The Centre has decided to bring in legislation during the winter session of Parliament to end the practice of triple talaq. Sources said that a ministerial committee has been constituted to frame a law.&nbsp;

The decision comes in the wake of the judgement given by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Shayara Bano vs Union of India and other connected matters. In a majority judgment, the court had set aside the practice of Talaq-e-biddat or triple talaq given by Muslim husbands.

The judgment upholds equal rights and the equal protection of every person enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, irrespective of majority or minority status. To give life to the order of the Supreme Court, the Centre has decided to take the matter forward and conferred within itself to either bring suitable legislation or amend existing provisions to make instantaneous triple talaq an offence.

Sources in the government say that the call for reforms in the personal law had arisen from the Muslim community itself. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had contended that on matters of religious practice, such as Talaq-e-biddat, it is for the legislature to make law. Sources say that the endeavour is to bring suitable legislation to end the practice.

Sources said the Centre has noticed that there have been reports of a&nbsp;number of divorces by way of Talaq-e-biddat happening even after the aforesaid judgement by the Supreme Court.

The Centre felt that this was because of two reasons.

Either the decision of the Supreme Court had not become common knowledge or the lack of deterrence was not changing the mindset on Talaq-e-biddat. In spite of advisories to members of the Muslim community against the practice, there seems to have been no decline in the practice of divorce by Talaq-e-biddat, the Centre noticed.

In a recent instance of Talaq-e-biddat, it was noticed that a person in a leading educational institution divorced his wife via WhatsApp and SMS. Subsequently, the wife approached the police.

The Centre says there may be many such unreported instances of triple talaq happening elsewhere in the country too.

The government feels that as the law stands today, the victims of Talaq-e-biddat&nbsp;have no option but to approach the police for the redressal of their grievances as the Muslim clergy would be of little assistance to them. Even police are helpless as no action can be taken against a husband giving triple talaq in the absence of punitive provisions in the law.

It is to this end that the government is enacting a legislation which will act as a deterrent to husbands divorcing their wives using triple talaq, and empowering Muslim women who find themselves helpless against the practice of &#39;Talaq-e-biddat&#39;.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

The government is enacting a legislation which will act as a deterrent to husbands divorcing their wives using triple talaq, and empowering Muslim women who find themselves helpless against the practice of 'Talaq-e-biddat'.

The Centre has decided to bring in legislation during the winter session of Parliament to end the practice of triple talaq. Sources said that a ministerial committee has been constituted to frame a law. The decision comes in the wake of the judgement given by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Shayara Bano vs Union of India and other connected matters. In a majority judgment, the court had set aside the practice of Talaq-e-biddat or triple talaq given by Muslim husbands. The judgment upholds equal rights and the equal protection of every person enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, irrespective of majority or minority status. To give life to the order of the Supreme Court, the Centre has decided to take the matter forward and conferred within itself to either bring suitable legislation or amend existing provisions to make instantaneous triple talaq an offence. Sources in the government say that the call for reforms in the personal law had arisen from the Muslim community itself. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had contended that on matters of religious practice, such as Talaq-e-biddat, it is for the legislature to make law. Sources say that the endeavour is to bring suitable legislation to end the practice. Sources said the Centre has noticed that there have been reports of a number of divorces by way of Talaq-e-biddat happening even after the aforesaid judgement by the Supreme Court. The Centre felt that this was because of two reasons. Either the decision of the Supreme Court had not become common knowledge or the lack of deterrence was not changing the mindset on Talaq-e-biddat. In spite of advisories to members of the Muslim community against the practice, there seems to have been no decline in the practice of divorce by Talaq-e-biddat, the Centre noticed. In a recent instance of Talaq-e-biddat, it was noticed that a person in a leading educational institution divorced his wife via WhatsApp and SMS. Subsequently, the wife approached the police. The Centre says there may be many such unreported instances of triple talaq happening elsewhere in the country too. The government feels that as the law stands today, the victims of Talaq-e-biddat have no option but to approach the police for the redressal of their grievances as the Muslim clergy would be of little assistance to them. Even police are helpless as no action can be taken against a husband giving triple talaq in the absence of punitive provisions in the law. It is to this end that the government is enacting a legislation which will act as a deterrent to husbands divorcing their wives using triple talaq, and empowering Muslim women who find themselves helpless against the practice of 'Talaq-e-biddat'. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Why there is a need for Triple Talaq bill

Nawaz Sharif&#39;s daughter has claimed that her father was removed from the prime minister&#39;s office because he had ordered registration of a treason case against former military dictator Pervez Musharraf.

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court had disqualified 67-year-old Sharif from the office of prime minister on July 28 in the Panama Papers scandal.

&quot;When he (Sharif) got registered a treason case against Musharraf for abrogating the Constitution, sit-ins began in Islamabad (in 2014) against him. Then came the Dawn Leaks and Panama Papers case and finally he was disqualified on having &#39;Iqama&#39; (work permit of UAE),&quot; Sharif&#39;s daughter Maryam Nawaz told the social media team of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz while explaining reasons behind her father&#39;s ouster.

She further said this happened to her father because he did not bow and never took dictation.

&quot;It was easy for him to choose an easy path (cutting a deal with the establishment) but he didn&#39;t. Nawaz Sharif always chose a right path which is a difficult one. When you are on such a path, you have to pay a price,&quot; Maryam added.

She termed an attack on the prime minister as &quot;an attack on the people who have voted for him.&quot;

Sharif, who was also present during the interaction, demanded action against Musharraf for abrogating the Constitution and committing treason.

He asked would any court dare to bring Musharraf to justice. &quot;Will we see any court in Pakistan hold Musharraf accountable for his crimes?&quot; Sharif asked.

Musharraf is facing treason charges in Pakistan for imposing emergency rule in November 2007, arresting judges and limiting their powers.

He could face the death penalty if convicted. 
Musharraf, 74, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, has been living in Dubai since last year when he was allowed to leave Pakistan on the pretext of medical treatment.

The former military dictator who had promised to return to face the cases against him later said former army chief Gen Raheel Sharif had used his influence to get him a relief.&nbsp;

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court had disqualified 67-year-old Sharif from the office of prime minister on July 28 in the Panama Papers scandal.

Nawaz Sharif's daughter has claimed that her father was removed from the prime minister's office because he had ordered registration of a treason case against former military dictator Pervez Musharraf. A five-member bench of the Supreme Court had disqualified 67-year-old Sharif from the office of prime minister on July 28 in the Panama Papers scandal. "When he (Sharif) got registered a treason case against Musharraf for abrogating the Constitution, sit-ins began in Islamabad (in 2014) against him. Then came the Dawn Leaks and Panama Papers case and finally he was disqualified on having 'Iqama' (work permit of UAE)," Sharif's daughter Maryam Nawaz told the social media team of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz while explaining reasons behind her father's ouster. She further said this happened to her father because he did not bow and never took dictation. "It was easy for him to choose an easy path (cutting a deal with the establishment) but he didn't. Nawaz Sharif always chose a right path which is a difficult one. When you are on such a path, you have to pay a price," Maryam added. She termed an attack on the prime minister as "an attack on the people who have voted for him." Sharif, who was also present during the interaction, demanded action against Musharraf for abrogating the Constitution and committing treason. He asked would any court dare to bring Musharraf to justice. "Will we see any court in Pakistan hold Musharraf accountable for his crimes?" Sharif asked. Musharraf is facing treason charges in Pakistan for imposing emergency rule in November 2007, arresting judges and limiting their powers. He could face the death penalty if convicted. Musharraf, 74, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, has been living in Dubai since last year when he was allowed to leave Pakistan on the pretext of medical treatment. The former military dictator who had promised to return to face the cases against him later said former army chief Gen Raheel Sharif had used his influence to get him a relief.

Musharraf treason case behind Sharif's ouster: Nawaz Sharif's daughter

Retired Kolkata High Court judge Justice CS Karnan, who was arrested and jailed in connection with a contempt of court case, was released from Presidency Jail on Wednesday.

Justice Karnan was arrested by the Kolkata Police in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, on June 20.

He was later lodged in Kolkata&#39;s Presidency Jail after the Supreme Court refused to grant him interim bail.

A vacation bench of the apex court, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, had refused to suspend the six-month prison sentence for Justice Karnan in the case.

Mathew J Nedumpara, a lawyer appearing for Justice Karnan, mentioned the matter before the vacation bench of the top court.

Nedumpara pleaded to the apex court seeking bail and suspension of the six months jail sentence, to which the court observed, &quot;The seven-judge bench had passed the order. It binds everybody. It binds us also.&quot;

The apex court had on May 19 rejected Justice Karnan&#39;s plea for recall of the six-month jail term for contempt of court, stating that the petition was &quot;not maintainable&quot; in the court.

&quot;I am constrained, but to hold that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The relief, if any, lies somewhere else. I, thus, see no reasonable cause to receive the present writ petition for registration under the provisions of order XV, rule (5) of the Supreme Court rules, 2013,&quot; the Supreme Court Registrar said in the order.

Justice Karnan had approached the apex court seeking the recall of its order in which he was convicted and was sentenced to six-month imprisonment.

The top court took suo motu cognizance of numerous letters written by him against judges of the Madras High Court and the apex court and restrained him from exercising administrative and judicial powers from February 8.

Karnan is the first ever sitting judge of a higher court in judicial history to be sentenced to jail term.

(With ANI inputs)

A vacation bench of the apex court, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, had refused to suspend the six-month prison sentence for Justice Karnan in the case.

Retired Kolkata High Court judge Justice CS Karnan, who was arrested and jailed in connection with a contempt of court case, was released from Presidency Jail on Wednesday. Justice Karnan was arrested by the Kolkata Police in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, on June 20. He was later lodged in Kolkata's Presidency Jail after the Supreme Court refused to grant him interim bail. A vacation bench of the apex court, headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, had refused to suspend the six-month prison sentence for Justice Karnan in the case. Mathew J Nedumpara, a lawyer appearing for Justice Karnan, mentioned the matter before the vacation bench of the top court. Nedumpara pleaded to the apex court seeking bail and suspension of the six months jail sentence, to which the court observed, "The seven-judge bench had passed the order. It binds everybody. It binds us also." The apex court had on May 19 rejected Justice Karnan's plea for recall of the six-month jail term for contempt of court, stating that the petition was "not maintainable" in the court. "I am constrained, but to hold that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The relief, if any, lies somewhere else. I, thus, see no reasonable cause to receive the present writ petition for registration under the provisions of order XV, rule (5) of the Supreme Court rules, 2013," the Supreme Court Registrar said in the order. Justice Karnan had approached the apex court seeking the recall of its order in which he was convicted and was sentenced to six-month imprisonment. The top court took suo motu cognizance of numerous letters written by him against judges of the Madras High Court and the apex court and restrained him from exercising administrative and judicial powers from February 8. Karnan is the first ever sitting judge of a higher court in judicial history to be sentenced to jail term. (With ANI inputs)

Former judge CS Karnan released from jail after serving 6-month sentence for contempt of court

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to lift the ban on firecrackers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

The court will now hear the case against on January 5.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC refuses to lift the ban on bursting of firecrackers in Punjab, Haryana &amp; Chandigarh, says it would hear the case against the ban on January 5.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/941579213445898245?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 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>

The Supreme court had in October ordered a ban on the sale of firecrackers ahead of Diwali and even after Diwali in Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh till the next hearing.

The ruling came in order to curb the rise in air pollution caused by burning of firecrackers&nbsp;after Diwali in Delhi.

The notice came in order to curb the rise in air pollution caused by burning of firecrackers, after Diwali in Delhi

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to lift the ban on firecrackers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. The court will now hear the case against on January 5. SC refuses to lift the ban on bursting of firecrackers in Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh, says it would hear the case against the ban on January 5. — ANI (@ANI) December 15, 2017 × The Supreme court had in October ordered a ban on the sale of firecrackers ahead of Diwali and even after Diwali in Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh till the next hearing. The ruling came in order to curb the rise in air pollution caused by burning of firecrackers after Diwali in Delhi.

Supreme Court refuses to lift ban on firecrackers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh

In a major set back to the Congress party, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their plea seeking directions to the Election Commission to count and cross verify at least 25 per cent of paper trails generated by the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines with the actual vote tally in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC dismisses Congress&#39; plea seeking directions to EC to count &amp; cross verify at least 25% of VVPAT paper trail with EVM votes. <a href="https://t.co/uabJs37oJ5">pic.twitter.com/uabJs37oJ5</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/941600200316960768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 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>

&nbsp;

Just three days prior to the counting of votes for held Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh assembly elections, the Congress party had today approached the apex court demanding cross-verification.&nbsp;

Senior lawyers and Congress leaders Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal had appeared for the Congress in this regard.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress moves Supreme Court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to count and cross verify at least 25% of the VVPAT paper trail with the EVM votes. Abhishek Manu Singhvi &amp; Kapil Sibal to appear for Congress, matter likely to be heard today.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/941587454355677185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 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>

 
The plea was submitted just a day after the second and final phase of polling concluded in the Gujarat assembly polls.

