President Ram Nath Kovind said today that it was critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers and maintain a &quot;delicate balance&quot; while exploring the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature as they are all equal. The three organs of the state should be conscious of their liberty and strive to protect their autonomy, he said.

However, they should be careful about not disturbing the fraternity of separation of powers &quot;by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches&quot;, the president said.

&quot;It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance in mind when exploring the relationship between the three branches of the state - that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. They are all equal,&quot; Kovind said while inaugurating the function organised by the Supreme Court here to celebrate the Constitution Day.

He said the Constitution is &quot;not static but is a living document&quot; and the sobriety and discretion in communication between these three branches of the state is extremely advisable.

&quot;This will promote and enhance fraternity between three equal branches of the state, all of which have a certain responsibility to the Constitution. It will also reassure the ordinary citizen that the Constitution is safe - and in mature hands,&quot; the president said.

He also emphasised that high courts across the country need to take up the task of quickly providing certified translated copies of judgements to the litigants in local and regional languages.

&quot;Even the hearings in court, if possible, have to be in a language that is understandable to the ordinary litigant. The process of case disposal too has to be made faster,&quot; he said.

The president also said that it was upon the higher judiciary to mentor and encourage the lower judiciary and in this process, the cooperation of state governments was very much necessary.

He said it was for the state governments to ensure that the judges of the district and subordinate courts were not denied their due perquisites and facilities and high courts should urge the subordinate courts to be more efficient and conclude cases faster.

&quot;I am glad to note, some high courts are taking steps in these directions. As of June 30, 2017, there were about 76,000 old cases, pending for five years or more, in sessions and district courts under the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court has set a target of March 31, 2018, to dispose off almost half these cases,&quot; he said.

He also referred to the initiative of the Chhattisgarh High Court in setting a deadline of April 30, 2018, for the subordinate courts to dispose off cases pending for over 10 years and September 30 next year deadline for disposing cases pending for between five and 10 years.

&quot;The High Court of Chhattisgarh has also started to make provision for availability of Hindi versions of judgements and orders. I commend these initiatives. I am sure other high courts are also moving ahead with a similar sense of public service,&quot; Kovind said.

He said that Constitution is not just an abstract ideal and it has to be made meaningful to the lives of ordinary people in every street, every village and every &#39;mohalla&#39; of the country.

Delivering a lecture on &#39;constitutional value&#39; at the function, former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti referred to the historical events related to framing of the Constitution.

He said that the Constitution is the &quot;religion of all the religions&quot;.

Referring to the judiciary, the ex-CJI said that while other organs of the state may afford to fail and falter, the judiciary cannot &quot;afford to fail&quot;.

However, he also had a word of caution for the judiciary and said that it should not take upon the role of the executive and the legislature while discharging judicial functions as a &quot;judge is always on trial&quot;.

President Ram Nath Kovind said that the Constitution was the 'religion of all religions', while inaugurating the function organized by the Supreme Court

President Ram Nath Kovind said today that it was critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers and maintain a "delicate balance" while exploring the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature as they are all equal. The three organs of the state should be conscious of their liberty and strive to protect their autonomy, he said. However, they should be careful about not disturbing the fraternity of separation of powers "by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches", the president said. "It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance in mind when exploring the relationship between the three branches of the state - that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. They are all equal," Kovind said while inaugurating the function organised by the Supreme Court here to celebrate the Constitution Day. He said the Constitution is "not static but is a living document" and the sobriety and discretion in communication between these three branches of the state is extremely advisable. "This will promote and enhance fraternity between three equal branches of the state, all of which have a certain responsibility to the Constitution. It will also reassure the ordinary citizen that the Constitution is safe - and in mature hands," the president said. He also emphasised that high courts across the country need to take up the task of quickly providing certified translated copies of judgements to the litigants in local and regional languages. "Even the hearings in court, if possible, have to be in a language that is understandable to the ordinary litigant. The process of case disposal too has to be made faster," he said. The president also said that it was upon the higher judiciary to mentor and encourage the lower judiciary and in this process, the cooperation of state governments was very much necessary. He said it was for the state governments to ensure that the judges of the district and subordinate courts were not denied their due perquisites and facilities and high courts should urge the subordinate courts to be more efficient and conclude cases faster. "I am glad to note, some high courts are taking steps in these directions. As of June 30, 2017, there were about 76,000 old cases, pending for five years or more, in sessions and district courts under the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court has set a target of March 31, 2018, to dispose off almost half these cases," he said. He also referred to the initiative of the Chhattisgarh High Court in setting a deadline of April 30, 2018, for the subordinate courts to dispose off cases pending for over 10 years and September 30 next year deadline for disposing cases pending for between five and 10 years. "The High Court of Chhattisgarh has also started to make provision for availability of Hindi versions of judgements and orders. I commend these initiatives. I am sure other high courts are also moving ahead with a similar sense of public service," Kovind said. He said that Constitution is not just an abstract ideal and it has to be made meaningful to the lives of ordinary people in every street, every village and every 'mohalla' of the country. Delivering a lecture on 'constitutional value' at the function, former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti referred to the historical events related to framing of the Constitution. He said that the Constitution is the "religion of all the religions". Referring to the judiciary, the ex-CJI said that while other organs of the state may afford to fail and falter, the judiciary cannot "afford to fail". However, he also had a word of caution for the judiciary and said that it should not take upon the role of the executive and the legislature while discharging judicial functions as a "judge is always on trial".

Critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers: Ram Nath Kovind on Constitution Day

The Supreme Court has said that courts cannot force a husband to &quot;keep his wife&quot; as it asked a man, a pilot by profession, to deposit Rs 10 lakh as interim maintenance for his estranged wife and upkeep of their son.

The apex court restored the bail order of the Madras High Court which was cancelled after the husband refused to comply with the compromise agreement.

&quot;We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It&#39;s a human relationship. You (man) deposit Rs 10 lakh with the trial court which will be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally to meet her immediate requirement,&quot; a bench of justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit said.

When the counsel appearing for the man said that the amount be reduced, the bench said that apex court is not a family court and no negotiations can be held.

&quot;If you agree to deposit Rs 10 lakh immediately, the bail order would be restored,&quot; the bench said.

The counsel then agreed to deposit Rs 10 lakh but sought some time.

&quot;We are inclined to restore the order of bail in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs 10 lakh with the trial court within a period of four weeks,&quot; the bench said.

It said that the amount may be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally, so that she can meet immediate requirements for herself and the child.

&quot;The said amount will be subject to adjustment in any future proceedings. The parties are free to reach mutual settlement for rehabilitation, as was earlier proposed. Accordingly, the order of bail will stand restored subject to above stipulations,&quot; the court said.

It directed that the pending proceedings may be completed by the trial court, as far as possible within a period of three months, as already directed by the high court.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had on October 11, cancelled his anticipatory bail saying the man has entered into a compromise memo with the complainant but contrary to the compromise memo, he had gone back from his promise and filed an evasive counter affidavit to wriggle out from his responsibilities.

It had noted that the very first condition of the memo that he would take her and their child to his place of working along with himself has not been fulfilled and under the pretext of reunion has made the wife to drop the departmental action that was initiated against him.

The high court had also noted that due to the false promise, the life of their child is in limbo as a transfer certificate has been obtained from the school.

It directed the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the trial court within three months.

The husband was booked under various sections of IPC including dowry harassment.&nbsp;

'We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It's a human relationship,' the court said

The Supreme Court has said that courts cannot force a husband to "keep his wife" as it asked a man, a pilot by profession, to deposit Rs 10 lakh as interim maintenance for his estranged wife and upkeep of their son. The apex court restored the bail order of the Madras High Court which was cancelled after the husband refused to comply with the compromise agreement. "We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It's a human relationship. You (man) deposit Rs 10 lakh with the trial court which will be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally to meet her immediate requirement," a bench of justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit said. When the counsel appearing for the man said that the amount be reduced, the bench said that apex court is not a family court and no negotiations can be held. "If you agree to deposit Rs 10 lakh immediately, the bail order would be restored," the bench said. The counsel then agreed to deposit Rs 10 lakh but sought some time. "We are inclined to restore the order of bail in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs 10 lakh with the trial court within a period of four weeks," the bench said. It said that the amount may be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally, so that she can meet immediate requirements for herself and the child. "The said amount will be subject to adjustment in any future proceedings. The parties are free to reach mutual settlement for rehabilitation, as was earlier proposed. Accordingly, the order of bail will stand restored subject to above stipulations," the court said. It directed that the pending proceedings may be completed by the trial court, as far as possible within a period of three months, as already directed by the high court. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had on October 11, cancelled his anticipatory bail saying the man has entered into a compromise memo with the complainant but contrary to the compromise memo, he had gone back from his promise and filed an evasive counter affidavit to wriggle out from his responsibilities. It had noted that the very first condition of the memo that he would take her and their child to his place of working along with himself has not been fulfilled and under the pretext of reunion has made the wife to drop the departmental action that was initiated against him. The high court had also noted that due to the false promise, the life of their child is in limbo as a transfer certificate has been obtained from the school. It directed the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the trial court within three months. The husband was booked under various sections of IPC including dowry harassment.

Courts cannot force husband to keep wife: Supreme Court

Kerala woman Hadiya, who will depose before the Supreme Court on November 27 in an alleged case of &quot;love jihad&quot;, said on Saturday that nobody forced her to convert to Islam and that she wanted to be with her husband. 
 
&quot;I am a Muslim. I want to go with my husband. Nobody forced me to convert,&quot; shouted Hadiya as she was whisked away by her parents and security personnel to board a flight to Delhi amid tight security.

Hadiya and her parents are likely to stay at the Kerala House in New Delhi, sources told PTI. (Also Read -<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/love-jihad-sheffin-claims-attempts-made-to-reconvert-hadiya-to-hinduism-25108"> &#39;Love jihad&#39;: Sheffin claims attempts made to reconvert Hadiya to Hinduism</a>)

Hadiya, originally a Hindu, converted to Islam and married a Muslim man Shafin Jahan.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the case has alleged that Hadiya was indoctrinated and she may be incapable of giving free consent to her marriage.

Represented by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, the NIA had said there was a well-oiled machinery working in Kerala that was indoctrinating and radicalising society in the state.

As many as 89 cases of similar nature have been reported from the southern state, the ASG had said.

It was alleged that Hadiya was recruited by the Islamic State&#39;s mission in Syria and Shafin Jahan was only a stooge.

Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Hadiya&#39;s father KM Ashokan, claimed that Shafin Jahan was radicalised and several organisations like the Popular Front of India were involved in the radicalisation of society.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, counsel for Shafin Jahan, had opposed the NIA&#39;s submission and that of the woman&#39;s father.

A Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, had asked Hadiya&#39;s father&#39;s advocate to ensure she is produced before them to ascertain whether she had married of her own free will.

On October 7, the Kerala government told the Supreme Court that its police conducted a &quot;thorough investigation&quot; into Hadiya&#39;s conversion and subsequent marriage to Shafin Jahan and did not find material warranting the transfer of probe to the NIA.&nbsp;

Shafin Jahan had on September 20 approached the Supreme Court seeking recall of its August 16 order, directing the NIA to investigate the controversial case of Hadiya&#39;s alleged conversion and marriage.

He had moved the Supreme Court after the Kerala high court annulled his marriage, saying it was an insult to the independence of women in the country.

'I am a Muslim. I want to go with my husband. Nobody forced me to convert,' shouted Hadiya as she was being taken inside the airport

Kerala woman Hadiya, who will depose before the Supreme Court on November 27 in an alleged case of "love jihad", said on Saturday that nobody forced her to convert to Islam and that she wanted to be with her husband. "I am a Muslim. I want to go with my husband. Nobody forced me to convert," shouted Hadiya as she was whisked away by her parents and security personnel to board a flight to Delhi amid tight security. Hadiya and her parents are likely to stay at the Kerala House in New Delhi, sources told PTI. (Also Read - 'Love jihad': Sheffin claims attempts made to reconvert Hadiya to Hinduism) Hadiya, originally a Hindu, converted to Islam and married a Muslim man Shafin Jahan. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the case has alleged that Hadiya was indoctrinated and she may be incapable of giving free consent to her marriage. Represented by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, the NIA had said there was a well-oiled machinery working in Kerala that was indoctrinating and radicalising society in the state. As many as 89 cases of similar nature have been reported from the southern state, the ASG had said. It was alleged that Hadiya was recruited by the Islamic State's mission in Syria and Shafin Jahan was only a stooge. Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Hadiya's father KM Ashokan, claimed that Shafin Jahan was radicalised and several organisations like the Popular Front of India were involved in the radicalisation of society. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, counsel for Shafin Jahan, had opposed the NIA's submission and that of the woman's father. A Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, had asked Hadiya's father's advocate to ensure she is produced before them to ascertain whether she had married of her own free will. On October 7, the Kerala government told the Supreme Court that its police conducted a "thorough investigation" into Hadiya's conversion and subsequent marriage to Shafin Jahan and did not find material warranting the transfer of probe to the NIA. Shafin Jahan had on September 20 approached the Supreme Court seeking recall of its August 16 order, directing the NIA to investigate the controversial case of Hadiya's alleged conversion and marriage. He had moved the Supreme Court after the Kerala high court annulled his marriage, saying it was an insult to the independence of women in the country.

'Love jihad': Nobody forced me to convert, says Hadiya

The Shiv Sena on Friday said if the government decided to introduce a legislation for a ban on triple talaq it would permanently free Muslim women.&nbsp;

The Supreme court&nbsp;in August described <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-centre-likely-to-introduce-bill-in-winter-session-of-parliament-to-end-practice-24747">instant Talaq </a>&#39;unconstitutional.&#39;&nbsp;The Centre is likely to introduce a bill in the winter session of the Parliament to end Triple Talaq.

It is said that once the law is proposed to declare triple Talaq as an offence, people will have the right to go to the police for redressal of their complaints and for action to be taken against their spouse, reports also said.

A ministerial committee has decided to carry out a proper legislation or amend the existing penal provisions, stating the Triple talaq as a felony.

The party also took potshots at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) by talking about a number of concerns &mdash; the promise of building Ram temple at Ayodhya, execution of uniform civil code and repealing Article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

&ldquo;The way the Union government is following directives of the Supreme Court on triple talaq, it should do the same with the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The Supreme Court had given directives to the Centre thrice over the UCC but the government has still not taken any step toward it,&rdquo; the party claimed.

Earlier this month, Yasmeen Khalid, the wife of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) professor Khalid Bin Yusuf Khan had alleged that she was given instant divorce by her husband on WhatsApp.

Prime Minister led Bharatiya Janata Party government has opposed the system, terming the practice of husbands verbally divorcing wives as unfair to women.

(with inputs from agencies)

The Supreme court, in August, had directed to eliminate the system of instant Talaq as 'unconstitutional.'?

The Shiv Sena on Friday said if the government decided to introduce a legislation for a ban on triple talaq it would permanently free Muslim women. The Supreme court in August described instant Talaq 'unconstitutional.' The Centre is likely to introduce a bill in the winter session of the Parliament to end Triple Talaq. It is said that once the law is proposed to declare triple Talaq as an offence, people will have the right to go to the police for redressal of their complaints and for action to be taken against their spouse, reports also said. A ministerial committee has decided to carry out a proper legislation or amend the existing penal provisions, stating the Triple talaq as a felony. The party also took potshots at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) by talking about a number of concerns — the promise of building Ram temple at Ayodhya, execution of uniform civil code and repealing Article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. “The way the Union government is following directives of the Supreme Court on triple talaq, it should do the same with the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The Supreme Court had given directives to the Centre thrice over the UCC but the government has still not taken any step toward it,” the party claimed. Earlier this month, Yasmeen Khalid, the wife of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) professor Khalid Bin Yusuf Khan had alleged that she was given instant divorce by her husband on WhatsApp. Prime Minister led Bharatiya Janata Party government has opposed the system, terming the practice of husbands verbally divorcing wives as unfair to women. (with inputs from agencies)

Bill banning Triple Talaq would free Muslim women: Shiv Sena

The Supreme Court is to hear a&nbsp;plea seeking &#39;complete ban&#39; on firecrackers in Delhi and NCR on&nbsp;Friday.

A bench headed by&nbsp;Justice A K Sikri&nbsp;on October 6&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-bans-sale-of-firecrackers-in-delhi-ncr-this-diwali-21145">banned the sale of firecrackers </a>in the national capital till November 1, 2017.

In a plea filed in the apex court on October 27,&nbsp;Arjun Gopal sought the ban on firecrackers&nbsp;beyond November 1.

The court in its earlier order stated that&nbsp;lifting the ban on the sale of firecrackers might require a &quot;review&quot; after Diwali depending on the ambient air quality after the festival - which is set for today.

Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan, appearing for Gopal, had earlier contended before the court that ban on the use of firecrackers&nbsp;should be restored as the NCR had witnessed a huge rise in air pollution during and after Diwali last year.

The impact of ban on the pollution level in the capital remains a bone of contention among experts

The Supreme Court is to hear a plea seeking 'complete ban' on firecrackers in Delhi and NCR on Friday. A bench headed by Justice A K Sikri on October 6 banned the sale of firecrackers in the national capital till November 1, 2017. In a plea filed in the apex court on October 27, Arjun Gopal sought the ban on firecrackers beyond November 1. The court in its earlier order stated that lifting the ban on the sale of firecrackers might require a "review" after Diwali depending on the ambient air quality after the festival - which is set for today. Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan, appearing for Gopal, had earlier contended before the court that ban on the use of firecrackers should be restored as the NCR had witnessed a huge rise in air pollution during and after Diwali last year.

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking 'complete ban'  on firecrackers today

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of&nbsp;India to nullify an election result and conduct fresh polls if NOTA gets the maximum votes in a constituency.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea which had also sought a direction to the poll panel to restrict those candidates and political parties, whose election have been nullified, from taking part in fresh polls.

The top court termed the suggestions as &quot;unworkable&quot; and said &quot;we cannot destroy our democracy just like that... holding an election in our country is a very serious and expensive business. Today we cannot say that unless a person gets 51 per cent of votes, he cannot be declared elected.&quot;

Sensing the mood of the court favouring dismissing the plea, petitioner advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, also a Delhi BJP spokesperson, chose to withdraw the petition.

The petition had also said the right to reject and elect a new candidate will give power to the people to express their discontent.

The Right to Reject was first proposed by the Law Commission in its 170th report in 1999 as part of its &quot;Alternative Method of Election&quot;. It had also suggested that the contesting candidates should be declared elected only if they have obtained 51 per cent of all valid votes.

The PIL wanted the Union government to implement the Law Commission recommendations to ensure free and fair polls.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a direction to the poll panel to nullify an election result and conduct fresh poll if NOTA gets the maximum votes in a constituency

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to nullify an election result and conduct fresh polls if NOTA gets the maximum votes in a constituency. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea which had also sought a direction to the poll panel to restrict those candidates and political parties, whose election have been nullified, from taking part in fresh polls. The top court termed the suggestions as "unworkable" and said "we cannot destroy our democracy just like that... holding an election in our country is a very serious and expensive business. Today we cannot say that unless a person gets 51 per cent of votes, he cannot be declared elected." Sensing the mood of the court favouring dismissing the plea, petitioner advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, also a Delhi BJP spokesperson, chose to withdraw the petition. The petition had also said the right to reject and elect a new candidate will give power to the people to express their discontent. The Right to Reject was first proposed by the Law Commission in its 170th report in 1999 as part of its "Alternative Method of Election". It had also suggested that the contesting candidates should be declared elected only if they have obtained 51 per cent of all valid votes. The PIL wanted the Union government to implement the Law Commission recommendations to ensure free and fair polls.

Supreme Court rejects plea to nullify polls if NOTA gets majority

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on November 28 a fresh plea seeking a direction to makers of the Bollywood film &quot;Padmavati&quot; not to release it outside India on December 1.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said it would hear on Tuesday the plea that alleged that the makers of &quot;Padmavati&quot; misrepresented facts before the court with regard to Censor Board&#39;s approval on releasing songs and the promo.

&quot;We will take it up on Tuesday. You (advocate) file a writ petition,&quot; the bench told advocate M L Sharma who mentioned his fresh plea for an urgent hearing.

Sharma alleged that grave damage will be done to social harmony if the movie is allowed to be released outside India.

He also sought criminal prosecution of the makers of the movie for allegedly misrepresenting facts that the songs and promos were cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

Earlier, the apex court had dismissed his plea seeking to delete certain alleged objectionable scenes from the movie.

