo;

A two-judge bench of the apex court criminalised gay sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013.

Section 377 of the IPC describes homosexuality as an &#39;unnatural offence&#39; and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court&#39;s move is being lauded and welcomed by people from all across the country.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We need to welcome it. We still have hope from Indian judiciary. We are living in 21st century. All politicians &amp; political parties must break their silence &amp; support individual&#39;s sexuality: Akkai, LGBT Activist on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 <a href="https://t.co/pXWSL7TMTW">pic.twitter.com/pXWSL7TMTW</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950279074345177088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress welcomes Supreme Court&#39;s decision. Everybody has equal right to live life the way they want: All India Mahila Congress President Sushmita Dev on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 
(file pic) <a href="https://t.co/wb91vPH9uQ">pic.twitter.com/wb91vPH9uQ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/950280824653414400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A two-judge bench of the apex court criminalised gay sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013

The Supreme Court has decided to "refer to a larger bench" a plea that seeks to decriminalise gay sex. × The SC bench will be headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra to reconsider and examine the constitutional validity of Section 377. Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud will also constitute the bench. The Central government has been nudged by the Supreme Court for a response to a writ petition filed by a group of the LGBT community led by Navtej Singh Johar. "You can't put in jail two adults who are involved in consenting unnatural sex," Johar's advocate, Arvind Datar noted. Datar also referred to the 2009 Delhi High Court judgement delivered on a plea of NGO 'Naz Foundation' in which the provision was held unconstitutional. The Delhi High Court had in July 2009 de-criminalised consensual homosexual acts in private saying “the section (377) denies a gay person a right to full personhood…” A two-judge bench of the apex court criminalised gay sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013. Section 377 of the IPC describes homosexuality as an 'unnatural offence' and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine. Meanwhile, Supreme Court's move is being lauded and welcomed by people from all across the country. We need to welcome it. We still have hope from Indian judiciary. We are living in 21st century. All politicians & political parties must break their silence & support individual's sexuality: Akkai, LGBT Activist on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 pic.twitter.com/pXWSL7TMTW — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018 × Congress welcomes Supreme Court's decision. Everybody has equal right to live life the way they want: All India Mahila Congress President Sushmita Dev on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377 (file pic) pic.twitter.com/wb91vPH9uQ — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2018 ×

Supreme Court to review 2013 verdict on criminalising gay sex

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aadhaar-data-breach-after-police-complaint-against-journalist-government-says-committed-to-freedom-of-the-press-28889" target="_blank">After FIR against journalist, government says committed to freedom of press</a>

After a police complaint against a journalist of the Tribune for an expose on the breach of privacy of Aadhaar details, the government today clarified that it is committed to the freedom of the press.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/confirmed-padmavat-to-release-on-january-25th-28879" target="_blank">Confirmed: Padmavat to release on January 25</a>

The date is finally confirmed. Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s film&nbsp;Padmavat&nbsp;is all set to release in the theatre on January 25th, 2018. The controversial film got its censor certificate earlier last week and now the makers have planned to release the film in January and cash in on the extended weekend.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-government-says-padmavat-will-not-be-released-in-state-28900" target="_blank">Rajasthan government says &#39;Padmavat&#39; will not be released in state</a>

Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s much-awaited epic period drama Padmavat has been banned from release in Rajasthan. The state Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria confirmed the news.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-review-its-2013-verdict-on-criminalising-gay-sex-28864" target="_blank">Supreme Court to review 2013 verdict on </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-review-its-2013-verdict-on-criminalising-gay-sex-28864" target="_blank">criminalising</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-review-its-2013-verdict-on-criminalising-gay-sex-28864" target="_blank"> gay sex</a>

The Supreme Court has decided to &quot;refer&nbsp;to a larger bench&quot; a plea that seeks to decriminalise gay sex.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/opposed-to-us-finger-pointing-at-pak-on-terror-related-issues-china-28887" target="_blank">Opposed to US &#39;finger pointing&#39; at Pakistan on terror-related issues: China</a>

China today said it is opposed to the US &quot;finger pointing&quot; at Pakistan and linking it with terrorism, insisting that the responsibility of cracking down on terror outfits cannot be placed on a particular country.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

After FIR against journalist, government says committed to freedom of press After a police complaint against a journalist of the Tribune for an expose on the breach of privacy of Aadhaar details, the government today clarified that it is committed to the freedom of the press. Confirmed: Padmavat to release on January 25 The date is finally confirmed. Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film Padmavat is all set to release in the theatre on January 25th, 2018. The controversial film got its censor certificate earlier last week and now the makers have planned to release the film in January and cash in on the extended weekend. Rajasthan government says 'Padmavat' will not be released in state Sanjay Leela Bhansali's much-awaited epic period drama Padmavat has been banned from release in Rajasthan. The state Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria confirmed the news. Supreme Court to review 2013 verdict on criminalising gay sex The Supreme Court has decided to "refer to a larger bench" a plea that seeks to decriminalise gay sex. Opposed to US 'finger pointing' at Pakistan on terror-related issues: China China today said it is opposed to the US "finger pointing" at Pakistan and linking it with terrorism, insisting that the responsibility of cracking down on terror outfits cannot be placed on a particular country.

WION evening news brief, January 8, 2018

The Supreme Court pulled up the central and state governments Thursday for delaying implementation of the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.&nbsp;

Notices were issued to both the states and the Centre on a plea that the act was not being implemented in its true spirit.

The petitioners argued that state governments were not giving their full support to district officers and that victims of workplace harassment could not file complaints since the state governments had failed to appoint complaints committees.