This year in July, the EC had made it mandatory to verify the paper trail slips with the results of EVMs in 5 per cent of polling stations in each assembly seat, for all state and Lok Sabha elections.

VVPAT machines were inducted to generate a printed slip confirming the voter&#39;s choice when he voted on an EVM. 
&nbsp;

The plea was submitted just a day after the second and final phase of polling concluded in Gujarat assembly polls.

In a major set back to the Congress party, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their plea seeking directions to the Election Commission to count and cross verify at least 25 per cent of paper trails generated by the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines with the actual vote tally in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). SC dismisses Congress' plea seeking directions to EC to count & cross verify at least 25% of VVPAT paper trail with EVM votes. pic.twitter.com/uabJs37oJ5 — ANI (@ANI) December 15, 2017 × Just three days prior to the counting of votes for held Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh assembly elections, the Congress party had today approached the apex court demanding cross-verification. Senior lawyers and Congress leaders Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal had appeared for the Congress in this regard. Congress moves Supreme Court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to count and cross verify at least 25% of the VVPAT paper trail with the EVM votes. Abhishek Manu Singhvi & Kapil Sibal to appear for Congress, matter likely to be heard today. — ANI (@ANI) December 15, 2017 × The plea was submitted just a day after the second and final phase of polling concluded in the Gujarat assembly polls. This year in July, the EC had made it mandatory to verify the paper trail slips with the results of EVMs in 5 per cent of polling stations in each assembly seat, for all state and Lok Sabha elections. VVPAT machines were inducted to generate a printed slip confirming the voter's choice when he voted on an EVM.

Congress approaches SC seeking cross verification of at least 25% VVPAT slips, plea dismissed

The Supreme Court has extended the deadline for realty major Jaypee Group till January 25 to deposit Rs 125 crore in pursuance of a direction aimed at protecting the interests of hassled home buyers.

The court also warned Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), the holding company, that non-compliance of its order would make it liable for contempt of court.

Jaiprakash Associate Limited had on Thursday deposited Rs 150 crore in the Supreme Court registry and sought extension of time to deposit remaining Rs 125 crore.

The court hd on November 22 accepted a demand draft of Rs 275 crore submitted by the real estate firm and directed it to pay another two tranches of Rs 150 crore and Rs 125 crore respectively by December 14 and 31.

Earlier, the court had directed 13 directors of JAL not to alienate their personal properties.

The top court had also made it clear that it was granting &quot;indulgence&quot; to allow the firm to deposit Rs 2,000 crore in instalments as the interest of homebuyers was &quot;paramount&quot;.

The JAL directors had filed affidavits giving details of their personal assets and they are now required to appear again on January 10.

The apex court, on November 13, had also restrained the managing director and the directors of Jaypee Infratech Ltd from travelling abroad without prior permission.

The court had asked Jaypee Infratech to hand over the records to the interim resolution professional (IRP) to draft a resolution plan indicating protection of interests of over 32,000 hassled home buyers and creditors.

It had also stayed any proceedings instituted against Jaypee Infratech for any purpose in any forum like the consumer commission, as the IRP has been given control of the company&#39;s management.

Homebuyers including one Chitra Sharma, through lawyer Ashwarya Sinha, had moved the apex court saying around 32,000 people had booked their flats and are now paying installments.

The top court had on September 4 stayed insolvency proceedings against the real estate firm at National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Flat buyers, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, do not fall in the category of secured creditors like banks and hence they can get back their money only if something is left after repaying the secured and operational creditors, Sharma, in her plea, said.

Hundreds of home buyers have been left in the lurch after the NCLT, on August 10, admitted the IDBI Bank&#39;s plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden realty company for defaulting on a Rs 526 crore loan, the plea said.

Jaiprakash Associate Limited had on Thursday deposited Rs 150 crore in the Supreme Court registry and sought extension of time to deposit remaining Rs 125 crore.

The Supreme Court has extended the deadline for realty major Jaypee Group till January 25 to deposit Rs 125 crore in pursuance of a direction aimed at protecting the interests of hassled home buyers. The court also warned Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), the holding company, that non-compliance of its order would make it liable for contempt of court. Jaiprakash Associate Limited had on Thursday deposited Rs 150 crore in the Supreme Court registry and sought extension of time to deposit remaining Rs 125 crore. The court hd on November 22 accepted a demand draft of Rs 275 crore submitted by the real estate firm and directed it to pay another two tranches of Rs 150 crore and Rs 125 crore respectively by December 14 and 31. Earlier, the court had directed 13 directors of JAL not to alienate their personal properties. The top court had also made it clear that it was granting "indulgence" to allow the firm to deposit Rs 2,000 crore in instalments as the interest of homebuyers was "paramount". The JAL directors had filed affidavits giving details of their personal assets and they are now required to appear again on January 10. The apex court, on November 13, had also restrained the managing director and the directors of Jaypee Infratech Ltd from travelling abroad without prior permission. The court had asked Jaypee Infratech to hand over the records to the interim resolution professional (IRP) to draft a resolution plan indicating protection of interests of over 32,000 hassled home buyers and creditors. It had also stayed any proceedings instituted against Jaypee Infratech for any purpose in any forum like the consumer commission, as the IRP has been given control of the company's management. Homebuyers including one Chitra Sharma, through lawyer Ashwarya Sinha, had moved the apex court saying around 32,000 people had booked their flats and are now paying installments. The top court had on September 4 stayed insolvency proceedings against the real estate firm at National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Flat buyers, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, do not fall in the category of secured creditors like banks and hence they can get back their money only if something is left after repaying the secured and operational creditors, Sharma, in her plea, said. Hundreds of home buyers have been left in the lurch after the NCLT, on August 10, admitted the IDBI Bank's plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden realty company for defaulting on a Rs 526 crore loan, the plea said.

Deposit Rs 125 crore by Jan 25 or face contempt: Supreme Court to Jaypee Group

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a clutch of pleas seeking a stay on the government&#39;s decision to link Aadhaar with various welfare schemes.

The order will be pronounced on Friday.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the final hearing on petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme itself would start from January 17 next year.&nbsp;

Attorney General KK Venugopal, arguing for the Centre, said Thursday that the government was willing to extend the deadline (for the linking of Aadhaar to avail the benefits of welfare schemes) up to March 31 next year.

Venugopal, however, told the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that Aadhaar should remain mandatory for the opening of new bank accounts.

Gopal Subramanium, arguing for the petitioners, said &quot;the voluntary nature of Aadhaar must be underscored. This is an encroachment on judicial path. 139 government notifications have made it compulsory. The sanctity of judicial order must remain intact.&quot;

KTS Tulsi and Anand Grover, also arguning for the petitioners, said &quot;without data protection law, Aadhaar cannot be made compulsory. 210 government websites have been breached once the data is exposed there is no process of rescinding or withdrawing. The agencies obtain this data and further supply it to Pakistan and unverified sources. And if data is breached, Aadhaar cannot protect it.

The government had on Wednesday extended the deadline, till March 31, for the linking of Aadhaar and PAN numbers for bank accounts and certain financial transactions.&nbsp;

There is however no word yet on extending the February 6, 2018 deadline for the linking of mobile SIM cards with Aadhaar.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

The order will be pronounced on pleas seeking a stay on the mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail various welfare schemes

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a clutch of pleas seeking a stay on the government's decision to link Aadhaar with various welfare schemes. The order will be pronounced on Friday. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the final hearing on petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme itself would start from January 17 next year. Attorney General KK Venugopal, arguing for the Centre, said Thursday that the government was willing to extend the deadline (for the linking of Aadhaar to avail the benefits of welfare schemes) up to March 31 next year. Venugopal, however, told the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that Aadhaar should remain mandatory for the opening of new bank accounts. Gopal Subramanium, arguing for the petitioners, said "the voluntary nature of Aadhaar must be underscored. This is an encroachment on judicial path. 139 government notifications have made it compulsory. The sanctity of judicial order must remain intact." KTS Tulsi and Anand Grover, also arguning for the petitioners, said "without data protection law, Aadhaar cannot be made compulsory. 210 government websites have been breached once the data is exposed there is no process of rescinding or withdrawing. The agencies obtain this data and further supply it to Pakistan and unverified sources. And if data is breached, Aadhaar cannot protect it. The government had on Wednesday extended the deadline, till March 31, for the linking of Aadhaar and PAN numbers for bank accounts and certain financial transactions. There is however no word yet on extending the February 6, 2018 deadline for the linking of mobile SIM cards with Aadhaar. (With inputs from PTI)

Aadhaar linking with welfare schemes: Supreme Court to pronounce order Friday

The Supreme Court told the Centre Thursday to ensure that the fast-track&nbsp;courts that will decide pending cases against MPs and MLAs start functioning from March 1, 2018.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-to-set-special-courts-for-speedy-trial-of-mps-mlas-pending-cases-26535" target="_blank">Will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs, MLAs, Centre tells SC</a>

The court directed the Centre to allocate Rs 7.8 crore proportionally to the states where the 12 special courts will be set up.

The court added that the courts will be set up by the state governments in consultation with high courts.&nbsp;

The court told the Centre it had two months&#39; time to collect and collate data of all cases pending against MPs and MLAs across the country.&nbsp;

The court added that the courts will be set up by the state governments in consultation with high courts

The Supreme Court told the Centre Thursday to ensure that the fast-track courts that will decide pending cases against MPs and MLAs start functioning from March 1, 2018. Also read: Will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs, MLAs, Centre tells SC The court directed the Centre to allocate Rs 7.8 crore proportionally to the states where the 12 special courts will be set up. The court added that the courts will be set up by the state governments in consultation with high courts. The court told the Centre it had two months' time to collect and collate data of all cases pending against MPs and MLAs across the country.

SC to Centre: Ensure courts deciding cases against MPs, MLAs start functioning from March 1

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/exit-poll-results-2017-bjp-to-retain-gujarat-overthrow-congress-in-himachal-pradesh-26751">Exit poll results 2017: BJP to retain Gujarat, overthrow Congress in Himachal Pradesh</a>

Voting in the second and final phase of Gujarat assembly elections has ended and poll predictions for the state and Himachal Pradesh have started coming in.

Almost every pollster has predicted that the BJP is likely to retain Gujarat, but with a reduced number of seats. According to Republic-C Voter exit polls, the BJP is likely to get 108 seats, whereas Times Now-VMR Exit Poll data says BJP will get 109 seats out of a total of 182 seats.

The Congress will give the BJP a fight in Gujarat. While the Times Now-VMR exit poll gives Rahul Gandhi&#39;s party 70 seats, Republic-C-Voter predicts it will get 74 seats.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-directs-its-high-commission-in-delhi-to-issue-visas-to-jadhavs-family-26746">Pakistan directs high commission in Delhi to issue visas to Jadhav&#39;s mother, wife</a>

Pakistan today directed its High Commission in New Delhi to issue visas to the wife and mother of Indian death row prisoner Kulbhushan Jadhav, official sources said.

The directive was issued by the Foreign Ministry following its decision last week to allow Jadhav&#39;s family to meet him on December 25 in Islamabad, they said.

An Indian high commission official will be allowed to accompany Jadhav&#39;s family during their meeting.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-pronounce-interim-order-on-mandatory-linking-of-aadhaar-tomorrow-26747">Supreme Court to pronounce interim order on mandatory linking of Aadhaar tomorrow</a>

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its interim order on a clutch of pleas seeking a stay on the government&#39;s decision to link Aadhaar with various welfare schemes.

The order will be pronounced tomorrow.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the final hearing on petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme itself would start from January 17 next year.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indias-inflation-rises-to-eight-month-high-in-november-26724">India&#39;s wholesale inflation rises to eight-month high in November</a>

India&#39;s wholesale price based inflation rose to 3.93 per cent in November, as against 3.59 per cent in October.

The annual wholesale price inflation accelerated in November to an eight-month high, driven by faster rises in prices of food and fuel products, government data showed.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-to-centre-ensure-courts-deciding-cases-against-mps-mlas-start-from-march-1-26739">SC to Centre: Ensure courts deciding cases against MPs, MLAs start functioning from March 1</a>

The Supreme Court told the Centre Thursday to ensure that the fast-track courts that will decide pending cases against MPs and MLAs start functioning from March 1, 2018.&nbsp;

The court directed the Centre to allocate Rs 7.8 crore proportionally to the states where the 12 special courts will be set up.