The bench had observed that the CBFC has not yet given the certificate to the movie and the apex court cannot &quot;injunct&quot; a statutory body from doing its duty.

The counsel for one of the respondents had earlier told the court that the film&#39;s promo was released and it has got the requisite CBFC approval.

Sharma had approached the court seeking a direction for removal of all scenes of alleged &#39;character assassination&#39; of Queen Padmavati from the movie before its release.

Viacom 18, the makers of the film, had earlier said that they have deferred the movie&#39;s release which was originally scheduled for December 1.

The set of the movie was vandalised twice -- in Jaipur and Kolhapur -- and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali was roughed up by members of Karni Sena during the Jaipur schedule of the film earlier this year.&nbsp;

The petitioner also sought criminal prosecution of the makers of the movie for allegedly misrepresenting facts that the songs and promos were cleared by CBFC

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on November 28 a fresh plea seeking a direction to makers of the Bollywood film "Padmavati" not to release it outside India on December 1. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said it would hear on Tuesday the plea that alleged that the makers of "Padmavati" misrepresented facts before the court with regard to Censor Board's approval on releasing songs and the promo. "We will take it up on Tuesday. You (advocate) file a writ petition," the bench told advocate M L Sharma who mentioned his fresh plea for an urgent hearing. Sharma alleged that grave damage will be done to social harmony if the movie is allowed to be released outside India. He also sought criminal prosecution of the makers of the movie for allegedly misrepresenting facts that the songs and promos were cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Earlier, the apex court had dismissed his plea seeking to delete certain alleged objectionable scenes from the movie. The bench had observed that the CBFC has not yet given the certificate to the movie and the apex court cannot "injunct" a statutory body from doing its duty. The counsel for one of the respondents had earlier told the court that the film's promo was released and it has got the requisite CBFC approval. Sharma had approached the court seeking a direction for removal of all scenes of alleged 'character assassination' of Queen Padmavati from the movie before its release. Viacom 18, the makers of the film, had earlier said that they have deferred the movie's release which was originally scheduled for December 1. The set of the movie was vandalised twice -- in Jaipur and Kolhapur -- and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali was roughed up by members of Karni Sena during the Jaipur schedule of the film earlier this year.

Supreme Court to hear fresh plea to stall release of Padmavati outside India

The Supreme Court will today hear detailed arguments in connection with the Rohingya deportation case.

In an October 13 hearing, the apex court had given more to all the parties in the case and posted the matter for further hearing until November 21.

The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, said it will hear in detail various aspects of the matter, including the Centre&#39;s preliminary objection that the issue fell under the domain of the executive and hence was not justifiable.

The court observed that national importance could not be secondary and at the same time, the human rights issue of these immigrants should be kept in mind.

The top court also pronounced that no deportation of any Rohingya refugees should take place until the next date of hearing - November 21.

The plea, filed by two Rohingya immigrants, Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir, claims they had taken refuge in India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against the community there.

Many of those, who had fled to India after the earlier spate of violence, are settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.

In an October 13 hearing, the apex court had given more to all the parties in the case and posted the matter for further hearing until November 21

The Supreme Court will today hear detailed arguments in connection with the Rohingya deportation case. In an October 13 hearing, the apex court had given more to all the parties in the case and posted the matter for further hearing until November 21. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, said it will hear in detail various aspects of the matter, including the Centre's preliminary objection that the issue fell under the domain of the executive and hence was not justifiable. The court observed that national importance could not be secondary and at the same time, the human rights issue of these immigrants should be kept in mind. The top court also pronounced that no deportation of any Rohingya refugees should take place until the next date of hearing - November 21. The plea, filed by two Rohingya immigrants, Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir, claims they had taken refuge in India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against the community there. Many of those, who had fled to India after the earlier spate of violence, are settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.

Supreme Court to hear arguments in Rohingya deportation case

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed former finance minister P Chidambaram&#39;s son Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad for his daughter&#39;s admission in the UK.

Karti has been allowed to go abroad from December 1 to December 10, but with certain terms and conditions.

Karti is an accused in the alleged INX media case.

It has been alleged that Karti illegally took service charges for getting the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to the INX Media for receiving funds from abroad worth Rs 305 crore in 2007 when his father P Chidambaram was the finance minister in Congress-led UPA government.

A lookout notice issued by the CBI on July 18 prevented Karti from traveling abroad without the investigating agency&#39;s permission.

The apex court had rejected Karti&#39;s plea after the CBI opposed it, saying he might tamper with the evidence, which is very crucial for the ongoing investigation, in the country.

P Chidambaram's son Karti is an accused in the alleged INX media case

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed former finance minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad for his daughter's admission in the UK. Karti has been allowed to go abroad from December 1 to December 10, but with certain terms and conditions. Karti is an accused in the alleged INX media case. It has been alleged that Karti illegally took service charges for getting the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to the INX Media for receiving funds from abroad worth Rs 305 crore in 2007 when his father P Chidambaram was the finance minister in Congress-led UPA government. A lookout notice issued by the CBI on July 18 prevented Karti from traveling abroad without the investigating agency's permission. The apex court had rejected Karti's plea after the CBI opposed it, saying he might tamper with the evidence, which is very crucial for the ongoing investigation, in the country.

Karti Chidambaram gets permission from Supreme Court to travel abroad

Iraq&#39;s supreme court on Monday declared that September&#39;s referendum on independence in the autonomous Kurdish areas in the north of the country was unconstitutional.

A statement said the court &quot;rendered a decision declaring unconstitutional the referendum held on September 25, 2017, in Iraqi Kurdistan... and canceling all the consequences and results that resulted&quot;.

Monday&#39;s legal move was the latest stage in a crisis sparked by the referendum, which resulted in a resounding &quot;yes&quot; vote for independence in the Kurdish area.

Last month, the UN Security Council urged the Iraqi government and regional leaders in Kurdistan to set a timetable for talks to end the crisis.

The world body&#39;s appeal came after Baghdad dismissed an offer from Iraqi Kurdish leaders to freeze the outcome of the referendum and hold talks.

Rejecting the freeze offer, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi instead demanded the annulment of the independence vote.

Last week, as the deadline announced by the Supreme Court for its decision on the constitutionality of the referendum approached, the Kurdistan government said it &quot;respected&quot; the decisions taken by Iraq&#39;s highest court.

It also said it respected a previous decision insisting on Iraqi unity, which could be a basis for dialogue.

Parliament in Baghdad is currently reviewing the federal budget for the coming year, including the allocation for the autonomous Kurdish region.

September&#39;s referendum was initiated by then Kurdish leader Massud Barzani, for whom the repercussions were severe.

Barzani at the beginning of November announced he was stepping aside, having lost almost all of the territory disputed between Kurdish capital Arbil and Baghdad.

The Kurds also lost all of the oil resources in Kirkuk province that could have ensured the viability of a hypothetical Kurdish state.

Monday's legal move was the latest stage in a crisis sparked by the referendum, which resulted in a resounding "yes" vote for independence in the Kurdish area

Iraq's supreme court on Monday declared that September's referendum on independence in the autonomous Kurdish areas in the north of the country was unconstitutional. A statement said the court "rendered a decision declaring unconstitutional the referendum held on September 25, 2017, in Iraqi Kurdistan... and canceling all the consequences and results that resulted". Monday's legal move was the latest stage in a crisis sparked by the referendum, which resulted in a resounding "yes" vote for independence in the Kurdish area. Last month, the UN Security Council urged the Iraqi government and regional leaders in Kurdistan to set a timetable for talks to end the crisis. The world body's appeal came after Baghdad dismissed an offer from Iraqi Kurdish leaders to freeze the outcome of the referendum and hold talks. Rejecting the freeze offer, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi instead demanded the annulment of the independence vote. Last week, as the deadline announced by the Supreme Court for its decision on the constitutionality of the referendum approached, the Kurdistan government said it "respected" the decisions taken by Iraq's highest court. It also said it respected a previous decision insisting on Iraqi unity, which could be a basis for dialogue. Parliament in Baghdad is currently reviewing the federal budget for the coming year, including the allocation for the autonomous Kurdish region. September's referendum was initiated by then Kurdish leader Massud Barzani, for whom the repercussions were severe. Barzani at the beginning of November announced he was stepping aside, having lost almost all of the territory disputed between Kurdish capital Arbil and Baghdad. The Kurds also lost all of the oil resources in Kirkuk province that could have ensured the viability of a hypothetical Kurdish state.

Iraq top court declares Kurd referendum unconstitutional

Kenya&#39;s Supreme Court&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;dismissed two petitions to overturn the country&#39;s October presidential election re-run, validating the victory of President Uhuru Kenyatta.

Celebrations erupted in ruling party strongholds, but tensions remained high in areas loyal to veteran opposition leader Raila Odinga, which have been rocked by protests during the dramatic four-month election process.

The ruling paves the way for Kenyatta to be sworn in on&nbsp;November 28.

&quot;The court has unanimously determined that the petitions are not merited. As a consequence, the presidential election of 26 October is hereby upheld as is the election of the third respondent,&quot; said Chief Justice David Maraga, referring to Kenyatta.

Maraga had in September annulled an August election due to &quot;irregularities and illegalities&quot;, a historic decision hailed across the globe as an opportunity to boost Kenyan democracy.

However, the ruling -- a rare victory for Odinga -- only deepened acrimony and protests that have left 52 people dead -- mostly at the hands of police -- since the first election.

Accusing the IEBC elections commission of failing to make fundamental reforms to improve the vote, Odinga withdrew from the October ballot which he urged his followers to boycott.&nbsp;

&nbsp;&#39;Toxic environment&#39;&nbsp;

In the run-up to the vote, a top election official fled the country, saying the poll would not be credible, and IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati himself said he could not guarantee a free and fair election.

Election day was marred by chaos in opposition strongholds, with polling stations unable to open in 25 constituencies.

The boycott handed Kenyatta a landslide victory of 98 percent, although turnout was only 39 percent.

This time, Odinga and his National Super Alliance (NASA) coalition did not go to court to challenge the second election, but a former politician and two rights activists did.

They pointed to procedural questions, the toxic democratic environment, and Chebukati&#39;s own questioning of the process.

However the six-judge bench dismissed the petitions in a matter of minutes.

&nbsp;&#39;Decision under duress&#39;&nbsp;

In a statement, Odinga said the ruling &quot;did not come as a surprise&quot;, nor did it alter his opposition to a government he regards as illegitimate.