Chief Justice Deepak Misra not only sought responses from all the states but also asked how a mechanism can be developed to monitor the implementation of the law in its entirety.

The Supreme Court issued notices to both the Centre and states

The Supreme Court pulled up the central and state governments Thursday for delaying implementation of the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. Notices were issued to both the states and the Centre on a plea that the act was not being implemented in its true spirit. The petitioners argued that state governments were not giving their full support to district officers and that victims of workplace harassment could not file complaints since the state governments had failed to appoint complaints committees. Chief Justice Deepak Misra not only sought responses from all the states but also asked how a mechanism can be developed to monitor the implementation of the law in its entirety.

Implementation of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act: SC pulls up Centre, states

Russia&#39;s Supreme Court on Saturday dismissed an appeal by Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny against a decision by the country&#39;s central election commission to bar him from taking part in next year&#39;s presidential election.&nbsp;

The commission this week barred Navalny from taking part in the March 18 vote because of a suspended prison sentence he says was trumped up. 
&nbsp;

The commission, this week, barred Navalny from taking part in the March 18 vote

Russia's Supreme Court on Saturday dismissed an appeal by Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny against a decision by the country's central election commission to bar him from taking part in next year's presidential election. The commission this week barred Navalny from taking part in the March 18 vote because of a suspended prison sentence he says was trumped up.

Russian supreme court approves ban against opposition leader Navalny

Introducing Triple Talaq Bill in Lok Sabha, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Thursday that about 100 cases of Triple Talaq have come to light after Supreme Court&#39;s verdict.&nbsp;

Refuting the allegations that they were interfering in Shariat, he said that even the Islamic countries have regulated provisions of Triple Talaq.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This is a historic day, victims have suffered for years and they have been rewarded for their patience. Request all MPs to help pass <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaqBill?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TripleTalaqBill</a> : Shaista Ambar, All India Muslim Women&#39;s Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) <a href="https://t.co/cnVQ9Ljqmp">pic.twitter.com/cnVQ9Ljqmp</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/946300604145471488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2017</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>

&#39;&#39;When Islamic countries have regulated provisions of Triple Talaq then why can&#39;t we a secular nation do it? We are not interfering in Shariat,&#39;&#39; Prasad said.

The minister urged the lawmakers to understand the pain of Muslim women.

&#39;&#39;We must understand the pain of Muslim women. Today morning I read the news that a woman in Rampur was given talaq by her husband just because she woke up late,&#39;&#39; Prasad said.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Mallikarjun Kharge of Congress in Lok Sabha said that bill has certain lacunae which should and can be rectified in the standing committee.

&#39;&#39;All of us are supporting this bill, but there are certain lacunae which should and can be rectified in the standing committee. We can sit together and sort out in a time bound manner,&#39;&#39; said Kharge.&nbsp;

Earlier Congress said it will support the Bill in Parliament but said it will raise the issue of criminal provisions in the bill.&nbsp;

Prasad thanked Kharge for supporting the Bill and said if fine whatever suggestions that the opposition gives will be incorporated in the law.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I thank Kharge ji for supporting the Govt on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaqBill?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TripleTalaqBill</a> , whatever suggestions they have they should tell us here, if fine we can incorporate them in the law: Ravi Shankar Prasad,Law Minister in Lok Sabha
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/946319739491565568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2017</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>

&#39;&#39;I thank Kharge ji for supporting the Govt on Triple Talaq Bill. Whatever suggestions they have they should tell us here if fine we can incorporate them in the law,&#39;&#39; Prasad said.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

''When Islamic countries have regulated provisions of Triple Talaq then why can't we a secular nation do it? We are not interfering in Shariat,'' Prasad said.

Introducing Triple Talaq Bill in Lok Sabha, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Thursday that about 100 cases of Triple Talaq have come to light after Supreme Court's verdict. Refuting the allegations that they were interfering in Shariat, he said that even the Islamic countries have regulated provisions of Triple Talaq. This is a historic day, victims have suffered for years and they have been rewarded for their patience. Request all MPs to help pass #TripleTalaqBill : Shaista Ambar, All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) pic.twitter.com/cnVQ9Ljqmp — ANI (@ANI) December 28, 2017 × ''When Islamic countries have regulated provisions of Triple Talaq then why can't we a secular nation do it? We are not interfering in Shariat,'' Prasad said. The minister urged the lawmakers to understand the pain of Muslim women. ''We must understand the pain of Muslim women. Today morning I read the news that a woman in Rampur was given talaq by her husband just because she woke up late,'' Prasad said. Meanwhile, Mallikarjun Kharge of Congress in Lok Sabha said that bill has certain lacunae which should and can be rectified in the standing committee. ''All of us are supporting this bill, but there are certain lacunae which should and can be rectified in the standing committee. We can sit together and sort out in a time bound manner,'' said Kharge. Earlier Congress said it will support the Bill in Parliament but said it will raise the issue of criminal provisions in the bill. Prasad thanked Kharge for supporting the Bill and said if fine whatever suggestions that the opposition gives will be incorporated in the law. I thank Kharge ji for supporting the Govt on #TripleTalaqBill , whatever suggestions they have they should tell us here, if fine we can incorporate them in the law: Ravi Shankar Prasad,Law Minister in Lok Sabha — ANI (@ANI) December 28, 2017 × ''I thank Kharge ji for supporting the Govt on Triple Talaq Bill. Whatever suggestions they have they should tell us here if fine we can incorporate them in the law,'' Prasad said.

About 100 cases of Triple Talaq have come to light after SC verdict: Ravi Shankar Prasad

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