The court added that the courts will be set up by the state governments in consultation with high courts.&nbsp;

Exit poll results 2017: BJP to retain Gujarat, overthrow Congress in Himachal Pradesh Voting in the second and final phase of Gujarat assembly elections has ended and poll predictions for the state and Himachal Pradesh have started coming in. Almost every pollster has predicted that the BJP is likely to retain Gujarat, but with a reduced number of seats. According to Republic-C Voter exit polls, the BJP is likely to get 108 seats, whereas Times Now-VMR Exit Poll data says BJP will get 109 seats out of a total of 182 seats. The Congress will give the BJP a fight in Gujarat. While the Times Now-VMR exit poll gives Rahul Gandhi's party 70 seats, Republic-C-Voter predicts it will get 74 seats. Pakistan directs high commission in Delhi to issue visas to Jadhav's mother, wife Pakistan today directed its High Commission in New Delhi to issue visas to the wife and mother of Indian death row prisoner Kulbhushan Jadhav, official sources said. The directive was issued by the Foreign Ministry following its decision last week to allow Jadhav's family to meet him on December 25 in Islamabad, they said. An Indian high commission official will be allowed to accompany Jadhav's family during their meeting. Supreme Court to pronounce interim order on mandatory linking of Aadhaar tomorrow The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its interim order on a clutch of pleas seeking a stay on the government's decision to link Aadhaar with various welfare schemes. The order will be pronounced tomorrow. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the final hearing on petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme itself would start from January 17 next year. India's wholesale inflation rises to eight-month high in November India's wholesale price based inflation rose to 3.93 per cent in November, as against 3.59 per cent in October. The annual wholesale price inflation accelerated in November to an eight-month high, driven by faster rises in prices of food and fuel products, government data showed. SC to Centre: Ensure courts deciding cases against MPs, MLAs start functioning from March 1 The Supreme Court told the Centre Thursday to ensure that the fast-track courts that will decide pending cases against MPs and MLAs start functioning from March 1, 2018. The court directed the Centre to allocate Rs 7.8 crore proportionally to the states where the 12 special courts will be set up. The court added that the courts will be set up by the state governments in consultation with high courts.

WION evening news brief, December 14, 2017

A Parsi woman, who was barred from entering fire temples after marrying outside the community, was today granted the right to enter a Parsi temple in Gujarat after a landmark decision by the Supreme Court.

The woman, Goolrukh Gupta, had approached the Supreme Court challenging a 2012 Gujarat High Court order which upheld the Special Marriage Act that the woman ceased to be a Parsi and her religion automatically changed to that of her husband.

The woman, however, continued to practice as a Parsi and challenged the High Court verdict on the grounds that the Special Marriage Act does not require either husband or wife to renounce their religion.&nbsp;

The five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was hearing the case and asked the Parsi community to take a more progressive stance on the issue.

The woman was granted the right to enter the Parsi temple by the Valsad Parsi community. 
 
(With inputs from ANI)

The woman, Goolrukh Gupta, was today granted the right to enter a Parsi temple in Gujarat by the Supreme Court

A Parsi woman, who was barred from entering fire temples after marrying outside the community, was today granted the right to enter a Parsi temple in Gujarat after a landmark decision by the Supreme Court. The woman, Goolrukh Gupta, had approached the Supreme Court challenging a 2012 Gujarat High Court order which upheld the Special Marriage Act that the woman ceased to be a Parsi and her religion automatically changed to that of her husband. The woman, however, continued to practice as a Parsi and challenged the High Court verdict on the grounds that the Special Marriage Act does not require either husband or wife to renounce their religion. The five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was hearing the case and asked the Parsi community to take a more progressive stance on the issue. The woman was granted the right to enter the Parsi temple by the Valsad Parsi community. (With inputs from ANI)

Parsi woman who married outside community allowed to enter fire temple

The claim made in a new show of a US science channel that the &#39;Ram Setu&#39; - a land bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka - is man-made and not natural has reaffirmed the stand of the BJP on the issue, Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Wednesday.

He also hit out at the previous UPA government for filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court questioning the belief that the land bridge was built by Lord Ram to reach then Lanka to rescue his wife Sita, as depicted in the epic Ramayana.

&quot;Those who filed the affidavit should explain now. The research has supported what the BJP has been claiming all along...The setu is part of our cultural heritage,&quot; Prasad told reporters here.

In a promo for its upcoming show, the channel quotes an archaeologist that the rocks on top of sand pre-date the sand.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-tv-show-suggests-that-ram-setu-was-man-made-26581">US TV show may suggest the Ram Setu was man-made</a>

&quot;This is what the BJP has been saying all along,&quot; Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju said.

The Ram Setu, also known as Adam&#39;s bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals, between Pamban Island, also known as Rameswaram Island off the coast of Tamil Nadu, India, and Mannar Island, off Sri Lanka.

The first mention of the &quot;bridge&quot; was made in the Indian epic the Ramayana, which says the bridge was made by Hanuman and his monkey army under the guidance of the Indian god Ram.

According to the research by the American scientists quoted by the channel, the stones forming the &quot;bridge&quot; are nearly 7,000 years old whereas the sand on which they rest is only 4,000 years old.

&nbsp;

He also hit out at the previous UPA government for filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court questioning the belief that the land bridge was built by Lord Ram to reach then Lanka to rescue his wife Sita, as depicted in the epic Ramayana.

The claim made in a new show of a US science channel that the 'Ram Setu' - a land bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka - is man-made and not natural has reaffirmed the stand of the BJP on the issue, Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Wednesday. He also hit out at the previous UPA government for filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court questioning the belief that the land bridge was built by Lord Ram to reach then Lanka to rescue his wife Sita, as depicted in the epic Ramayana. "Those who filed the affidavit should explain now. The research has supported what the BJP has been claiming all along...The setu is part of our cultural heritage," Prasad told reporters here. In a promo for its upcoming show, the channel quotes an archaeologist that the rocks on top of sand pre-date the sand. Also read: US TV show may suggest the Ram Setu was man-made "This is what the BJP has been saying all along," Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju said. The Ram Setu, also known as Adam's bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals, between Pamban Island, also known as Rameswaram Island off the coast of Tamil Nadu, India, and Mannar Island, off Sri Lanka. The first mention of the "bridge" was made in the Indian epic the Ramayana, which says the bridge was made by Hanuman and his monkey army under the guidance of the Indian god Ram. According to the research by the American scientists quoted by the channel, the stones forming the "bridge" are nearly 7,000 years old whereas the sand on which they rest is only 4,000 years old.

US channel's finding on Ram Setu reaffirms BJP's stand: Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed company law tribunal NCLT order allowing Centre to take over management of embattled realty firm Unitech Ltd.

The court had said on Tuesday that the company law tribunal should have taken its leave before allowing the Centre to take over the management of embattled realty firm Unitech Limited, as it was seized of the matter.

Today, during the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing on behalf of Centre, said the government should not have approached NCLT with the plea to take over management of Unitech.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked the Centre why it had not taken the apex court&#39;s permission to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for suspension of Unitech&#39;s directors and their substitution by government nominees.

Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the real estate firm and its promoters, said the apex court had given time to Unitech chief Sanjay Chandra to negotiate from jail to sell assets to generate Rs 750 crore for refunding money to home buyers but, in the mean time, the Centre has approached the NCLT.

Rohatgi alleged that the NCLT did not issue notice to the firm and its directors and passed the interim order, which was virtually a final order, and allowed the Centre to take over the firm.

The NCLT, on December 8, had suspended all the eight directors of the realty firm over allegations of mismanagement and siphoning of funds and had authorised the Centre to appoint its <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nclt-allows-govt-to-appoint-10-directors-on-unitech-board-26253">10 nominees on the board</a>.

The NCLT order had come after the Centre moved the panel with a view to protect the interests of nearly 20,000 home buyers.

Unitech alleged that the takeover of the management of the company by the Centre would make it difficult for them to deposit Rs 750 crore as directed by the apex court to safeguard the interests of homebuyers.

Sanjay Chandra, head of the embattled real estate group, was asked on October 30 by the apex court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end for the sake of the homebuyers.

The apex court had on October 30 said jailed businessman Chandra will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposited money with its registry by December end.

Chandra is seeking interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects - &#39;Wild Flower Country&#39; and &#39;Anthea Project&#39; - situated in Gurugram.

&nbsp;

The court had said on Tuesday that the company law tribunal should have taken its leave before allowing the Centre to take over the management of embattled realty firm Unitech Limited, as it was seized of the matter.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed company law tribunal NCLT order allowing Centre to take over management of embattled realty firm Unitech Ltd. The court had said on Tuesday that the company law tribunal should have taken its leave before allowing the Centre to take over the management of embattled realty firm Unitech Limited, as it was seized of the matter. Today, during the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing on behalf of Centre, said the government should not have approached NCLT with the plea to take over management of Unitech. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked the Centre why it had not taken the apex court's permission to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for suspension of Unitech's directors and their substitution by government nominees. Senior lawyers Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the real estate firm and its promoters, said the apex court had given time to Unitech chief Sanjay Chandra to negotiate from jail to sell assets to generate Rs 750 crore for refunding money to home buyers but, in the mean time, the Centre has approached the NCLT. Rohatgi alleged that the NCLT did not issue notice to the firm and its directors and passed the interim order, which was virtually a final order, and allowed the Centre to take over the firm. The NCLT, on December 8, had suspended all the eight directors of the realty firm over allegations of mismanagement and siphoning of funds and had authorised the Centre to appoint its 10 nominees on the board. The NCLT order had come after the Centre moved the panel with a view to protect the interests of nearly 20,000 home buyers. Unitech alleged that the takeover of the management of the company by the Centre would make it difficult for them to deposit Rs 750 crore as directed by the apex court to safeguard the interests of homebuyers. Sanjay Chandra, head of the embattled real estate group, was asked on October 30 by the apex court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end for the sake of the homebuyers. The apex court had on October 30 said jailed businessman Chandra will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposited money with its registry by December end. Chandra is seeking interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects - 'Wild Flower Country' and 'Anthea Project' - situated in Gurugram.

Supreme Court stays NCLT order allowing Centre to take over management of Unitech

The Centre has told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit filed by the law minister, that it will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs and MLA.&nbsp;

The special courts will decide 1,571 criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs.

The Supreme Court has ordered that all the cases be concluded within a year.&nbsp;

The cases were disclosed by the politicians themselves in their 2014 poll affidavits.&nbsp;

A politician convicted of serious offences is not allowed to contest elections or hold government office.&nbsp;

,

&nbsp;

The special courts will decide -- within one year, as ordered by the Supreme Court -- 1,571 criminal cases pending against the country's MPs and MLAs

The Centre has told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit filed by the law minister, that it will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs and MLA. The special courts will decide 1,571 criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs. The Supreme Court has ordered that all the cases be concluded within a year. The cases were disclosed by the politicians themselves in their 2014 poll affidavits. A politician convicted of serious offences is not allowed to contest elections or hold government office. ,

Centre to SC: Will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs, MLAs

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/consumer-inflation-soars-to-488-while-industrial-output-growth-slows-to-22-26549" target="_blank">Retail inflation hits 15-month high of 4.88% in November</a>

Fuelled by soaring food prices, retail inflation climbed to a 15-month high of 4.88% in November. It was at 3.58 % in October.

Industrial output growth meanwhile slowed to 2.2% in October from 3.8% in September, with demand continuing to suffer from the disruption caused by the rollout of the new Goods and Services Tax (GST). &nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-to-set-special-courts-for-speedy-trial-of-mps-mlas-pending-cases-26535">Centre to SC: Will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs, MLAs</a>

The Centre has told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit filed by the law minister, that it will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs and MLA.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tami-nadu-honour-killing-six-of-the-convicts-get-death-sentence-including-father-in-law-26538">Tamil Nadu </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tami-nadu-honour-killing-six-of-the-convicts-get-death-sentence-including-father-in-law-26538">honour</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tami-nadu-honour-killing-six-of-the-convicts-get-death-sentence-including-father-in-law-26538"> killing: 6 sentenced to death including father-in-law</a>

A Tirupur court in Tamil Nadu convicted 11 people on Tuesday for the murder of Dalit youth V Shankar, six of the convicts were given death sentences.

One was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The convicts who were given death sentences included Shankar&#39;s father-in-law.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bjp-demands-mlas-to-step-down-for-organising-kissing-competition-26537">Jharkhand kissing competition: Organising MLAs asked to step down</a>

The BJP has come down hard on the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leaders involved in organising the event, demanding an apology and their immediate suspension from the state assembly.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indias-economy-to-grow-at-72-in-2018-un-26543">India&#39;s economy to grow at 7.2% in 2018: UN</a>

India&#39;s economy is projected to grow at 7.2 per cent in 2018 and 7.4 per cent in 2019, despite a slowdown observed this year and the lingering effects from the demonetisation, the UN has said.

Retail inflation hits 15-month high of 4.88% in November Fuelled by soaring food prices, retail inflation climbed to a 15-month high of 4.88% in November. It was at 3.58 % in October. Industrial output growth meanwhile slowed to 2.2% in October from 3.8% in September, with demand continuing to suffer from the disruption caused by the rollout of the new Goods and Services Tax (GST). Centre to SC: Will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs, MLAs The Centre has told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit filed by the law minister, that it will set up 12 special courts to decide criminal cases pending against MPs and MLA. Tamil Nadu honour killing: 6 sentenced to death including father-in-law A Tirupur court in Tamil Nadu convicted 11 people on Tuesday for the murder of Dalit youth V Shankar, six of the convicts were given death sentences. One was sentenced to life imprisonment. The convicts who were given death sentences included Shankar's father-in-law. Jharkhand kissing competition: Organising MLAs asked to step down The BJP has come down hard on the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leaders involved in organising the event, demanding an apology and their immediate suspension from the state assembly. India's economy to grow at 7.2% in 2018: UN India's economy is projected to grow at 7.2 per cent in 2018 and 7.4 per cent in 2019, despite a slowdown observed this year and the lingering effects from the demonetisation, the UN has said.