&quot;It was a decision taken under duress. We do not condemn the court, we sympathise with it,&quot; he said.

News of the court&#39;s decision sparked celebrations in Kenyatta&#39;s strongholds.&nbsp;

&quot;Let NASA people now go and mourn quietly and allow us to celebrate. They were laughing last time, today it is our turn,&quot; said Jackson Mandago the governor of Uasin Gishu county.

&quot;We are happy that we will not have another election until 2022.&quot;

But while many will be breathing a sigh of relief that the prolonged election process is drawing to an end, tensions remain high and it was unclear how Odinga&#39;s supporters would react to Kenyatta being sworn in.

Protesters began gathering in the western city of Kisumu, an Odinga stronghold, where they set a vehicle alight, an AFP correspondent said.

&quot;Maraga has gone against our wish. They could have nullified it because that was not an election. It was just done in parts of the country,&quot; said Mercyline Akinyi.

&quot;We will wait for Baba (Odinga), to tell us the way forward.&quot;

Clashes had erupted in Nairobi&#39;s Mathare slum&nbsp;on Sunday&nbsp;after four bodies were found in the street, with outrage spreading to Kibera and protests also taking place in Kisumu.

Nairobi police chief Japheth Koome said the cause of the four deaths was not immediately clear but that the victims appeared to have been hit by a blunt object, while one had also been cut.&nbsp;

However, the opposition claimed the four had been shot dead, and angry residents blamed members of Kenyatta&#39;s Kikuyu tribe.

Tensions had also risen&nbsp;on Friday&nbsp;when a mass opposition demonstration to welcome Odinga back from a trip overseas turned violent, with three demonstrators shot dead in Muthurwa, a suburb not far from Mathare.

Kenya's Supreme Court?on Monday?dismissed two petitions to overturn the country's October presidential election re-run, validating the victory of President Uhuru Kenyatta

Kenya's Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two petitions to overturn the country's October presidential election re-run, validating the victory of President Uhuru Kenyatta. Celebrations erupted in ruling party strongholds, but tensions remained high in areas loyal to veteran opposition leader Raila Odinga, which have been rocked by protests during the dramatic four-month election process. The ruling paves the way for Kenyatta to be sworn in on November 28. "The court has unanimously determined that the petitions are not merited. As a consequence, the presidential election of 26 October is hereby upheld as is the election of the third respondent," said Chief Justice David Maraga, referring to Kenyatta. Maraga had in September annulled an August election due to "irregularities and illegalities", a historic decision hailed across the globe as an opportunity to boost Kenyan democracy. However, the ruling -- a rare victory for Odinga -- only deepened acrimony and protests that have left 52 people dead -- mostly at the hands of police -- since the first election. Accusing the IEBC elections commission of failing to make fundamental reforms to improve the vote, Odinga withdrew from the October ballot which he urged his followers to boycott. 'Toxic environment' In the run-up to the vote, a top election official fled the country, saying the poll would not be credible, and IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati himself said he could not guarantee a free and fair election. Election day was marred by chaos in opposition strongholds, with polling stations unable to open in 25 constituencies. The boycott handed Kenyatta a landslide victory of 98 percent, although turnout was only 39 percent. This time, Odinga and his National Super Alliance (NASA) coalition did not go to court to challenge the second election, but a former politician and two rights activists did. They pointed to procedural questions, the toxic democratic environment, and Chebukati's own questioning of the process. However the six-judge bench dismissed the petitions in a matter of minutes. 'Decision under duress' In a statement, Odinga said the ruling "did not come as a surprise", nor did it alter his opposition to a government he regards as illegitimate. "It was a decision taken under duress. We do not condemn the court, we sympathise with it," he said. News of the court's decision sparked celebrations in Kenyatta's strongholds. "Let NASA people now go and mourn quietly and allow us to celebrate. They were laughing last time, today it is our turn," said Jackson Mandago the governor of Uasin Gishu county. "We are happy that we will not have another election until 2022." But while many will be breathing a sigh of relief that the prolonged election process is drawing to an end, tensions remain high and it was unclear how Odinga's supporters would react to Kenyatta being sworn in. Protesters began gathering in the western city of Kisumu, an Odinga stronghold, where they set a vehicle alight, an AFP correspondent said. "Maraga has gone against our wish. They could have nullified it because that was not an election. It was just done in parts of the country," said Mercyline Akinyi. "We will wait for Baba (Odinga), to tell us the way forward." Clashes had erupted in Nairobi's Mathare slum on Sunday after four bodies were found in the street, with outrage spreading to Kibera and protests also taking place in Kisumu. Nairobi police chief Japheth Koome said the cause of the four deaths was not immediately clear but that the victims appeared to have been hit by a blunt object, while one had also been cut. However, the opposition claimed the four had been shot dead, and angry residents blamed members of Kenyatta's Kikuyu tribe. Tensions had also risen on Friday when a mass opposition demonstration to welcome Odinga back from a trip overseas turned violent, with three demonstrators shot dead in Muthurwa, a suburb not far from Mathare.

Kenya's Supreme Court upholds Kenyatta election win

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-passing-resolution-on-rahul-gandhi-as-party-president-congress-announces-poll-dates-24640">Rahul as Congress president: Party says will hold polls &#39;if necessary&#39;</a>

Congress today released election dates to elect the next president of the Congress Party. It has also decided to set December 16th as the date of polls &quot;if necessary&quot;, with the counting of votes and declaration of results to take place on December 19th.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-padmavati-row-now-shivraj-singh-chuahan-bans-the-film-in-madhya-pradesh-24645">Padmavati row: Shivraj Singh Chauhan bans film in Madhya Pradesh</a>

The Madhya Pradesh government has decided to not screen Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s film Padmavati in the state.&nbsp;The decision was taken by the state CM Shivraj Singh Chauhan after the Rajput Community in the state submitted a memorandum seeking a ban on the film.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-padmavati-plea-rejected-sc-refuses-to-interfere-in-cbfcs-matter-24660">Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Padmavati release, says cannot &#39;interfere with CBFC&#39;s work&#39;</a>

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea filed by a senior lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma seeking direction to delete certain objectionable scenes from the movie, Padmavati. The court has categorically refused to interfere with censor board&#39;s matter.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-leader-priya-ranjan-dasmunsi-passes-away-was-in-a-coma-since-2008-24648">Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, in coma since 2008, dies at 72</a>

Senior Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, who was in a coma since 2008, today passed away in a hospital at the age of 72.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/zimbabwes-mugabe-has-drafted-resignation-letter-cnn-says-24644">Mugabe&#39;s resignation letter drafted: Report</a>

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe&#39;s letter of resignation has been drafted, CNN reported Monday.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Rahul as Congress president: Party says will hold polls 'if necessary' Congress today released election dates to elect the next president of the Congress Party. It has also decided to set December 16th as the date of polls "if necessary", with the counting of votes and declaration of results to take place on December 19th. Padmavati row: Shivraj Singh Chauhan bans film in Madhya Pradesh The Madhya Pradesh government has decided to not screen Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film Padmavati in the state. The decision was taken by the state CM Shivraj Singh Chauhan after the Rajput Community in the state submitted a memorandum seeking a ban on the film. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Padmavati release, says cannot 'interfere with CBFC's work' The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea filed by a senior lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma seeking direction to delete certain objectionable scenes from the movie, Padmavati. The court has categorically refused to interfere with censor board's matter. Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, in coma since 2008, dies at 72 Senior Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, who was in a coma since 2008, today passed away in a hospital at the age of 72. Mugabe's resignation letter drafted: Report Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's letter of resignation has been drafted, CNN reported Monday.

WION evening news brief, November 20, 2017

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Sunday that the government was in the process of appointing the highest number of high court judges in a single year, breaking the 30-year-old record of 126.

&quot;In 2016, about 126 High Court judges were appointed which is a 30-year-old history. But this year, we will cross the 126 mark,&quot; said the union minister, who was attending an event at the Odisha Law academy here.

The minister&#39;s reply came after a media person queried him on the one-day strike declared by the Orissa High Court Bar Association.

The association has announced a one-day strike, to be held on Friday, after an HC judge was transferred despite the court being short of nine judges from the sanctioned strength of 27.

According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium would soon take a call on appointing 40 new judges to nine courts.

Earlier on November 4, the Supreme Court appointed three new judges for the Jharkhand High Court and one judge for the Tripura High Court.

The collegium, comprising of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices J&nbsp;Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi, had discussed the reports of the intelligence bureau and the state government for the appointments.

The Supreme Court collegium would soon take a call on appointing 40 new judges to nine courts: Reports

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Sunday that the government was in the process of appointing the highest number of high court judges in a single year, breaking the 30-year-old record of 126. "In 2016, about 126 High Court judges were appointed which is a 30-year-old history. But this year, we will cross the 126 mark," said the union minister, who was attending an event at the Odisha Law academy here. The minister's reply came after a media person queried him on the one-day strike declared by the Orissa High Court Bar Association. The association has announced a one-day strike, to be held on Friday, after an HC judge was transferred despite the court being short of nine judges from the sanctioned strength of 27. According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium would soon take a call on appointing 40 new judges to nine courts. Earlier on November 4, the Supreme Court appointed three new judges for the Jharkhand High Court and one judge for the Tripura High Court. The collegium, comprising of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi, had discussed the reports of the intelligence bureau and the state government for the appointments.

Govt will appoint highest number of high court judges this year: Ravi Shankar Prasad

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking SIT probe into an alleged case of bribery in the name of judges, saying such a plea has raised unnecessary doubts over the integrity of judges.

It all started when the matter pertaining to an alleged bribery scam in which retired Orissa High Court Judge IM Quddusi was arrested, among others, and&nbsp;the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodged an FIR.&nbsp; The FIR said,&nbsp;Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in &quot;settling&quot; a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court.

The trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI. Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and the NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms represented by Bhushan) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

On Thursday (November 9), a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the Public&nbsp;Interest&nbsp;Litigation, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing on Monday.&nbsp;However, the case took an interesting turn on Friday (November 10), when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Deepak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void. The matter was then heard by a&nbsp;three-judge bench comprising of Justices A K Agarwal, A M Khanwilkar and Arun Mishra, where the&nbsp;petitioners refused to argue on the merits of the case, citing the presence of Justice AM Khanwilkar on the bench, since he was one of the judges who had heard the controversial medical college case. More drama unfolded as the matter was being heard by the bench and they raised&nbsp;questions on propriety and &quot;forum shopping&quot; by the petitioners.&nbsp;

However, some key highlights of the judgment passed today raise doubts. In its judgement, the Supreme Court said, &quot;There cannot be registration of any FIR against a High Court Judge or Chief&nbsp;Justice of the High Court or the Supreme Court Judge without the consultation of&nbsp;the Hon&rsquo;ble Chief Justice of India and that&nbsp;independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of the CBI or that of the police is a red&nbsp;herring.&rdquo;&nbsp;

Furthermore, Justice Arun Mishra left no stone unturned while pronouncing the judgement, he said, &quot;The FIR is not against any judge in SC and neither is it possible to register FIR against a judge. The senior counsels attempted forum shopping to seek&nbsp;&nbsp;a favourable order and it was unethical of them to do so. They did not verify the position of law and unnecessary doubt was raised on this institution. Proper verification of facts were not made before filing this petition. We expect that good will shall prevail in this institution. Let us unite and work together for the welfare of this great institution. We are not initiating contempt procedure and the matter should stop at this. We have also observed that even we are not above the law.&rdquo;

Refuting special investigation team (SIT) probe in the medical college bribery matter, the apex court defended itself completely and questioned the basis of the allegations. The court said,&nbsp;&quot;No judge can be held responsible for what may, or has happened in the corridors, or&nbsp;for &lsquo;who purports to sell whom&rsquo;. The alleged actions of a retired judge of a high court, allegedly assuring and promising, a &lsquo;favourable&rsquo; decision in the aforesaid&nbsp;circumstances of the case which was then pending before this court, in the&nbsp;aforesaid circumstances and has assured favourable orders, begs the question, and&nbsp;we wonder, as to what favourable orders have been passed. As is apparent from the&nbsp;aforesaid narration of facts, there was no favourable order granted by this court in&nbsp;favour of the medical college for the current academic session 2017-18, rather its inspection for considering confirmation of letter of permission for the next yearn&nbsp;2018-19 had been ordered&quot;.&nbsp;

The issue related to &quot;Conflict of Interest &quot; which questioned the CJI&#39;s involvement in the case&nbsp;was also lucidly clarified by the apex court. &quot;There is no conflict of interest in such a matter.&nbsp;In case Judge is hearing a&nbsp;matter and if he comes to know that any party is unscrupulously trying to influence&nbsp;the decision making or indulging in mal-practices, it is incumbent upon the Judge&nbsp;to take cognizance of such a matter under Contempt of Courts Act and to deal with&nbsp;and punish such person in accordance with law as that is not the conflict of interest&nbsp;but the purpose for which the entire system exists. Such things cannot be ignored&nbsp;and recusal of a Judge cannot be asked on the ground of conflict of interest, it&nbsp;would be the saddest day for the judicial system of this country to ignore such&nbsp;aspects on the unfounded allegations and materials. It was highly improper for the&nbsp;petitioner to allege conflict of interest in the petition filed that the Hon&rsquo;ble Chief&nbsp;Justice of India should not hear on judicial side or allocate the matter on the&nbsp;administrative side,&rdquo; it said.

The judge vs judge issue and&nbsp;the contest of intra-judicial authority seems to have gone back to the dark cave. This showdown in the apex court has now received its happy ending or as some may call it good riddance from high voltage drama.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking SIT probe into an alleged case of bribery in the name of judges, saying such a plea has raised unnecessary doubts over the integrity of judges.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking SIT probe into an alleged case of bribery in the name of judges, saying such a plea has raised unnecessary doubts over the integrity of judges. It all started when the matter pertaining to an alleged bribery scam in which retired Orissa High Court Judge IM Quddusi was arrested, among others, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodged an FIR. The FIR said, Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in "settling" a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court. The trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI. Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and the NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms represented by Bhushan) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same. On Thursday (November 9), a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the Public Interest Litigation, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing on Monday. However, the case took an interesting turn on Friday (November 10), when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Deepak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void. The matter was then heard by a three-judge bench comprising of Justices A K Agarwal, A M Khanwilkar and Arun Mishra, where the petitioners refused to argue on the merits of the case, citing the presence of Justice AM Khanwilkar on the bench, since he was one of the judges who had heard the controversial medical college case. More drama unfolded as the matter was being heard by the bench and they raised questions on propriety and "forum shopping" by the petitioners. However, some key highlights of the judgment passed today raise doubts. In its judgement, the Supreme Court said, "There cannot be registration of any FIR against a High Court Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court or the Supreme Court Judge without the consultation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and that independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of the CBI or that of the police is a red herring.” Furthermore, Justice Arun Mishra left no stone unturned while pronouncing the judgement, he said, "The FIR is not against any judge in SC and neither is it possible to register FIR against a judge. The senior counsels attempted forum shopping to seek a favourable order and it was unethical of them to do so. They did not verify the position of law and unnecessary doubt was raised on this institution. Proper verification of facts were not made before filing this petition. We expect that good will shall prevail in this institution. Let us unite and work together for the welfare of this great institution. We are not initiating contempt procedure and the matter should stop at this. We have also observed that even we are not above the law.” Refuting special investigation team (SIT) probe in the medical college bribery matter, the apex court defended itself completely and questioned the basis of the allegations. The court said, "No judge can be held responsible for what may, or has happened in the corridors, or for ‘who purports to sell whom’. The alleged actions of a retired judge of a high court, allegedly assuring and promising, a ‘favourable’ decision in the aforesaid circumstances of the case which was then pending before this court, in the aforesaid circumstances and has assured favourable orders, begs the question, and we wonder, as to what favourable orders have been passed. As is apparent from the aforesaid narration of facts, there was no favourable order granted by this court in favour of the medical college for the current academic session 2017-18, rather its inspection for considering confirmation of letter of permission for the next yearn 2018-19 had been ordered". The issue related to "Conflict of Interest " which questioned the CJI's involvement in the case was also lucidly clarified by the apex court. "There is no conflict of interest in such a matter. In case Judge is hearing a matter and if he comes to know that any party is unscrupulously trying to influence the decision making or indulging in mal-practices, it is incumbent upon the Judge to take cognizance of such a matter under Contempt of Courts Act and to deal with and punish such person in accordance with law as that is not the conflict of interest but the purpose for which the entire system exists. Such things cannot be ignored and recusal of a Judge cannot be asked on the ground of conflict of interest, it would be the saddest day for the judicial system of this country to ignore such aspects on the unfounded allegations and materials. It was highly improper for the petitioner to allege conflict of interest in the petition filed that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India should not hear on judicial side or allocate the matter on the administrative side,” it said. The judge vs judge issue and the contest of intra-judicial authority seems to have gone back to the dark cave. This showdown in the apex court has now received its happy ending or as some may call it good riddance from high voltage drama.

No FIR can be registered against a judge, says Supreme Court

Union transport minister Nitin Gadkari has said Centre is ready to help Delhi government in tackling pollution, adding that odd-even car rationing scheme is not going to help.

&ldquo;The Delhi government should add electric buses in its transport fleet if it wants to curb pollution. The Centre is ready to help in every possible way,&rdquo; Gadkari said in a letter to Union environment minister Dr Harsh Vardhan.

In the letter, Gadkari suggested forming a panel of experts before deciding a course of action to combat pollution in Delhi. &ldquo;The odd-even scheme is not going to help,&rdquo; Gadkari said.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi governments on the petition on stubble burning and dust pollution.

Stating that it&#39;s an emergency situation, the Supreme Court sought expeditious action from the authorities.

The Delhi High Court had on November 9 issued a slew of directions to improve air quality of Delhi.

Calling it an &quot;emergency situation&quot;, the high court had asked the government to consider the option of &quot;cloud seeding&quot; to induce rainfall artificially, as an immediate step to bring down the dust and particulate matter in the atmosphere.

It had directed the Delhi government to seriously consider a ban on further construction in the city to the extent possible and implementing the &#39;odd-even&#39; vehicle usage scheme as a short term measure.

?The Delhi government should add electric buses in its transport fleet if it wants to curb pollution. The Centre is ready to help in every possible way,? Gadkari said in a letter to Union environment minister Dr Harsh Vardhan.

Union transport minister Nitin Gadkari has said Centre is ready to help Delhi government in tackling pollution, adding that odd-even car rationing scheme is not going to help. “The Delhi government should add electric buses in its transport fleet if it wants to curb pollution. The Centre is ready to help in every possible way,” Gadkari said in a letter to Union environment minister Dr Harsh Vardhan. In the letter, Gadkari suggested forming a panel of experts before deciding a course of action to combat pollution in Delhi. “The odd-even scheme is not going to help,” Gadkari said. The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi governments on the petition on stubble burning and dust pollution. Stating that it's an emergency situation, the Supreme Court sought expeditious action from the authorities. The Delhi High Court had on November 9 issued a slew of directions to improve air quality of Delhi. Calling it an "emergency situation", the high court had asked the government to consider the option of "cloud seeding" to induce rainfall artificially, as an immediate step to bring down the dust and particulate matter in the atmosphere. It had directed the Delhi government to seriously consider a ban on further construction in the city to the extent possible and implementing the 'odd-even' vehicle usage scheme as a short term measure.

Odd-even won't help, Centre ready to step in: Nitin Gadkari on Delhi pollution

Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has issued notices to the Centre and wildlife bodies like Wildlife Institute of India, National Board for Wildlife, National Tiger Conservation Authority.

The notices were issued on a PIL seeking a direction to relocate human settlements from reserve forests to save the tiger population in the country.

Filing a PIL, advocate Anupam Tripathi submitted that 41 tigers were killed in 7 months from January to August 9 in the year 2015, as per the data provided by the National Tiger Conservation Authority.

There were 74 tiger deaths reported in the year 2016, the petitioner said while submitting that these wild cats were killed by the locals residing near the reserve forests either due to man-animal conflict or poaching.

It was alleged that the tigers are being indiscriminately, barbarically and monstrously killed either by poisoning by the locals or by the authorities, shooting by the Forest Guards, poaching etc. Thus, tigers are being killed each day in the cruelest fashion.