WION Evening News Brief, December 12, 2017

The Supreme Court agreed to hear tomorrow the appeal of Unitech Limited challenging the recent order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directing the central government to take over the management of the embattled real estate firm.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of the real estate firm that its bank accounts have been frozen and the company and its jailed promoters are finding it difficult to deposit Rs 750 crore as asked by the apex court.

The NCLT has recently invoked the provisions of the Companies Act and allowed the central government to take over the Unitech Limited and appoint its nominee directors in the Board of the firm.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the company said the entire firm has been taken over by the government and its appeal be heard on an urgent basis.

The apex court had on November 20 directed Tihar Jail authorities to grant adequate meeting time to their inmate Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director Unitech Ltd, for allowing him to strike deals with prospective buyers as he was asked by the court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end to safeguard the interests of homebuyers.

The top court had on October 30 said that the jailed businessman will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposits money with its registry by December end.

He sought interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects&#39; -- &#39;Wild Flower Country&#39; and &#39;Anthea Project&#39; --in Gurugram.

The NCLT has recently invoked the provisions of the Companies Act and allowed the central government to take over the Unitech Limited and appoint its nominee directors in the Board of the firm.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear tomorrow the appeal of Unitech Limited challenging the recent order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) directing the central government to take over the management of the embattled real estate firm. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of the real estate firm that its bank accounts have been frozen and the company and its jailed promoters are finding it difficult to deposit Rs 750 crore as asked by the apex court. The NCLT has recently invoked the provisions of the Companies Act and allowed the central government to take over the Unitech Limited and appoint its nominee directors in the Board of the firm. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the company said the entire firm has been taken over by the government and its appeal be heard on an urgent basis. The apex court had on November 20 directed Tihar Jail authorities to grant adequate meeting time to their inmate Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director Unitech Ltd, for allowing him to strike deals with prospective buyers as he was asked by the court to deposit Rs 750 crore with it by December end to safeguard the interests of homebuyers. The top court had on October 30 said that the jailed businessman will be granted bail only after the real estate group deposits money with its registry by December end. He sought interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects' -- 'Wild Flower Country' and 'Anthea Project' --in Gurugram.

Supreme Court to hear appeal of Unitech against NCLT order tomorrow

The Supreme Court on Friday admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging adultery laws in the country.

Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), only a man can be punished with upto five years in jail or a penalty or both if he has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man. Women are not punished under the law; they are instead treated as victim.

The PIL seeks to make the married woman, who is party to adultery, liable to punishment. The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Centre on validity of Section 497 and given the government four weeks to reply.

&quot;In the PIL, we have made prayer to invalidate Section 497 and 198(2) of the IPC. Section 497 should be set down on the grounds of being unconstitutional. It deals with the adultery, and has a provision of punishment only for men not for women. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection of law and equality before law,&quot; said K Raj, one of the lawyers of the petitioner.

This is not a gender neutral rather gender bias provision and Constitution is always gender neutral, the lawyer added.

The existing provision in the 19th century criminal law (IPC) is based on the mindset that the wife is a personal possession of the husband, who is the sole aggrieved person in an incident of adultery. And the PIL seeks to change that.

Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), only a man can be punished with upto five years in jail or a penalty or both if he has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man.

The Supreme Court on Friday admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging adultery laws in the country. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), only a man can be punished with upto five years in jail or a penalty or both if he has sexual intercourse with the wife of another man. Women are not punished under the law; they are instead treated as victim. The PIL seeks to make the married woman, who is party to adultery, liable to punishment. The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Centre on validity of Section 497 and given the government four weeks to reply. "In the PIL, we have made prayer to invalidate Section 497 and 198(2) of the IPC. Section 497 should be set down on the grounds of being unconstitutional. It deals with the adultery, and has a provision of punishment only for men not for women. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection of law and equality before law," said K Raj, one of the lawyers of the petitioner. This is not a gender neutral rather gender bias provision and Constitution is always gender neutral, the lawyer added. The existing provision in the 19th century criminal law (IPC) is based on the mindset that the wife is a personal possession of the husband, who is the sole aggrieved person in an incident of adultery. And the PIL seeks to change that.

Supreme Court admits PIL seeking punishment for married woman for adultery

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking common syllabus and curriculum across all education boards.

The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, sought a common education system, meaning common syllabus and common curriculum for all children aged 6 to 14 years.

Her petition alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone.

&quot;In expounding the Constitution to meet the requirements of Articles 21A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2), 39(f), 46 &amp; 51A, measures such as a common education system viz. common syllabus and a common curriculum is a necessity. It would enable every child to be placed on a level playing field for the challenges of the future and meaningfully contribute in achieving the great golden goals as set out in the Preamble,&quot; said the petition.

The petition further asked the Centre to establish a &quot;One Nation One Education Board&quot; system, in substitution of the existing multi-board system.&nbsp;

The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking common syllabus and curriculum across all education boards. The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, sought a common education system, meaning common syllabus and common curriculum for all children aged 6 to 14 years. Her petition alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone. "In expounding the Constitution to meet the requirements of Articles 21A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2), 39(f), 46 & 51A, measures such as a common education system viz. common syllabus and a common curriculum is a necessity. It would enable every child to be placed on a level playing field for the challenges of the future and meaningfully contribute in achieving the great golden goals as set out in the Preamble," said the petition. The petition further asked the Centre to establish a "One Nation One Education Board" system, in substitution of the existing multi-board system.

SC rejects petition seeking common syllabus for all boards

The last week of November saw lots of emotions, shocks and surprises in the Supreme Court of India and among the news media and social media for a 24-year-old woman named Akhila Ashokan @ Hadiya. Hadiya is a budding Homeopath doctor, whom the Supreme Court had &lsquo;helped&rsquo; to get back to Salem, Tamil Nadu for completing her course.

The question is, why a Hindu adult woman who converted into Islam attracted so much attention from researchers, lawyers, social scientists and media? Is it because she first embraced Islam (allegedly) for her own interest in the religion, then did a &lsquo;love marriage&rsquo; to a Muslim amidst ongoing court case for Habious &ndash; corpus which was filed by her parents, which was later annulled by the Kerala High Court within a few weeks of the marriage? Or because of the &lsquo;Islamphobia&rsquo;? or because of the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision to free her from parent&rsquo;s custody to go to the college and &lsquo;meet whomever she wants to meet&rsquo;?

Noticeably, her love affair (including marriage) was not the only love affair which was pulled to the court by the parents of adult women in India. Lata Singh, Babli Rani, Divya and &nbsp;Kaushalya were some of the prominent adult women who did love marriages during the period from 2000 to 2016 and were dragged to the courts mostly against their wishes by the parents and the circumstances.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The failure of the High court to save an inter-caste love marriage between two adults sent a disastrous message to the society.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The failure of the High court to save an inter-caste love marriage between two adults sent a disastrous message to the society." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

While in Lata and Babli&rsquo;s case, the court respected the right to choose their husbands according to their own choice, in Divya&rsquo;s case, the court failed to reunite the couple. Court had put emphasis on the allegation of &lsquo;brainwashing&rsquo; of Divya by her &lsquo;lover&rsquo; turned husband. Reluctant Divya returned to her mother, and the very next day the news media reported about the death of Ilavarasan, her husband. Reportedly, he committed suicide.

The failure of the High court to save an inter-caste love marriage between two adults sent a disastrous message to the society which witnessed the gruesome murder of V. Shankar, a young Engineering graduate in broad daylight. He was murdered because he married Kaushalya, whose parents were vehemently against inter-caste love marriages.

In Hadiya&rsquo;s case, the Kerala High court annulled the love marriage and questioned her intention to embrace Islam. Supreme Court, however, did not touch the issue of annulment of marriage but relieved her from the designation of &lsquo;detenu&rsquo;. She was no more made &lsquo;bound to be in her parent&rsquo;s custody&rsquo; only.

In my earlier research*, I had observed that &ldquo;In Indian value system, love marriages against the wish of the family members or the elders of the community or society are considered an extreme form of revolt against the established family/ community or social norms. The social mindset has been so set also because of the historical past in India where local invaders from different tribes as well as non-Hindus including Muslims and Christians had from time to time invaded cities and destroyed the socio-economic and cultural structure of the existing societies.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The fear of sexual exploitation of unmarried young girls by foreign settlers, including Muslim and other colonial rulers was one of the key factors to restrict marriages within the sect.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The fear of sexual exploitation of unmarried young girls by foreign settlers, including Muslim and other colonial rulers was one of the key factors to restrict marriages within the sect." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The fear of sexual exploitation of unmarried young girls by foreign settlers, including Muslim and other colonial rulers and grabbing of the property in the name of forceful dominance, was one of the key factors for many Indian societies from different geo-locations to restrict marriages within the sect.&rdquo;

While this can be said to be the base of the mindset behind dragging the married daughters to the court to give a judicial stamp over the opinion of the parents, in my opinion, the courts should start approaching the inter-caste and inter-religious love marriages from Therapeutic Jurisprudential perspectives. The modern holistic concept of Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) was developed by Professors David Wexler and Bruce Winnick in 1980&rsquo;s. This jurisprudence speaks about law&rsquo;s healing power. It gives much emphasis on the mental well being of people and law and its agents&rsquo; role in the same. TJ practitioners and researchers explain that the judges, lawyers, police, social workers, including restorative justice practitioners are the agents of the law.

As may be seen in Hadiya&rsquo;s case, while Kerala High court showed its concern for conversion to &nbsp;radicalisation, the senior lawyers in Supreme Court reportedly requested the Supreme Court to understand that Hadiya is not a subject of POCSO Act, neither that of juvenile justice care and protection of children Act (which has extended its scope to cover juvenile offenders who may fall within the delicate age group of above 18 and under 21) and she may be matured enough to understand the consequences of her commitments.

As per news media report, Kerala has observed a sudden growth in radicalisation&nbsp;of terror organisations. Hence, the High Court very naturally turned its concern towards &lsquo;why&rsquo; and &lsquo;how&rsquo; &nbsp;the conversion took place. But the judicial process and dealing with the woman in question by the judges, the lawyers and the police probably made her lose confidence in law&rsquo;s welfare power.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It is the communication between the judges and the woman which was not therapeutic as per therapeutic jurisprudential ideology.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It is the communication between the judges and the woman which was not therapeutic as per therapeutic jurisprudential ideology." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

One particular portion of Kerala High Court attracts my attention here: Akhila @Hadiya was prohibited from using mobile phones while she was &lsquo;ordered&rsquo; to stay at a certain hostel and only parents were allowed to meet her. Maybe the High Court felt that through the Internet and digital communication technology she may be influenced or radicalised to have a deeper belief in destructive, misleading concepts. But then, look at the consequence: clearly, she got married in spite of the best efforts of the court and the parents.&nbsp;&nbsp;

What failed here? In my opinion, it is the communication between the judges and the woman which was not therapeutic as per therapeutic jurisprudential ideology. The latter part of the judgement rather showed the anger and frustration of the court over the woman&rsquo;s decision to marry in haste while the case was ongoing. Now, can the court stop an adult individual to get married to a person she has chosen? Probably not.

The court can at the most counsel the individual to be careful with her decision. Again, there is a difference between stopping an adult individual to get married and annulling a marriage due to a technical lacuna in the execution of the marriage.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Therapeutic jurisprudential approach whereby the court has considered the aspects of freedom of speech acquire information and right to privacy of the woman for her mental wellbeing.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Therapeutic jurisprudential approach whereby the court has considered the aspects of freedom of speech acquire information and right to privacy of the woman for her mental wellbeing." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Kerala High Court did not do the former. The Supreme Court did not look into the later. However, the Supreme Court in its interim order freed her from the &lsquo;preventive&rsquo; custody of her parents; &lsquo;preventive&rsquo; because she is now allowed to meet anyone and talk to anyone while completing her course in the college. This indeed is a therapeutic jurisprudential approach, whereby, the court has considered the aspects of freedom of speech acquire and right to privacy of the woman for her mental wellbeing.

However, the annulment of marriage would be a subject for Supreme Court after the consideration of NIA report. As such, Supreme Court still has avenues open for counselling Hadiya to take a matured decision in her life. Hadiya would not be legally punished for choosing a wrong man if in case the NIA report of her estranged husband indicates him as a threat to the security of the nation. But she would have undergone enough mental traumas for her choices in life because of family pressure, societal pressure and the wide media coverage which termed the whole episode as &lsquo;love jihad&#39;. The court may, therefore, turn its concern towards Hadiya as a victim of circumstances and not exclusively as that of &lsquo;love jihad&rsquo;.

We know that love is blind. We also know that forceful prevention of adults from falling into emotional commitments may have disastrous consequences, especially in this Internet age. She can be prevented from marrying and living forever with one Muslim man who may have the connection with banned organisations, but she may not be prevented from getting connected with groups of religious fanatics who may try to take revenge by influencing her broken heart. The court, therefore, should not neglect her as &lsquo;leftover&rsquo; party after deciding over the issue of annulment of the marriage.

* Titled &ldquo;Love Marriages, Inter-Caste Violence, and Therapeutic Jurisprudential Approach of the Courts in India&rdquo; (co-authored with professor K. Jaishankar, published in Halder D., &amp; Jaishankar K. (Eds.) (2017). &quot;Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Overcoming Violence against Women&quot;. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. ISBN: 978-1-5225-2472-4.)

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

In Indian value system, love marriages against the wish of the family members or the elders of the community or society are considered an extreme form of revolt against the established family/ community or social norms

The last week of November saw lots of emotions, shocks and surprises in the Supreme Court of India and among the news media and social media for a 24-year-old woman named Akhila Ashokan @ Hadiya. Hadiya is a budding Homeopath doctor, whom the Supreme Court had ‘helped’ to get back to Salem, Tamil Nadu for completing her course. The question is, why a Hindu adult woman who converted into Islam attracted so much attention from researchers, lawyers, social scientists and media? Is it because she first embraced Islam (allegedly) for her own interest in the religion, then did a ‘love marriage’ to a Muslim amidst ongoing court case for Habious – corpus which was filed by her parents, which was later annulled by the Kerala High Court within a few weeks of the marriage? Or because of the ‘Islamphobia’? or because of the Supreme Court’s decision to free her from parent’s custody to go to the college and ‘meet whomever she wants to meet’? Noticeably, her love affair (including marriage) was not the only love affair which was pulled to the court by the parents of adult women in India. Lata Singh, Babli Rani, Divya and Kaushalya were some of the prominent adult women who did love marriages during the period from 2000 to 2016 and were dragged to the courts mostly against their wishes by the parents and the circumstances. The failure of the High court to save an inter-caste love marriage between two adults sent a disastrous message to the society. × While in Lata and Babli’s case, the court respected the right to choose their husbands according to their own choice, in Divya’s case, the court failed to reunite the couple. Court had put emphasis on the allegation of ‘brainwashing’ of Divya by her ‘lover’ turned husband. Reluctant Divya returned to her mother, and the very next day the news media reported about the death of Ilavarasan, her husband. Reportedly, he committed suicide. The failure of the High court to save an inter-caste love marriage between two adults sent a disastrous message to the society which witnessed the gruesome murder of V. Shankar, a young Engineering graduate in broad daylight. He was murdered because he married Kaushalya, whose parents were vehemently against inter-caste love marriages. In Hadiya’s case, the Kerala High court annulled the love marriage and questioned her intention to embrace Islam. Supreme Court, however, did not touch the issue of annulment of marriage but relieved her from the designation of ‘detenu’. She was no more made ‘bound to be in her parent’s custody’ only. In my earlier research*, I had observed that “In Indian value system, love marriages against the wish of the family members or the elders of the community or society are considered an extreme form of revolt against the established family/ community or social norms. The social mindset has been so set also because of the historical past in India where local invaders from different tribes as well as non-Hindus including Muslims and Christians had from time to time invaded cities and destroyed the socio-economic and cultural structure of the existing societies. The fear of sexual exploitation of unmarried young girls by foreign settlers, including Muslim and other colonial rulers was one of the key factors to restrict marriages within the sect. × The fear of sexual exploitation of unmarried young girls by foreign settlers, including Muslim and other colonial rulers and grabbing of the property in the name of forceful dominance, was one of the key factors for many Indian societies from different geo-locations to restrict marriages within the sect.” While this can be said to be the base of the mindset behind dragging the married daughters to the court to give a judicial stamp over the opinion of the parents, in my opinion, the courts should start approaching the inter-caste and inter-religious love marriages from Therapeutic Jurisprudential perspectives. The modern holistic concept of Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) was developed by Professors David Wexler and Bruce Winnick in 1980’s. This jurisprudence speaks about law’s healing power. It gives much emphasis on the mental well being of people and law and its agents’ role in the same. TJ practitioners and researchers explain that the judges, lawyers, police, social workers, including restorative justice practitioners are the agents of the law. As may be seen in Hadiya’s case, while Kerala High court showed its concern for conversion to radicalisation, the senior lawyers in Supreme Court reportedly requested the Supreme Court to understand that Hadiya is not a subject of POCSO Act, neither that of juvenile justice care and protection of children Act (which has extended its scope to cover juvenile offenders who may fall within the delicate age group of above 18 and under 21) and she may be matured enough to understand the consequences of her commitments. As per news media report, Kerala has observed a sudden growth in radicalisation of terror organisations. Hence, the High Court very naturally turned its concern towards ‘why’ and ‘how’ the conversion took place. But the judicial process and dealing with the woman in question by the judges, the lawyers and the police probably made her lose confidence in law’s welfare power. It is the communication between the judges and the woman which was not therapeutic as per therapeutic jurisprudential ideology. × One particular portion of Kerala High Court attracts my attention here: Akhila @Hadiya was prohibited from using mobile phones while she was ‘ordered’ to stay at a certain hostel and only parents were allowed to meet her. Maybe the High Court felt that through the Internet and digital communication technology she may be influenced or radicalised to have a deeper belief in destructive, misleading concepts. But then, look at the consequence: clearly, she got married in spite of the best efforts of the court and the parents. What failed here? In my opinion, it is the communication between the judges and the woman which was not therapeutic as per therapeutic jurisprudential ideology. The latter part of the judgement rather showed the anger and frustration of the court over the woman’s decision to marry in haste while the case was ongoing. Now, can the court stop an adult individual to get married to a person she has chosen? Probably not. The court can at the most counsel the individual to be careful with her decision. Again, there is a difference between stopping an adult individual to get married and annulling a marriage due to a technical lacuna in the execution of the marriage. Therapeutic jurisprudential approach whereby the court has considered the aspects of freedom of speech acquire information and right to privacy of the woman for her mental wellbeing. × Kerala High Court did not do the former. The Supreme Court did not look into the later. However, the Supreme Court in its interim order freed her from the ‘preventive’ custody of her parents; ‘preventive’ because she is now allowed to meet anyone and talk to anyone while completing her course in the college. This indeed is a therapeutic jurisprudential approach, whereby, the court has considered the aspects of freedom of speech acquire and right to privacy of the woman for her mental wellbeing. However, the annulment of marriage would be a subject for Supreme Court after the consideration of NIA report. As such, Supreme Court still has avenues open for counselling Hadiya to take a matured decision in her life. Hadiya would not be legally punished for choosing a wrong man if in case the NIA report of her estranged husband indicates him as a threat to the security of the nation. But she would have undergone enough mental traumas for her choices in life because of family pressure, societal pressure and the wide media coverage which termed the whole episode as ‘love jihad'. The court may, therefore, turn its concern towards Hadiya as a victim of circumstances and not exclusively as that of ‘love jihad’. We know that love is blind. We also know that forceful prevention of adults from falling into emotional commitments may have disastrous consequences, especially in this Internet age. She can be prevented from marrying and living forever with one Muslim man who may have the connection with banned organisations, but she may not be prevented from getting connected with groups of religious fanatics who may try to take revenge by influencing her broken heart. The court, therefore, should not neglect her as ‘leftover’ party after deciding over the issue of annulment of the marriage. * Titled “Love Marriages, Inter-Caste Violence, and Therapeutic Jurisprudential Approach of the Courts in India” (co-authored with professor K. Jaishankar, published in Halder D., & Jaishankar K. (Eds.) (2017). "Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Overcoming Violence against Women". Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. ISBN: 978-1-5225-2472-4.) (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Love Jihad, Islamophobia or just love?

The Centre today informed the Supreme Court that it was willing to extend until March 31 next year the deadline fixed for mandatory linking of Aadhaar for availing various services and welfare schemes.

The Supreme Court now will be setting up a five-judge Constitution Bench next week to hear several pleas seeking an interim stay on the Centre&#39;s decision of mandatory linking of Aadhaar.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was informed by Attorney General KK Venugopal that the Centre was willing to extend the deadline of December 31 to March 31 next year for linking of Aadhaar with various services and schemes.

The Attorney General, however, made clear that February 6 next year would remain the deadline for linking Aadhaar for availing uninterrupted mobile services as it had been mandated by the apex court.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for those who are opposed to Aadhaar scheme told the bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, that the central government should give an undertaking that no coercive steps would be taken against those fail to link their Aadhaar with various services.

The apex court on October 30 had said that a Constitution Bench would commence hearing on the clutch of petitions against Aadhaar scheme from the last week of November.

Recently, a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court had held that Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Several petitioners challenging the validity of Aadhaar had claimed it violated privacy rights.

The Centre had on October 25 told the top court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to receive benefits of government schemes has been extended till March 31, 2018 for those who do not have the 12-digit unique biometric identification number and were willing to enrol for it.

The Attorney General had told the court that no coercive action would be taken against those who do not have the Aadhaar card but are willing to enrol for the biometric card. He had said such people would not be denied the benefits of social welfare schemes till March 31.

Some petitioners in the top court have termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as &quot;illegal and unconstitutional&quot;.

They had also objected to the CBSE&#39;s alleged move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for students appearing for examinations, a contention denied by the Centre.

One of the counsels representing the petitioners had earlier said that final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter, which is pending before the apex court, was necessary as the government &quot;cannot compel&quot; citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or cell phone numbers.

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the setting up of a Constitution Bench next week to hear petitions seeking a stay on the Centre's move to link Aadhaar with various schemes and services

The Centre today informed the Supreme Court that it was willing to extend until March 31 next year the deadline fixed for mandatory linking of Aadhaar for availing various services and welfare schemes. The Supreme Court now will be setting up a five-judge Constitution Bench next week to hear several pleas seeking an interim stay on the Centre's decision of mandatory linking of Aadhaar. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was informed by Attorney General KK Venugopal that the Centre was willing to extend the deadline of December 31 to March 31 next year for linking of Aadhaar with various services and schemes. The Attorney General, however, made clear that February 6 next year would remain the deadline for linking Aadhaar for availing uninterrupted mobile services as it had been mandated by the apex court. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for those who are opposed to Aadhaar scheme told the bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, that the central government should give an undertaking that no coercive steps would be taken against those fail to link their Aadhaar with various services. The apex court on October 30 had said that a Constitution Bench would commence hearing on the clutch of petitions against Aadhaar scheme from the last week of November. Recently, a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court had held that Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Several petitioners challenging the validity of Aadhaar had claimed it violated privacy rights. The Centre had on October 25 told the top court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to receive benefits of government schemes has been extended till March 31, 2018 for those who do not have the 12-digit unique biometric identification number and were willing to enrol for it. The Attorney General had told the court that no coercive action would be taken against those who do not have the Aadhaar card but are willing to enrol for the biometric card. He had said such people would not be denied the benefits of social welfare schemes till March 31. Some petitioners in the top court have termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as "illegal and unconstitutional". They had also objected to the CBSE's alleged move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for students appearing for examinations, a contention denied by the Centre. One of the counsels representing the petitioners had earlier said that final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter, which is pending before the apex court, was necessary as the government "cannot compel" citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or cell phone numbers.

Ready to extend Aadhaar linking deadline to March 31, 2018: Centre to Supreme Court

The Supreme court has fixed the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799" target="_blank"> Ayodhya dispute matter</a> for further hearing on February 8, 2018.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/a-wion-perspective-ayodhyas-temple-of-harmony-7163" target="_blank">Ayodhya Babri Masjid case</a> has asked the Supreme Court&nbsp;to take up the matter on July 15, 2019 once all the pleadings are complete.&nbsp; &nbsp;

He told the Supreme Court that serious repercussions will be created outside the court, whenever the matter is heard. To preserve the decorum of law and order, the court should conduct the proceedings after all pleadings are complete.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya Dispute: Kapil Sibal told SC that whenever this matter is heard,there are serious repercussions outside court and to preserve the decorum of law and order,and that he personally requests court to take this matter up on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937976294670663680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 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>

Earlier during the proceeding in the Supreme Court, Sibal read out the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants in the Allahabad High Court.&nbsp;

He told the three-judge bench in the Supreme Court that all the pleadings were not complete.&nbsp;

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta who is representing the State of Uttar Pradesh negated the arguments presented by Kapil Sibal. He told the Supreme Court that all the related documents and requisite translation copies are on record.