It was alleged that the tigers are being indiscriminately, barbarically and monstrously killed either by poisoning by the locals or by the authorities, shooting by the Forest Guards, poaching etc

Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has issued notices to the Centre and wildlife bodies like Wildlife Institute of India, National Board for Wildlife, National Tiger Conservation Authority. The notices were issued on a PIL seeking a direction to relocate human settlements from reserve forests to save the tiger population in the country. Filing a PIL, advocate Anupam Tripathi submitted that 41 tigers were killed in 7 months from January to August 9 in the year 2015, as per the data provided by the National Tiger Conservation Authority. There were 74 tiger deaths reported in the year 2016, the petitioner said while submitting that these wild cats were killed by the locals residing near the reserve forests either due to man-animal conflict or poaching. It was alleged that the tigers are being indiscriminately, barbarically and monstrously killed either by poisoning by the locals or by the authorities, shooting by the Forest Guards, poaching etc. Thus, tigers are being killed each day in the cruelest fashion.

SC issues notices to Centre, wildlife bodies on PIL seeking human relocation from reserve forests

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-fir-can-be-registered-against-a-judge-says-supreme-court-24210">No FIR can be registered against a judge, says Supreme Court</a>

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking SIT probe into an alleged case of bribery in the name of judges, saying such a plea has raised unnecessary doubts over the integrity of judges.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chennai-girl-dies-after-boy-sets-her-ablaze-24200">Stalker sets Chennai woman, mother &amp; sister on fire; woman dies</a>

A stalker in Chennai allegedly set on fire a woman, her mother, and sister. Akash, 23 years old, who has been detained by the police for setting ablaze the three was stalking the woman for over a month.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/wpi-inflation-at-6-mth-high-of-359-onion-veggies-costlier-24199">WPI inflation at 6-month high of 3.59%</a>

Inflation at the wholesale level rose to a 6-month high of 3.59 percent in October as the prices of food articles, led by onions and vegetables, rose sharply.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entertainment-iffi-2017-ib-ministry-drops-two-films-from-the-festival-jury-head-sujoy-ghosh-resigns-24157">IFFI 2017: I&amp;B Ministry drops two films from the festival; jury-head Sujoy Ghosh resigns</a>

The film festival, that takes place in Goa every year, has been in the news for some of the films that the I&amp;B Ministry has decided to drop from the final list of films that will be screened at the festival. The 13-member jury for the Indian Panorama section has alleged that the Sanal Sasidharan&rsquo;s Malayalam movie S Durga and Ravi Jadhav&rsquo;s Marathi film Nude were dropped from the final list without their knowledge. The panel&#39;s head, filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh has resigned from his post.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/taliban-attacks-more-than-a-dozen-checkpoints-in-afghanistan-killing-22-police-24189">Taliban attacks checkpoints in Afghanistan, 22 cops killed</a>

The Afghan Taliban attacked more than a dozen checkpoints over six hours in the southern province of Kandahar, killing 22 police and wounding 15, officials said on Tuesday, as militants killed eight soldiers in the west in a growing insurgency.

No FIR can be registered against a judge, says Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking SIT probe into an alleged case of bribery in the name of judges, saying such a plea has raised unnecessary doubts over the integrity of judges. Stalker sets Chennai woman, mother & sister on fire; woman dies A stalker in Chennai allegedly set on fire a woman, her mother, and sister. Akash, 23 years old, who has been detained by the police for setting ablaze the three was stalking the woman for over a month. WPI inflation at 6-month high of 3.59% Inflation at the wholesale level rose to a 6-month high of 3.59 percent in October as the prices of food articles, led by onions and vegetables, rose sharply. IFFI 2017: I&B Ministry drops two films from the festival; jury-head Sujoy Ghosh resigns The film festival, that takes place in Goa every year, has been in the news for some of the films that the I&B Ministry has decided to drop from the final list of films that will be screened at the festival. The 13-member jury for the Indian Panorama section has alleged that the Sanal Sasidharan’s Malayalam movie S Durga and Ravi Jadhav’s Marathi film Nude were dropped from the final list without their knowledge. The panel's head, filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh has resigned from his post. Taliban attacks checkpoints in Afghanistan, 22 cops killed The Afghan Taliban attacked more than a dozen checkpoints over six hours in the southern province of Kandahar, killing 22 police and wounding 15, officials said on Tuesday, as militants killed eight soldiers in the west in a growing insurgency.

WION evening news brief, November 14, 2017

WION Evening News Brief, November 14, 2017

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Center, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi governments on the petition on stubble burning and dust pollution.

Stating that it&#39;s an emergency situation, the Supreme Court sought expeditious action from the authorities.

The court also said that there will be no stay on matters pertaining to pollution which is going on before any other court.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court was hearing a plea seeking to curb rising pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR).

A Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, considered the submission of lawyer R.K. Kapoor that rise in dust particles on roads, stubble burning in Delhi&rsquo;s neighbouring States like Haryana and Punjab have led to an alarming rise in pollution levels in the NCR and adjoining areas.

&ldquo;We cannot ignore the pollution,&rdquo; the Bench said earlier.&nbsp;

The plea sought a direction to the Centre and the States concerned to take steps to curb road dust and stubble burning. It also sought effective implementation of the odd-even car rationing scheme.

&nbsp;

Stating that it's an emergency situation, the Supreme Court sought expeditious action from the authorities.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Center, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi governments on the petition on stubble burning and dust pollution. Stating that it's an emergency situation, the Supreme Court sought expeditious action from the authorities. The court also said that there will be no stay on matters pertaining to pollution which is going on before any other court. The Supreme Court was hearing a plea seeking to curb rising pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR). A Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, considered the submission of lawyer R.K. Kapoor that rise in dust particles on roads, stubble burning in Delhi’s neighbouring States like Haryana and Punjab have led to an alarming rise in pollution levels in the NCR and adjoining areas. “We cannot ignore the pollution,” the Bench said earlier. The plea sought a direction to the Centre and the States concerned to take steps to curb road dust and stubble burning. It also sought effective implementation of the odd-even car rationing scheme.

Air pollution: Supreme Court issues notices to Centre, state govts

The Supreme Court has given six weeks&#39; time to the Central government to clear their stand on Ram Setu.

The central government will have to file an affidavit within six weeks&nbsp;to clarify if they want to remove Ram Setu or protect it.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ram Setu case: Supreme Court gives six weeks&#39; time to the Central government to file affidavit on their stand on Ram Setu. The Central Government will have to clarify if they want to remove Ram Setu or protect it.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/929953779318792193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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>

Ram Setu is a continuous stretch of limestone shoals between Rameshwaram Island, southeastern coast of Tamil Nadu and Northwestern coast of Sri Lanka.

Hindus believe that Ram Setu is the same stretch of land that was constructed by Lord Rama and his army of apes to reach Lanka.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Happy that today SC directed affidavit be filed in 6 wks by Union Govt on when they will decide Ram Setu will be Heritage Monument.
&mdash; Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) <a href="https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/929957162247434240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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">
SC gives Centre&#39;s lawyer 6 weeks&#39; time to get instructions and clarify govt&#39;s stand on the question whether the ancient Ram Sethu or the Adam&#39;s Bridge will be &quot;touched&quot; in the implementation of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project <a href="https://twitter.com/the_hindu?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@the_hindu</a>
&mdash; Krishnadas Rajagopal (@kdrajagopal) <a href="https://twitter.com/kdrajagopal/status/929954739659436032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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">
Legendary evidence is that &quot;Ram Setu&quot; is a universal truth because science also confirms it, hence its relevance is even more important.
&mdash; Arvind Belewar (@ArvindBelewar) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArvindBelewar/status/929963532501651456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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;

The central government will have to file an affidavit within six weeks?to clarify if they want to remove Ram Setu or protect it

The Supreme Court has given six weeks' time to the Central government to clear their stand on Ram Setu. The central government will have to file an affidavit within six weeks to clarify if they want to remove Ram Setu or protect it. Ram Setu case: Supreme Court gives six weeks' time to the Central government to file affidavit on their stand on Ram Setu. The Central Government will have to clarify if they want to remove Ram Setu or protect it. — ANI (@ANI) November 13, 2017 × Ram Setu is a continuous stretch of limestone shoals between Rameshwaram Island, southeastern coast of Tamil Nadu and Northwestern coast of Sri Lanka. Hindus believe that Ram Setu is the same stretch of land that was constructed by Lord Rama and his army of apes to reach Lanka. Happy that today SC directed affidavit be filed in 6 wks by Union Govt on when they will decide Ram Setu will be Heritage Monument. — Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) November 13, 2017 × SC gives Centre's lawyer 6 weeks' time to get instructions and clarify govt's stand on the question whether the ancient Ram Sethu or the Adam's Bridge will be "touched" in the implementation of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project @the_hindu — Krishnadas Rajagopal (@kdrajagopal) November 13, 2017 × Legendary evidence is that "Ram Setu" is a universal truth because science also confirms it, hence its relevance is even more important. — Arvind Belewar (@ArvindBelewar) November 13, 2017 ×

SC asks government to clear stand on Ram Setu within six weeks

A day after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-smog-69-trains-delayed-22-recheduled-eight-cancelled-24069">Delhi government decided not to implement the odd-even</a> scheme for cars, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking immediate measures to curb&nbsp;rising pollution in Delhi-NCR.

The CJI bench will hear the matter at the end of the board today.

The plea was filed by Supreme court lawyer&nbsp;RK Kapoor.&nbsp;The plea seeks to&nbsp;immediate action&nbsp;against stubble burning and construction dust.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the National Green Tribunal(NGT) hit out at the&nbsp;Delhi government saying whether the officials were only &quot;informing&quot;&nbsp;the media about the review petition on the odd-even scheme, as no review petition had been filed.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
NGT asks whether the Delhi government was only informing the media about a review petition on the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OddEven?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OddEven</a> scheme since no review petition has been filed as yet.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/929942001696436224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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>

NGT further said that the Delhi government had still not moved modification on NGT on the issue of odd-even vehicle number plates.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
NGT on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a> Smog and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OddEven?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OddEven</a>: Delhi Government has still not moved modification application on NGT on the issue of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OddEven?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OddEven</a>. NGT observes &quot;govt approaching us or was its minister&#39;s statement for press only?&quot;
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/929943445967290368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 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>

On Sunday, the NGT had told the Delhi government to go ahead with the odd-even scheme but refused to exempt women and government vehicles. The Delhi government later decided not to go ahead with the scheme fearing safety&nbsp;for women.

Meanwhile, schools in Delhi reopened after being closed due to severe smog conditions, however, heavy smog continued unabated as Delhiites woke up on Monday morning.