Raising doubts over ASG Mehta, Sibal questioned how come more than 19,000 pages of documents can be filed in such short time.&nbsp;

Sibal told the Supreme Court that he and other petitioners have not been served relevant documents of pleadings.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the petitioners who had filed their pleadings in Allahabad High Court, have asked the Supreme Court for a reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya dispute: Petitioners are pleading in SC for reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents, which were filed before the Allahabad High Court bench at Lucknow.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937983384004861952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Good news is that the Supreme Court has taken the formula proposed by us on record: Wasim Rizvi,Shia Waqf Board Chairman on Ayodhya hearing <a href="https://t.co/tSVdBti2a3">pic.twitter.com/tSVdBti2a3</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937984538873012225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 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>

Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels have also demanded for a larger bench of judges. They have demanded a bench of at least seven judges.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya dispute: Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels want a larger bench of atleast 7 Judges to hear this matter.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937987471597379584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 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>

(With inputs from ANI)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in?Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has asked the Supreme Court?to take up the matter on July 15, next year,?once all the pleadings are complete.

The Supreme court has fixed the Ayodhya dispute matter for further hearing on February 8, 2018. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has asked the Supreme Court to take up the matter on July 15, 2019 once all the pleadings are complete. He told the Supreme Court that serious repercussions will be created outside the court, whenever the matter is heard. To preserve the decorum of law and order, the court should conduct the proceedings after all pleadings are complete. Ayodhya Dispute: Kapil Sibal told SC that whenever this matter is heard,there are serious repercussions outside court and to preserve the decorum of law and order,and that he personally requests court to take this matter up on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Earlier during the proceeding in the Supreme Court, Sibal read out the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants in the Allahabad High Court. He told the three-judge bench in the Supreme Court that all the pleadings were not complete. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta who is representing the State of Uttar Pradesh negated the arguments presented by Kapil Sibal. He told the Supreme Court that all the related documents and requisite translation copies are on record. Raising doubts over ASG Mehta, Sibal questioned how come more than 19,000 pages of documents can be filed in such short time. Sibal told the Supreme Court that he and other petitioners have not been served relevant documents of pleadings. Meanwhile, the petitioners who had filed their pleadings in Allahabad High Court, have asked the Supreme Court for a reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents. Ayodhya dispute: Petitioners are pleading in SC for reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents, which were filed before the Allahabad High Court bench at Lucknow. — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Good news is that the Supreme Court has taken the formula proposed by us on record: Wasim Rizvi,Shia Waqf Board Chairman on Ayodhya hearing pic.twitter.com/tSVdBti2a3 — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels have also demanded for a larger bench of judges. They have demanded a bench of at least seven judges. Ayodhya dispute: Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels want a larger bench of atleast 7 Judges to hear this matter. — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court defers case to February next year

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the Constitution Day celebration, emphasised the need for the government and judiciary to be on the same page for realising the dream of a &#39;New India&#39;, and doubted whether they are working in unison. Though Modi spoke in a placid manner, his Minister of Law and Justice Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad was harsher while reminding the judiciary that law-making must be left in the realm of those elected to make the law and judiciary should not behave like a super-legislature.

He also mockingly reminded that independence of the judiciary is &lsquo;important&rsquo; but judicial accountability probity and propriety are too indispensable. The message was a patent that this government like any other authoritative government wants a committed judiciary i.e. a judiciary committed to the policies of the government.

The idea and substance of a committed judiciary were practised in the United States. It is well known that Chief Justice John Marshall imposed upon his colleagues the practice of delivering only unanimous opinions in order to secure the fledgling authority of the Supreme Court.

President Thomas Jefferson&rsquo;s objections to this development and his initiatives against this practice, including the appointments of justices of his own choice are equally well documented. Jefferson&rsquo;s appointment of William Johnson as Associate Justice and his subsequent stream of advice to him on breaking Chief Justice Marshall&rsquo;s hold on the court displays his aspiration of having committed judges.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>When the nation&rsquo;s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When the nation?s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The Indian Supreme Court could not remain aloof to this idea of the committed judiciary. Since inception, the government attempted to confine the role of judges. Once Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru while discussing the role of judges expressed his view in following words: &ldquo;If we go wrong here and there, it can be pointed out but in the ultimate analysis no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the entire community. A judge can correct the wrong here and there; they cannot arrogate to themselves the position of the super house of a parliament.&rdquo;

The craving of having a committed judiciary got more prominence with Indira Gandhi when her election was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and some of her political decisions were challenged in cases like Privy Purse case and Bank Nationalisation Case.

When the nation&rsquo;s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of Constitution and justice, they were superseded. Many judges of the High Court who did not toe the line with the government were transferred. Attempts were made to install &lsquo;committed&rsquo; judges in the Supreme Court.

These installed committed judges tried to protect the interest of the government and when they could not, they penned down dissenting opinions to prove his loyalty. An attempt was also made by the committed Chief Justice of India to overrule the &lsquo;basic structure doctrine&rsquo; by creating a bunch of committed and like-minded judges but fortunately could not succeed.

Mrs Gandhi vindicated her claim for &lsquo;commitment&rsquo; by referring President Roosevelt of the United States of America has appointed judges who were committed to his programmes.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The behaviour of the Judge is the fortress for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory.

They are required to &lsquo;uphold the constitution and the laws&rsquo;, &lsquo;without fear&rsquo; and favour. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government, the &lsquo;independence of judiciary&rsquo; and the &lsquo;system of checks and balances&rsquo; which are essential features of the constitution will be in peril and constitutional democracy will be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority.

It will also destroy the federal fabric, another basic structure of the constitution. It will create distrust among the federal Union. There are so many disputes between the States and they would not have trust in the Central Government because they might sense that the Centre would favour those States where their own political party is in power.

But they would have faith in the judiciary which is equipped with jurisdiction to solve these disputes and preserve the federal identity of the constitution. The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the Constitution Day celebration, emphasised the need for the government and judiciary to be on the same page for realising the dream of a 'New India', and doubted whether they are working in unison. Though Modi spoke in a placid manner, his Minister of Law and Justice Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad was harsher while reminding the judiciary that law-making must be left in the realm of those elected to make the law and judiciary should not behave like a super-legislature. He also mockingly reminded that independence of the judiciary is ‘important’ but judicial accountability probity and propriety are too indispensable. The message was a patent that this government like any other authoritative government wants a committed judiciary i.e. a judiciary committed to the policies of the government. The idea and substance of a committed judiciary were practised in the United States. It is well known that Chief Justice John Marshall imposed upon his colleagues the practice of delivering only unanimous opinions in order to secure the fledgling authority of the Supreme Court. President Thomas Jefferson’s objections to this development and his initiatives against this practice, including the appointments of justices of his own choice are equally well documented. Jefferson’s appointment of William Johnson as Associate Justice and his subsequent stream of advice to him on breaking Chief Justice Marshall’s hold on the court displays his aspiration of having committed judges. When the nation’s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded. × The Indian Supreme Court could not remain aloof to this idea of the committed judiciary. Since inception, the government attempted to confine the role of judges. Once Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru while discussing the role of judges expressed his view in following words: “If we go wrong here and there, it can be pointed out but in the ultimate analysis no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the entire community. A judge can correct the wrong here and there; they cannot arrogate to themselves the position of the super house of a parliament.” The craving of having a committed judiciary got more prominence with Indira Gandhi when her election was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and some of her political decisions were challenged in cases like Privy Purse case and Bank Nationalisation Case. When the nation’s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of Constitution and justice, they were superseded. Many judges of the High Court who did not toe the line with the government were transferred. Attempts were made to install ‘committed’ judges in the Supreme Court. These installed committed judges tried to protect the interest of the government and when they could not, they penned down dissenting opinions to prove his loyalty. An attempt was also made by the committed Chief Justice of India to overrule the ‘basic structure doctrine’ by creating a bunch of committed and like-minded judges but fortunately could not succeed. Mrs Gandhi vindicated her claim for ‘commitment’ by referring President Roosevelt of the United States of America has appointed judges who were committed to his programmes. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory. × The behaviour of the Judge is the fortress for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory. They are required to ‘uphold the constitution and the laws’, ‘without fear’ and favour. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government, the ‘independence of judiciary’ and the ‘system of checks and balances’ which are essential features of the constitution will be in peril and constitutional democracy will be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority. It will also destroy the federal fabric, another basic structure of the constitution. It will create distrust among the federal Union. There are so many disputes between the States and they would not have trust in the Central Government because they might sense that the Centre would favour those States where their own political party is in power. But they would have faith in the judiciary which is equipped with jurisdiction to solve these disputes and preserve the federal identity of the constitution. The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Why judiciary can't be committed to the government

Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Austria from 2019, the country&#39;s supreme court ruled on Tuesday and said a law to the contrary violated the principle of non-discrimination.&nbsp;

The move brings Austria into line with many other European nations including Germany, France, Britain, and Spain.

It also comes at a time when stories of sexual harassment under the #MeToo hashtag have flooded social media, sparking a rethink of attitudes towards sexual discrimination.&nbsp;

&quot;Today is a truly historic day,&quot; said lawyer Helmut Graupner, who represented the two female plaintiffs in court.&nbsp;

&quot;Austria is the first European country to recognize marriage equality for same-gender couples as a fundamental human right. All the other European states with marriage equality introduced it (just) the political way,&quot; he said in a Facebook post.&nbsp;

Austria&#39;s constitutional court examined a 2009 law that allows registered partnerships for same-sex couples but prevents them from getting married. It acted at the request of two women who were rejected by two lower authorities.

The distinction between marriage and registered partnership can no longer be upheld without discriminating against same-sex couples, the court said in a statement.&nbsp;

&quot;The resulting discriminatory effect is seen in the fact that ... people living in same-sex partnerships have to disclose their sexual orientation even in situations, in which it is not and must not be relevant, and ... are highly likely to be discriminated against,&quot; the court said in its ruling.&nbsp;

The conservative People&#39;s Party (OVP), whose leader Sebastian Kurz is expected to be sworn in as chancellor next month, said it will accept the ruling.

The far-right Freedom Party (FPO), Kurz&#39;s chosen government coalition partner criticised the ruling.

&quot;Now there is equal treatment for something that&#39;s not equal,&quot; said Herbert Kickl, FPO General Secretary, in a statement. A marriage between women and men needs protection as only these partnerships can create children, he said.

The OVP and the FPO voted against same-sex marriage in parliament a few months ago.&nbsp;

The court decision comes days after French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a plan to curb violence against women and weeks after Scotland apologized to gay men for historical convictions.

The Homosexual Initiative Vienna (HOSI) welcomed the court&#39;s decision. &quot;We are very happy,&quot; said HOSI chairman Christian Hoegl. &quot;We want to use the opportunity for a renewed call for a fundamental reform of marriage.&quot;

Same-sex marriage is legal in 25 countries. Australia aims to pass a law to this effect early next month after 62 per cent of voters favoured marriage equality in a national survey.&nbsp;

In Germany, women and men are allowed to wed to a same-sex partner since October. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.

The move brings Austria into line with many other European nations including Germany, France, Britain, and Spain

Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in Austria from 2019, the country's supreme court ruled on Tuesday and said a law to the contrary violated the principle of non-discrimination. The move brings Austria into line with many other European nations including Germany, France, Britain, and Spain. It also comes at a time when stories of sexual harassment under the #MeToo hashtag have flooded social media, sparking a rethink of attitudes towards sexual discrimination. "Today is a truly historic day," said lawyer Helmut Graupner, who represented the two female plaintiffs in court. "Austria is the first European country to recognize marriage equality for same-gender couples as a fundamental human right. All the other European states with marriage equality introduced it (just) the political way," he said in a Facebook post. Austria's constitutional court examined a 2009 law that allows registered partnerships for same-sex couples but prevents them from getting married. It acted at the request of two women who were rejected by two lower authorities. The distinction between marriage and registered partnership can no longer be upheld without discriminating against same-sex couples, the court said in a statement. "The resulting discriminatory effect is seen in the fact that ... people living in same-sex partnerships have to disclose their sexual orientation even in situations, in which it is not and must not be relevant, and ... are highly likely to be discriminated against," the court said in its ruling. The conservative People's Party (OVP), whose leader Sebastian Kurz is expected to be sworn in as chancellor next month, said it will accept the ruling. The far-right Freedom Party (FPO), Kurz's chosen government coalition partner criticised the ruling. "Now there is equal treatment for something that's not equal," said Herbert Kickl, FPO General Secretary, in a statement. A marriage between women and men needs protection as only these partnerships can create children, he said. The OVP and the FPO voted against same-sex marriage in parliament a few months ago. The court decision comes days after French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a plan to curb violence against women and weeks after Scotland apologized to gay men for historical convictions. The Homosexual Initiative Vienna (HOSI) welcomed the court's decision. "We are very happy," said HOSI chairman Christian Hoegl. "We want to use the opportunity for a renewed call for a fundamental reform of marriage." Same-sex marriage is legal in 25 countries. Australia aims to pass a law to this effect early next month after 62 per cent of voters favoured marriage equality in a national survey. In Germany, women and men are allowed to wed to a same-sex partner since October. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.

Austria's Supreme Court paves way for same-sex marriage

BJP President Amit Shah has asked&nbsp;Congress to clear their stand on temple issue after&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-next-hearing-in-supreme-court-in-february-2018-25932" target="_blank">Kapil Sibal asked for a delay in Ramjanambhoomi case</a>.&nbsp;

He said at a point when Rahul&nbsp;Gandhi is visiting temples in Gujarat, Kapil Sibal is asking for a delay in Ram Janambhoomi case.&nbsp;

He said, &quot; Today a surprising stand was taken in Supreme Court by Congress leader and Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Kapil Sibal Ji, he said hearing should be deferred till&nbsp;2019 LS polls. Congress should clear its stand on this.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Rahul Ji should tell us what is his view on this.&quot;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rahul ji is visiting temples in Gujarat but on the other hand Kapil Sibal is being used to delay Ram janmbhoomi case. Rahul ji should tell us what his view on this is: Amit Shah <a href="https://t.co/dDwuV1YfXl">pic.twitter.com/dDwuV1YfXl</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938020019715186688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 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>

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/a-wion-perspective-ayodhyas-temple-of-harmony-7163" target="_blank">Ayodhya Babri Masjid case</a>&nbsp;has asked the Supreme Court&nbsp;to take up the matter on July 15, 2019 once all the pleadings are complete.&nbsp; &nbsp;

He told the Supreme Court that serious repercussions will be created outside the court, whenever the matter is heard. To preserve the decorum of law and order, the court should conduct the proceedings after all pleadings are complete.&nbsp;

BJP President Amit Shah has asked?Congress to clear his stand on temple issue after?Kapil Sibal asked for a delay in Ramjanambhoomi case

BJP President Amit Shah has asked Congress to clear their stand on temple issue after Kapil Sibal asked for a delay in Ramjanambhoomi case. He said at a point when Rahul Gandhi is visiting temples in Gujarat, Kapil Sibal is asking for a delay in Ram Janambhoomi case. He said, " Today a surprising stand was taken in Supreme Court by Congress leader and Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Kapil Sibal Ji, he said hearing should be deferred till 2019 LS polls. Congress should clear its stand on this." "Rahul Ji should tell us what is his view on this." Rahul ji is visiting temples in Gujarat but on the other hand Kapil Sibal is being used to delay Ram janmbhoomi case. Rahul ji should tell us what his view on this is: Amit Shah pic.twitter.com/dDwuV1YfXl — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has asked the Supreme Court to take up the matter on July 15, 2019 once all the pleadings are complete. He told the Supreme Court that serious repercussions will be created outside the court, whenever the matter is heard. To preserve the decorum of law and order, the court should conduct the proceedings after all pleadings are complete.

Clear your stand on temple issue: Amit Shah to Rahul Gandhi

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday (December 5) begin final hearing in centuries old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri mosque land dispute case.

The dispute started shortly after the construction of the mosque in 16th century. The Hindus believe the place where mosque was constructed is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Muslims refuse to accept this claim.

The first suit was filed in 1885 by Hindus seeking permission to build a Ram temple near Babri mosque. The petition was dismissed. Since then, the case has seen several twists and turns, and its share of politics and has managed to polarise the opinions.

Here is a timeline of the case:

1949: Idols of Lord Ram&nbsp;placed inside the Babri mosque, leading to clashes. The site is declared disputed by the government and gates locked.&nbsp;

1986: Orders from district court are given to open the gates of the mosque. Babri Masjid Action Committee, one of the party to the case, is formed.

1989: Vishwa Hindu Parishad decides to build foundations of Ram temple in the land adjacent to the mosque. Four suits are filed.

1990: BJP leader LK Advani begins a &#39;rath yatra&#39; from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh to build momentum for building Ram temple near Babri mosque.

1991: UP government acquires land around the disputed structure for devotees who want to visit the site for Ram Lalla&rsquo;s darshan.

December 6, 1992: Babri mosque demolished by karsevaks (volunteers), leading to one of the deadliest riots, killing 2,000 people. Two FIRs filed - one against unknown karsevaks and the other against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others.

October, 1993: CBI files chargesheet accusing Advani and others of conspiracy in mosque demolition.

May, 2001: Special CBI court drops proceedings against Advani, Uma Bharti and other leaders.

2003: Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reveals that a temple existed before the mosque was built.

2009: Liberhan commission appointed to formulate a report to investigate the incidents following the demolition. The report claims that BJP leaders were responsible for demolition of the mosque.

May, 2010: Advani and others absolved of conspiracy charges.

September, 2010: Allahabad High Court directs trifurcation of land -&nbsp;two-third&nbsp;is given to Hindu parties and one-third to Waqf Bord. They move&nbsp;the Supreme Court, challenging the order.

2011: The challenge is rejected, Supreme Court orders status quo to be maintained.

April, 2017: Supreme Court revives cospiracy charges against BJP leaders LK Advani,&nbsp;Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others.

May, 2017: LK Advani, Joshi, MM Bharti, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the mosque demolition case.

August, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals on December 5, 2017, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday (December 5) begin final hearings in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri mosque land dispute case

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday (December 5) begin final hearing in centuries old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri mosque land dispute case. The dispute started shortly after the construction of the mosque in 16th century. The Hindus believe the place where mosque was constructed is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Muslims refuse to accept this claim. The first suit was filed in 1885 by Hindus seeking permission to build a Ram temple near Babri mosque. The petition was dismissed. Since then, the case has seen several twists and turns, and its share of politics and has managed to polarise the opinions. Here is a timeline of the case: 1949: Idols of Lord Ram placed inside the Babri mosque, leading to clashes. The site is declared disputed by the government and gates locked. 1986: Orders from district court are given to open the gates of the mosque. Babri Masjid Action Committee, one of the party to the case, is formed. 1989: Vishwa Hindu Parishad decides to build foundations of Ram temple in the land adjacent to the mosque. Four suits are filed. 1990: BJP leader LK Advani begins a 'rath yatra' from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh to build momentum for building Ram temple near Babri mosque. 1991: UP government acquires land around the disputed structure for devotees who want to visit the site for Ram Lalla’s darshan. December 6, 1992: Babri mosque demolished by karsevaks (volunteers), leading to one of the deadliest riots, killing 2,000 people. Two FIRs filed - one against unknown karsevaks and the other against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others. October, 1993: CBI files chargesheet accusing Advani and others of conspiracy in mosque demolition. May, 2001: Special CBI court drops proceedings against Advani, Uma Bharti and other leaders. 2003: Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reveals that a temple existed before the mosque was built. 2009: Liberhan commission appointed to formulate a report to investigate the incidents following the demolition. The report claims that BJP leaders were responsible for demolition of the mosque. May, 2010: Advani and others absolved of conspiracy charges. September, 2010: Allahabad High Court directs trifurcation of land - two-third is given to Hindu parties and one-third to Waqf Bord. They move the Supreme Court, challenging the order. 2011: The challenge is rejected, Supreme Court orders status quo to be maintained. April, 2017: Supreme Court revives cospiracy charges against BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others. May, 2017: LK Advani, Joshi, MM Bharti, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the mosque demolition case. August, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals on December 5, 2017, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition.

Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute: A timeline

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-next-hearing-in-supreme-court-in-february-2018-25932" target="_blank">Ayodhya case: Supreme Court defers case to February next year</a>

The Supreme court has fixed the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799" target="_blank">&nbsp;Ayodhya dispute matter</a>&nbsp;for further hearing on February 8, 2018.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-evidence-to-link-mallya-to-fraud-charge-says-his-lawyer-in-uk-court-25947" target="_blank">No evidence to link Mallya to fraud charge, says his lawyer in UK court</a>

Mallya&rsquo;s defence lawyer&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/repeatedly-said-charges-against-me-fabricated-and-baseless-mallya-25834">Clare Montgomery today told the Westminster Magistrates&nbsp;</a>Court that there was no evidence against the liquor baron to extradite him to India The UK court is hearing a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/vijay-mallya-arrested-in-london-appears-in-court-granted-bail-20957">case related to money laundering&nbsp;</a>and fraud with Mallya owing several Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crores.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-rohingya-petition-on-january-31-25945" target="_blank">Supreme Court to hear Rohingya petition on January 31</a>

The Supreme Court has scheduled the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-rohingya-refugees-pil-challenging-deportation-22374" target="_blank">&nbsp;hearing for Rohingya refugees deportation&nbsp;</a>on January 31. The apex court has posted all petitions relating to the deportation of Muslim Rohingya refugees for a detailed hearing in January.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/al-qaedas-top-leader-killed-in-us-afghan-joint-op-25926" target="_blank">Top al Qaeda leader Omar </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/al-qaedas-top-leader-killed-in-us-afghan-joint-op-25926" target="_blank">Mansoon</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/al-qaedas-top-leader-killed-in-us-afghan-joint-op-25926" target="_blank"> killed in US-Afghan joint operation</a>

Al Qaeda&nbsp;leader, as well as over 80 other militants, have been killed in a joint operation by Afghan and US officials in Afghanistan, reports say. The leader, Omar Khetab, famously known as&nbsp;Omar Mansoon was gunned down during the attack, Afghan&#39;s Intelligence agency National Directorate of Security (NDS) was reported saying.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/bus-bomb-kills-eight-passengers-in-syrias-homs-city-state-media-25940" target="_blank">Bus bomb kills eight passengers in Syria&#39;s Homs city: Report</a>

A bomb blast in the Syrian city of Homs killed eight people and injured around 16 in a bus on Tuesday, media reports said.&nbsp;The blast took place near al-Baath university, in the streets of &nbsp;Akrama neighbourhood - home to members of the Alawite minority to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court defers case to February next year The Supreme court has fixed the Ayodhya dispute matter for further hearing on February 8, 2018. No evidence to link Mallya to fraud charge, says his lawyer in UK court Mallya’s defence lawyer Clare Montgomery today told the Westminster Magistrates Court that there was no evidence against the liquor baron to extradite him to India The UK court is hearing a case related to money laundering and fraud with Mallya owing several Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crores. Supreme Court to hear Rohingya petition on January 31 The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for Rohingya refugees deportation on January 31. The apex court has posted all petitions relating to the deportation of Muslim Rohingya refugees for a detailed hearing in January. Top al Qaeda leader Omar Mansoon killed in US-Afghan joint operation Al Qaeda leader, as well as over 80 other militants, have been killed in a joint operation by Afghan and US officials in Afghanistan, reports say. The leader, Omar Khetab, famously known as Omar Mansoon was gunned down during the attack, Afghan's Intelligence agency National Directorate of Security (NDS) was reported saying. Bus bomb kills eight passengers in Syria's Homs city: Report A bomb blast in the Syrian city of Homs killed eight people and injured around 16 in a bus on Tuesday, media reports said. The blast took place near al-Baath university, in the streets of Akrama neighbourhood - home to members of the Alawite minority to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.

WION Evening News Brief, December 5, 2017

In a sigh of relief for people, the government may soon extend the deadline to link Aadhaar with the Permanent&nbsp;Acccount Number (PAN) card by nearly six months, a leading daily reported.

The Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions against making the linking of the biometric identifier&nbsp;with&nbsp;bank accounts and mobile phone numbers mandatory, will pronounce its judgement today. If the top court&nbsp;court upholds&nbsp;the decision, the government will provide three to six months&nbsp;to all taxpayers to complete the process, extending the earlier deadline of December 31, 2017.

Although the new deadline has not been out, it is being&nbsp;speculated that the new window for the linkage will be valid till March 31, 2018.

The exercise aimed at eliminating the duplicate PANs and making all benami&nbsp;(in the name of another person) transactions void was criticised by citizens and several opposition parties on the ground that it was intruding into a person&#39;s fundamental right to privacy.

This would be the second time when the government will extend the deadline, as previously in August, the government announced a four-month grace period ending this December.

As per received data, out of 33 crore Aadhaar card holders, only 13.28 crore people have linked their pan with the 12-digit unique identification (UID) number till November 2017.

Although the new deadline has not been declared, it is been speculated that the new window for the linkage will be valid until March 31, 2018

In a sigh of relief for people, the government may soon extend the deadline to link Aadhaar with the Permanent Acccount Number (PAN) card by nearly six months, a leading daily reported. The Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions against making the linking of the biometric identifier with bank accounts and mobile phone numbers mandatory, will pronounce its judgement today. If the top court court upholds the decision, the government will provide three to six months to all taxpayers to complete the process, extending the earlier deadline of December 31, 2017. Although the new deadline has not been out, it is being speculated that the new window for the linkage will be valid till March 31, 2018. The exercise aimed at eliminating the duplicate PANs and making all benami (in the name of another person) transactions void was criticised by citizens and several opposition parties on the ground that it was intruding into a person's fundamental right to privacy. This would be the second time when the government will extend the deadline, as previously in August, the government announced a four-month grace period ending this December. As per received data, out of 33 crore Aadhaar card holders, only 13.28 crore people have linked their pan with the 12-digit unique identification (UID) number till November 2017.