(With inputs from ANI)

?The Supreme Court agrees to hear a fresh plea seeking immediate measures to curb?rising pollution in Delhi-NCR

A day after the Delhi government decided not to implement the odd-even scheme for cars, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking immediate measures to curb rising pollution in Delhi-NCR. The CJI bench will hear the matter at the end of the board today. The plea was filed by Supreme court lawyer RK Kapoor. The plea seeks to immediate action against stubble burning and construction dust. Meanwhile, the National Green Tribunal(NGT) hit out at the Delhi government saying whether the officials were only "informing" the media about the review petition on the odd-even scheme, as no review petition had been filed. NGT asks whether the Delhi government was only informing the media about a review petition on the #OddEven scheme since no review petition has been filed as yet. — ANI (@ANI) November 13, 2017 × NGT further said that the Delhi government had still not moved modification on NGT on the issue of odd-even vehicle number plates. NGT on #Delhi Smog and #OddEven: Delhi Government has still not moved modification application on NGT on the issue of #OddEven. NGT observes "govt approaching us or was its minister's statement for press only?" — ANI (@ANI) November 13, 2017 × On Sunday, the NGT had told the Delhi government to go ahead with the odd-even scheme but refused to exempt women and government vehicles. The Delhi government later decided not to go ahead with the scheme fearing safety for women. Meanwhile, schools in Delhi reopened after being closed due to severe smog conditions, however, heavy smog continued unabated as Delhiites woke up on Monday morning. (With inputs from ANI)

Delhi smog: Supreme Court to hear plea on pollution today

Petitioner and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had sought an SIT Investigation into the medical college bribery scam, termed the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra, overriding J Chelameshwar`s order as a `black day` in the history of the Supreme Court.&quot;I feel that the behaviour of the CJI and the bench was not proper. We haven`t yet seen the order of the court. We`ll first see and then take the call on our future course of action,&quot; Bhushan told ANI.&quot;But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme Court,&quot; he added.

The above-mentioned matter pertains to a medical college bribery scam against IM Quddusi (retired Orissa High Court judge) who was arrested among others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the PIL, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing&nbsp;on Monday.

However, the case took an interesting turn Friday, when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Dipak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void.

Bhushan, earlier in the day, tweeted that CJI Dipak Misra presided over a &quot;hand-picked bench to override yesterday`s order&quot; by another top court bench.Speaking to ANI, Bhushan went on to explain the ordeal of the day`s proceedings.

&quot;It was one of the most unfortunate days for the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the credibility of the court has been greatly undermined and that too effectively by the CJI himself. The petition was seeking an independent SIT investigation into a CBI FIR effectively registered against the judges of SC, including the CJI, particularly the CJI. We were asking for an independent SIT investigation and that it should not be left with the CBI, which is a caged parrot under the Central Government,&quot; Bhushan said.

&quot;A similar matter was heard the previous day in which it was observed that it is a very important case and can have serious ramifications and therefore, it should be heard by five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court&nbsp;on Monday. Today when our matter came to a different bench, the two judges first apparently said that it should be connected with the earlier case but then at&nbsp;2:45 pm, I received a call from the registry that the CJI has constituted a seven-judge bench,&quot; he added.

Bhushan further said that thereafter, a five bench started the proceedings, but instead of hearing the matter on merits, it started asking all kinds of random lawyers present there about the propriety of court no. 2 hearing this matter the previous day.

&quot;When I said that the CJI should not be hearing this matter because he has a conflict of interest as this FIR is effectively seeking an investigation into his role also, he ignored my point and once again started listening to random lawyers,&quot; he said, adding, &quot;He did not allow me to say anything on the merits of the case.

&quot;Bhushan added that after trying for four-five times, he left the court.&quot;Thereafter, apparently he passed an order saying that he is the `master of roles`, and that he would only assign the benches,&quot; he concluded.Bhushan had earlier tweeted, &quot;Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in the case seeking SIT Investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CJI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday`s order referring this case to top 5 judges.This despite having a direct conflict of interest.&quot;

&quot;The court proceedings were extraordinary in that the CJI was asking all kinds of lawyers who were not parties to say things against the order of Court 2, w/o hearing petitioner. He tried to justify his role in the medical college case &amp; speak against `impropriety` of Court 2,&quot; he had added.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a non-governmental organisation represented by Bhushan, had moved a petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the alleged scam. This petition was first posted before a bench headed by Justice Chalameswar on November 10.

The petition was later moved to a bench headed by Justice AK Sikri.Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also moved a similar petition, which was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing.

This bench later referred the matter to a larger five-judge Constitution bench, ordered to have five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.On Friday, the petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, similar to Jaiswal`s, came up before the bench of Justice Sikri.

Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in &quot;settling&quot; a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court.

The Trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI.Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled a Thursday order by the same court

Petitioner and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had sought an SIT Investigation into the medical college bribery scam, termed the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra, overriding J Chelameshwar`s order as a `black day` in the history of the Supreme Court."I feel that the behaviour of the CJI and the bench was not proper. We haven`t yet seen the order of the court. We`ll first see and then take the call on our future course of action," Bhushan told ANI."But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme Court," he added. The above-mentioned matter pertains to a medical college bribery scam against IM Quddusi (retired Orissa High Court judge) who was arrested among others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the PIL, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing on Monday. However, the case took an interesting turn Friday, when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Dipak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void. Bhushan, earlier in the day, tweeted that CJI Dipak Misra presided over a "hand-picked bench to override yesterday`s order" by another top court bench.Speaking to ANI, Bhushan went on to explain the ordeal of the day`s proceedings. "It was one of the most unfortunate days for the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the credibility of the court has been greatly undermined and that too effectively by the CJI himself. The petition was seeking an independent SIT investigation into a CBI FIR effectively registered against the judges of SC, including the CJI, particularly the CJI. We were asking for an independent SIT investigation and that it should not be left with the CBI, which is a caged parrot under the Central Government," Bhushan said. "A similar matter was heard the previous day in which it was observed that it is a very important case and can have serious ramifications and therefore, it should be heard by five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court on Monday. Today when our matter came to a different bench, the two judges first apparently said that it should be connected with the earlier case but then at 2:45 pm, I received a call from the registry that the CJI has constituted a seven-judge bench," he added. Bhushan further said that thereafter, a five bench started the proceedings, but instead of hearing the matter on merits, it started asking all kinds of random lawyers present there about the propriety of court no. 2 hearing this matter the previous day. "When I said that the CJI should not be hearing this matter because he has a conflict of interest as this FIR is effectively seeking an investigation into his role also, he ignored my point and once again started listening to random lawyers," he said, adding, "He did not allow me to say anything on the merits of the case. "Bhushan added that after trying for four-five times, he left the court."Thereafter, apparently he passed an order saying that he is the `master of roles`, and that he would only assign the benches," he concluded.Bhushan had earlier tweeted, "Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in the case seeking SIT Investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CJI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday`s order referring this case to top 5 judges.This despite having a direct conflict of interest." "The court proceedings were extraordinary in that the CJI was asking all kinds of lawyers who were not parties to say things against the order of Court 2, w/o hearing petitioner. He tried to justify his role in the medical college case & speak against `impropriety` of Court 2," he had added. The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a non-governmental organisation represented by Bhushan, had moved a petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the alleged scam. This petition was first posted before a bench headed by Justice Chalameswar on November 10. The petition was later moved to a bench headed by Justice AK Sikri.Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also moved a similar petition, which was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing. This bench later referred the matter to a larger five-judge Constitution bench, ordered to have five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.On Friday, the petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, similar to Jaiswal`s, came up before the bench of Justice Sikri. Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in "settling" a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court. The Trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI.Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

Black day in history of Supreme Court: Prashant Bhushan

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition against the release of the film Padmavati.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, said the Censor Board has not yet issued a certificate to Padmavati. That the board is an independent body and that the Supreme Court should thefore not intervene in its jurisdiction.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court dismisses petition filed against release of the film <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmavati?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmavati</a> <a href="https://t.co/RVBeSsO3ZZ">pic.twitter.com/RVBeSsO3ZZ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/928883891762479104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 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 Rajasthan government had earlier formed a panel to watch the Deepika Padukone-Shahid Kapoor-Ranveer Singh starrer.&nbsp;

The Rajasthan government had said state Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria would head the panel.&nbsp;

The Sanjay Leela Bhansali-directed movie is about Padmavati, the erstwhile queen of Chittor.&nbsp;

Rajput groups in Rajasthan have been protesting against the release of the film saying it might dishonour the community.&nbsp;

Their most strident objections have been to a reported &quot;dream sequence&quot; between Deepika Padukone (playing Padmavati) and Ranveer Singh (playing Allaudin Khilji).&nbsp;

Historians however say it is possible that Padmavati never existed.&nbsp;

The first mention of her is found in the 16th-century poem Padmavat by Malik Muhammad Jayasi -- while Padmavati was said to have lived in the 14th century.&nbsp;

The court said the Censor Board has not yet issued a certificate to Padmavati and that it (the court) should therefore not intervene in the board's jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition against the release of the film Padmavati. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, said the Censor Board has not yet issued a certificate to Padmavati. That the board is an independent body and that the Supreme Court should thefore not intervene in its jurisdiction. Supreme Court dismisses petition filed against release of the film #Padmavati pic.twitter.com/RVBeSsO3ZZ — ANI (@ANI) November 10, 2017 × The Rajasthan government had earlier formed a panel to watch the Deepika Padukone-Shahid Kapoor-Ranveer Singh starrer. The Rajasthan government had said state Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria would head the panel. The Sanjay Leela Bhansali-directed movie is about Padmavati, the erstwhile queen of Chittor. Rajput groups in Rajasthan have been protesting against the release of the film saying it might dishonour the community. Their most strident objections have been to a reported "dream sequence" between Deepika Padukone (playing Padmavati) and Ranveer Singh (playing Allaudin Khilji). Historians however say it is possible that Padmavati never existed. The first mention of her is found in the 16th-century poem Padmavat by Malik Muhammad Jayasi -- while Padmavati was said to have lived in the 14th century.

Padmavati: Supreme Court dismisses petition against release of film

The Supreme Court has dismissed to hear the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking minority status for&nbsp;Hindus in several states and union territories.

It has directed the petitioner to approach National Commission for minorities.&nbsp;

A PIL was filed by a Delhi BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

The petitioner&nbsp;sought minority status in seven states and union territories claiming that &quot;the minority rights of the Hindus were being siphoned off illegally and arbitrarily to the majority population&quot;.

According to the 2011 Census Hindus are in minority in eight states, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Jammu and Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Punjab.