Deadline to link Aadhaar with PAN card may be extended again

Hadiya, a Kerala woman at the centre of an alleged love-jihad case after converting to Islam, has said that she wants freedom to meet her husband. 
&nbsp; 
&quot;I have sought permission from the college authorities to meet my husband. I hope they will allow,&quot; she told reporters on Tuesday at the Sivaraj Homeopathy Medical College in Salem where she will undergo an internship for 11 months.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I asked for freedom from court. I wanted to meet my husband but the fact is that I&rsquo;m not free till now and that&rsquo;s the truth: Hadiya <a href="https://t.co/hdYXdAFkAn">pic.twitter.com/hdYXdAFkAn</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/935736838974734336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I am demanding basic rights that every Indian citizen has. It has nothing to do with politics or caste. All I want is to talk to people I like: Hadiya <a href="https://t.co/8ZiYeaoubQ">pic.twitter.com/8ZiYeaoubQ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/935736511244505090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 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>

Hadiya reached the college after the Supreme Court freed her from her father&#39;s custody and ordered her institution to allow her to continue her education 
&nbsp; 
She was brought to the medical college amid tight security by Kerala police from Coimbatore, about 170 kms from Salem. 
&nbsp; 
Hadiya will pursue her homeopathy studies under her previous Hindu name, the Salem medical college principal said. 
&nbsp; 
A Hindu by birth and named as Akhila Ashokan, she converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim. 
&nbsp; 
Hadiya&#39;s father K M Ashokan had opposed her marriage alleging she is being brainwashed by Shafin who wants to recruit her for terror. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is probing the case. 
&nbsp; 
Ashokan said Hadiya wanted to go to Syria after converting to Islam. &quot;Hadiya does not have any idea about Syria, where she wanted to go after converting to Islam,&quot; he said, adding, &quot;I cannot have a terrorist in the family.&quot; 
&nbsp; 
Hadiya was in the custody of her parents for almost six months after the Kerala High Court had on May 29 anulled her &quot;nikah&quot;&nbsp;with Shafin Jahan, terming it as an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;, following which the man approached the apex court.

'I wanted to meet my husband but the fact is that I?m not free till now and that?s the truth,' Hadiya said

Hadiya, a Kerala woman at the centre of an alleged love-jihad case after converting to Islam, has said that she wants freedom to meet her husband. "I have sought permission from the college authorities to meet my husband. I hope they will allow," she told reporters on Tuesday at the Sivaraj Homeopathy Medical College in Salem where she will undergo an internship for 11 months. I asked for freedom from court. I wanted to meet my husband but the fact is that I’m not free till now and that’s the truth: Hadiya pic.twitter.com/hdYXdAFkAn — ANI (@ANI) November 29, 2017 × I am demanding basic rights that every Indian citizen has. It has nothing to do with politics or caste. All I want is to talk to people I like: Hadiya pic.twitter.com/8ZiYeaoubQ — ANI (@ANI) November 29, 2017 × Hadiya reached the college after the Supreme Court freed her from her father's custody and ordered her institution to allow her to continue her education She was brought to the medical college amid tight security by Kerala police from Coimbatore, about 170 kms from Salem. Hadiya will pursue her homeopathy studies under her previous Hindu name, the Salem medical college principal said. A Hindu by birth and named as Akhila Ashokan, she converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim. Hadiya's father K M Ashokan had opposed her marriage alleging she is being brainwashed by Shafin who wants to recruit her for terror. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is probing the case. Ashokan said Hadiya wanted to go to Syria after converting to Islam. "Hadiya does not have any idea about Syria, where she wanted to go after converting to Islam," he said, adding, "I cannot have a terrorist in the family." Hadiya was in the custody of her parents for almost six months after the Kerala High Court had on May 29 anulled her "nikah" with Shafin Jahan, terming it as an instance of 'love jihad', following which the man approached the apex court.

Hadiya, back in college, has only one wish -- to meet husband

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition Tuesday filed by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a stay on the movie Padmavati.

While dismissing the petition, the court took serious note of statements made about the movie by persons holding high office.

The court said that was tantamount to pre-judging the movie.&nbsp;

The court added that the statements were violative of the principle of &quot;rule of law&quot;&nbsp;since the Censor Board was yet to certify the movie.&nbsp;

The plea by Sharma, news reports said, had sought direction from the court that the makers of the movie not release it outside India.&nbsp;

Sharma had alleged that grave damage would be done to social harmony if the movie were to be released outside India.

The reports added that Sharma had sought&nbsp;criminal prosecution of the movie&#39;s makers for misrepresenting facts.

Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-film-industry-plans-blackout-in-support-of-padmavati-6958">Indian film Industry plans blackout in support of Padmavati</a>

There have been earlier petitions against the movie&#39;s release too, all of which have been dismissed by the Supreme Court.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The court has said it cannot interfere in what is the CBFC&#39;s work.&nbsp;

Various fringe groups led by the Rajput Karni Sena, and states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/violent-threats-not-acceptable-in-democracy-venkaiah-naidu-on-padmavati-row-25098">have protested against the film&#39;s release</a> alleging that it distorts historical facts.

Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/rajasthan-body-found-hanging-at-nahargarh-fort-in-jaipur-threat-note-on-rocks-also-seen-6922">Rajasthan: Body found hanging at Nahargarh Fort in Jaipur, threat note on rocks also seen</a>

Viacom 18, the movie&#39;s makers, had earlier said they have &quot;voluntarily deferred&quot;&nbsp;the movie&#39;s release originally scheduled for December 1.

The court said the statements were tantamount to pre-judging the movie

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition Tuesday filed by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a stay on the movie Padmavati. While dismissing the petition, the court took serious note of statements made about the movie by persons holding high office. The court said that was tantamount to pre-judging the movie. The court added that the statements were violative of the principle of "rule of law" since the Censor Board was yet to certify the movie. The plea by Sharma, news reports said, had sought direction from the court that the makers of the movie not release it outside India. Sharma had alleged that grave damage would be done to social harmony if the movie were to be released outside India. The reports added that Sharma had sought criminal prosecution of the movie's makers for misrepresenting facts. Also watch: Indian film Industry plans blackout in support of Padmavati There have been earlier petitions against the movie's release too, all of which have been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court has said it cannot interfere in what is the CBFC's work. Various fringe groups led by the Rajput Karni Sena, and states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have protested against the film's release alleging that it distorts historical facts. Also watch: Rajasthan: Body found hanging at Nahargarh Fort in Jaipur, threat note on rocks also seen Viacom 18, the movie's makers, had earlier said they have "voluntarily deferred" the movie's release originally scheduled for December 1.

Supreme Court dismisses petition against 'Padmavati', takes serious note of statements by people in high office

A Bangladesh court on Monday upheld death sentences for 139 soldiers over the massacre of 74 people including 57 senior army officers during a 2009 mutiny, the attorney general said.

&quot;The verdict has upheld the death sentence for 139 people,&quot; Attorney General Mahbubey Alam told reporters after the High Court handed down its judgment in Dhaka.

&quot;Nowhere in the world did anything happen like the way those 57 top army officers were killed,&quot; Alam said.

The sentences will be appealed again to the Supreme Court, which by law has the final say in all capital punishment cases.

In 2013 a court sentenced 152 soldiers to death for the grisly killings in which dozens of officers were shot, hacked to death or burnt alive before being dumped in sewers or shallow graves.

One of those handed the death penalty died in custody, eight others had sentences commuted to life imprisonment and four were acquitted, Alam said.

The sentences were condemned at the time by the UN rights chief, who expressed alarm at such a heavy punishment meted out in a mass trial.

The mutineers stole thousands of weapons in February 2009 before going on a two-day killing spree at a barracks.

Bangladesh has a history of military coups and the massacre threatened the newly-elected government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, which responded by arresting thousands of suspects.

The sentences will be appealed again to the Supreme Court, which by law has the final say in all capital punishment cases

A Bangladesh court on Monday upheld death sentences for 139 soldiers over the massacre of 74 people including 57 senior army officers during a 2009 mutiny, the attorney general said. "The verdict has upheld the death sentence for 139 people," Attorney General Mahbubey Alam told reporters after the High Court handed down its judgment in Dhaka. "Nowhere in the world did anything happen like the way those 57 top army officers were killed," Alam said. The sentences will be appealed again to the Supreme Court, which by law has the final say in all capital punishment cases. In 2013 a court sentenced 152 soldiers to death for the grisly killings in which dozens of officers were shot, hacked to death or burnt alive before being dumped in sewers or shallow graves. One of those handed the death penalty died in custody, eight others had sentences commuted to life imprisonment and four were acquitted, Alam said. The sentences were condemned at the time by the UN rights chief, who expressed alarm at such a heavy punishment meted out in a mass trial. The mutineers stole thousands of weapons in February 2009 before going on a two-day killing spree at a barracks. Bangladesh has a history of military coups and the massacre threatened the newly-elected government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, which responded by arresting thousands of suspects.

Bangladesh upholds death sentence for 139 soldiers for 2009 mutiny

A woman claiming to be the biological daughter of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa&nbsp;has filed a written petition seeking a direction to exhume Jayalalitha&#39;s body to conduct the DNA test.

The woman identified as Amrutha and is represented by Lawyer Indira Jaising who has claimed that Amrutha was born in 1980 and also she has some fond memories of Jayalalitha.

The petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and it asks the court to permit the family members of&nbsp;Jayalalitha to cremate her body as per the rites, rituals, and customs of Vaishnava Iyengar-Brahim community to which Jayalalitha and her family members belong.

The petition says &ldquo;Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every citizen is entitled to the right to live with dignity and it includes the right to know...the petitioner wants to know her identity through her natural/biological mother.&rdquo;&nbsp;

However, Supreme Court refused to take this petition forward but it allowed the woman, the liberty to pursue other remedies in law.

The bench was headed by Justice Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta.

The petition has also sought urgency because these rituals have to be done before the expiry of one year from Jayalalithaa&rsquo;s death on December 5.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

A woman claiming to be the biological daughter of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa?has filed a written petition seeking a direction to exhume Jayalalitha's body to conduct the DNA test.

A woman claiming to be the biological daughter of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has filed a written petition seeking a direction to exhume Jayalalitha's body to conduct the DNA test. The woman identified as Amrutha and is represented by Lawyer Indira Jaising who has claimed that Amrutha was born in 1980 and also she has some fond memories of Jayalalitha. The petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and it asks the court to permit the family members of Jayalalitha to cremate her body as per the rites, rituals, and customs of Vaishnava Iyengar-Brahim community to which Jayalalitha and her family members belong. The petition says “Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every citizen is entitled to the right to live with dignity and it includes the right to know...the petitioner wants to know her identity through her natural/biological mother.” However, Supreme Court refused to take this petition forward but it allowed the woman, the liberty to pursue other remedies in law. The bench was headed by Justice Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta. The petition has also sought urgency because these rituals have to be done before the expiry of one year from Jayalalithaa’s death on December 5.

Supreme Court rejects petition of woman claiming to be Jayalalitha's daughter

The family of seven-year-old Pradyuman, who was killed on September 8 inside the Ryan International School in Gurugram, on Monday filed a petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the Pintos, founders of the Ryan Group of Institutions, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

&quot;We are filing a petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the Pintos by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We are challenging the manner the anticipatory bail is granted to them,&quot; Sushil Tekriwal, Pradyuman`s father Varun Thakur`s lawyer in the case, told ANI.

He added, &quot;The CBI has categorically said in the reply that they were a part of or they could be a part of the larger conspiracy and possible destruction of evidence. They are also opposing the ban granted to the family.&#39;&#39;&nbsp;

The High Court had, on November 21, granted an anticipatory bail to the Pinto family, in connection with the case.

The court bench of Justice Surender Gupta also barred them from leaving the country without permission and directed the family to extend their help in the investigation.

Pradyuman was found in a pool of blood with his throat slit inside the school, sparking a public outcry following which the Gurugram Police arrested bus conductor Ashok, accusing him of killing the seven-year-old student. But the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is now probing the matter, gave him a clean chit and held a class 11 student responsible for the murder.&nbsp;

The High Court had, on November 21, granted an anticipatory bail to the Pinto family, in connection with the case

The family of seven-year-old Pradyuman, who was killed on September 8 inside the Ryan International School in Gurugram, on Monday filed a petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the Pintos, founders of the Ryan Group of Institutions, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. "We are filing a petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the Pintos by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We are challenging the manner the anticipatory bail is granted to them," Sushil Tekriwal, Pradyuman`s father Varun Thakur`s lawyer in the case, told ANI. He added, "The CBI has categorically said in the reply that they were a part of or they could be a part of the larger conspiracy and possible destruction of evidence. They are also opposing the ban granted to the family.'' The High Court had, on November 21, granted an anticipatory bail to the Pinto family, in connection with the case. The court bench of Justice Surender Gupta also barred them from leaving the country without permission and directed the family to extend their help in the investigation. Pradyuman was found in a pool of blood with his throat slit inside the school, sparking a public outcry following which the Gurugram Police arrested bus conductor Ashok, accusing him of killing the seven-year-old student. But the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is now probing the matter, gave him a clean chit and held a class 11 student responsible for the murder.

Pradyuman murder case: Family files petition in SC challenging bail granted to Pintos

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