(With inputs from PTI and ANI)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The SC has directed the petitioner to approach National Commission for minorities

The Supreme Court has dismissed to hear the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking minority status for Hindus in several states and union territories. It has directed the petitioner to approach National Commission for minorities. A PIL was filed by a Delhi BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petitioner sought minority status in seven states and union territories claiming that "the minority rights of the Hindus were being siphoned off illegally and arbitrarily to the majority population". According to the 2011 Census Hindus are in minority in eight states, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Jammu and Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Punjab. (With inputs from PTI and ANI)

SC refuses to hear plea seeking minority status for Hindus

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear urgently a plea regarding alleged bribes being taken in the name of judges.

A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer agreed to list the matter before itself on the request of former Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) President and senior advocate Dushyanth Dave.

Dave, while mentioning the matter for urgent listing, said, &quot;This petition should be listed before a bench of Justice Chelameswar as it involves protection of the integrity of the institution&quot;.

He said there are serious apprehensions and therefore this matter should be taken up at 12.45 PM today.

&quot;This matter relates to an FIR lodged by CBI into the alleged bribe taken in the name of judges. Things are very disturbing and nobody can be a judge in his own case,&quot; Dave said.

He said that there is nothing personal and the court should help him protect the institution.

To this, the bench said there are civil liberties and fundamental rights but it is also the responsibility of the society to protect its rights.

The bench listed the matter for hearing at 12.45 PM.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear urgently a plea regarding alleged bribes being taken in the name of judges

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear urgently a plea regarding alleged bribes being taken in the name of judges. A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer agreed to list the matter before itself on the request of former Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) President and senior advocate Dushyanth Dave. Dave, while mentioning the matter for urgent listing, said, "This petition should be listed before a bench of Justice Chelameswar as it involves protection of the integrity of the institution". He said there are serious apprehensions and therefore this matter should be taken up at 12.45 PM today. "This matter relates to an FIR lodged by CBI into the alleged bribe taken in the name of judges. Things are very disturbing and nobody can be a judge in his own case," Dave said. He said that there is nothing personal and the court should help him protect the institution. To this, the bench said there are civil liberties and fundamental rights but it is also the responsibility of the society to protect its rights. The bench listed the matter for hearing at 12.45 PM.

SC to hear today plea on 'bribes' being taken in judges' name

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Central Board of Investigation (CBI) to respond whether Karti Chidambaram could be allowed to travel abroad for 4-5 days.

The court has also asked the CBI to lay out the conditions to be imposed on him if he is allowed to travel so that he does not escape.&nbsp;

Earlier CBI opposed the former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram&#39;s son Karti Chidambaram&#39;s plea to the Supreme Court to travel aboard, saying it has serious apprehensions that he would tamper with evidence during his overseas stay.

The agency told the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud that it has incriminating evidence against Karti Chidambaram which it had already submitted to the court in a sealed cover.

However, junior Chidambaram, who had sought permission to go to Britain for his daughter&#39;s admission to Cambridge, told the court that the agency should prove that he has other accounts abroad, except the one he has already disclosed.

The junior Chidambaram, who was represented by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, also contested the CBI&#39;s claim that he has undisclosed overseas assets.

 
&nbsp;

The court has also asked the CBI to lay out the conditions to be imposed on him if he is allowed to travel so that he does not escape.?

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Central Board of Investigation (CBI) to respond whether Karti Chidambaram could be allowed to travel abroad for 4-5 days. The court has also asked the CBI to lay out the conditions to be imposed on him if he is allowed to travel so that he does not escape. Earlier CBI opposed the former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram's plea to the Supreme Court to travel aboard, saying it has serious apprehensions that he would tamper with evidence during his overseas stay. The agency told the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud that it has incriminating evidence against Karti Chidambaram which it had already submitted to the court in a sealed cover. However, junior Chidambaram, who had sought permission to go to Britain for his daughter's admission to Cambridge, told the court that the agency should prove that he has other accounts abroad, except the one he has already disclosed. The junior Chidambaram, who was represented by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, also contested the CBI's claim that he has undisclosed overseas assets.

SC asks CBI to lay out conditions to allow Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad

The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim bail to Ryan Pinto - CEO of Ryan International Group and his parents, founding chairman Augustine Pinto and managing director Grace Pinto in connection with the death of Pradyuman Thakur, a 7-year-old boy who was found dead at Ryan International School, Bhonsdi, on September 8. The court asked Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court to decide the matter within 10 days.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ryan-student-murder-high-court-refuses-to-stay-school-owners-arrest-20429">On September 28, the high court had stayed the arrest of the three trustees of the Ryan group</a>, who had sought anticipatory bail in this case.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ryan-school-murder-security-guard-says-blood-on-floor-was-wiped-off-20157">Ryan </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ryan-school-murder-security-guard-says-blood-on-floor-was-wiped-off-20157">Pinto,</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ryan-school-murder-security-guard-says-blood-on-floor-was-wiped-off-20157"> and his parents had approached the High Court on September 16,</a> seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the&nbsp;case. &nbsp;

Class 2 student Pradhuman Thakur was found with his throat slit in the school washroom.&nbsp;

Schoolbus conductor Ashok Kumar was arrested in connection with the case. 
&nbsp;

Class 2 student Pradhuman Thakur was found with his throat slit in the school washroom on September 8.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim bail to Ryan Pinto - CEO of Ryan International Group and his parents, founding chairman Augustine Pinto and managing director Grace Pinto in connection with the death of Pradyuman Thakur, a 7-year-old boy who was found dead at Ryan International School, Bhonsdi, on September 8. The court asked Punjab & Haryana High Court to decide the matter within 10 days. On September 28, the high court had stayed the arrest of the three trustees of the Ryan group, who had sought anticipatory bail in this case. Ryan Pinto, and his parents had approached the High Court on September 16, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the case. Class 2 student Pradhuman Thakur was found with his throat slit in the school washroom. Schoolbus conductor Ashok Kumar was arrested in connection with the case.

Interim bail granted to Pinto family in Pradyuman death case

The Supreme Court on Friday askd the government to reply to four petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and linking of bank accounts and mobile numbers with Aadhaar,&nbsp;a unique&nbsp;biometric identification number.

A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan also asked banks and telecom service providers to specify the last date of linking bank accounts and mobile numbers with Aadhaar as December 31 and February 6 in the messages sent by them to their customers.

The top court did not pass any interim order and said that the final hearing in all Aadhaar-related issues would start before the constitutional bench in the last week of November. The court said the government had already extended the deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts till December 31.

(Also Read:<a href="http://http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-set-up-constitution-bench-on-pleas-against-aadhaar-23132"> Supreme Court to set up constitution bench on pleas against Aadhaar</a>)

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the petitioners, referred to a recently-filed affidavit by the government and said the government has said the deadline for linking Aadhaar may be extended till March 31, 2018.

The bench, however, said the petitioners can raise this issue before the court which would hear all Aadhaar-related matters in the last week of November.

&quot;There is no doubt that these arguments need consideration. The matter is going to come up in the last week of November and the time (to link Aadhaar with bank accounts) has been extended till December 31,&quot; the bench said.

On October 25, the government told the top court that the deadline for linking 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 enroll for it.

On October 30, a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that a constitution bench would be constituted and Aadhaar-related matters would come up for hearing before it in November last.

Several petitions challenging the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for availing various services and benefits of welfare schemes have been filed in the top court.

Some petitioners in the top court have said&nbsp;the linking of the 12-digit identification number&nbsp;with bank accounts and mobile numbers is &quot;illegal and unconstitutional&quot;.

They have 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 counsel representing the petitioners had earlier said the final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter, which is pending before the top court, was necessary as the government &quot;cannot compel&quot; citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or cell phone numbers.

Earlier, while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the mandatory use of Aadhaar as an infringement of privacy, a nine-judge constitution bench had upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India. 
 
(With inputs from PTI)

The top court asked asked banks and telecom service providers to specify the last date of linking bank accounts and mobile numbers with Aadhaar as December 31 and February 6 in the messages sent by them to their customers

The Supreme Court on Friday askd the government to reply to four petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and linking of bank accounts and mobile numbers with Aadhaar, a unique biometric identification number. A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan also asked banks and telecom service providers to specify the last date of linking bank accounts and mobile numbers with Aadhaar as December 31 and February 6 in the messages sent by them to their customers. The top court did not pass any interim order and said that the final hearing in all Aadhaar-related issues would start before the constitutional bench in the last week of November. The court said the government had already extended the deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts till December 31. (Also Read: Supreme Court to set up constitution bench on pleas against Aadhaar) Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the petitioners, referred to a recently-filed affidavit by the government and said the government has said the deadline for linking Aadhaar may be extended till March 31, 2018. The bench, however, said the petitioners can raise this issue before the court which would hear all Aadhaar-related matters in the last week of November. "There is no doubt that these arguments need consideration. The matter is going to come up in the last week of November and the time (to link Aadhaar with bank accounts) has been extended till December 31," the bench said. On October 25, the government told the top court that the deadline for linking 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 enroll for it. On October 30, a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that a constitution bench would be constituted and Aadhaar-related matters would come up for hearing before it in November last. Several petitions challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for availing various services and benefits of welfare schemes have been filed in the top court. Some petitioners in the top court have said the linking of the 12-digit identification number with bank accounts and mobile numbers is "illegal and unconstitutional". They have 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 counsel representing the petitioners had earlier said the final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter, which is pending before the top court, was necessary as the government "cannot compel" citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or cell phone numbers. Earlier, while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the mandatory use of Aadhaar as an infringement of privacy, a nine-judge constitution bench had upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court asks banks, telecom service providers to specify deadline for linking Aadhaar

The Centre told the Supreme Court on Friday that no criminal action would be taken against people with demonetised notes in their possession.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Centre told Supreme Court no criminal action would be taken against those petitioners who were holding old currency notes of Rs500 &amp; Rs 1000
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/926333277576630272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 3, 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 was hearing a petition filed by one Sudha Mishra, seeking a direction from the Supreme Court to the Centre for people unable to deposit old notes into their bank accounts.&nbsp;

The government had demonetised Rs 500- and 1,000-notes on November 8 last year.&nbsp;

The government had said the demonetised notes were to be deposited with banks by December 31 last year, and had at the time said criminal action would be taken against anyone failing to do so.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by one Sudha Mishra, seeking a direction from the Supreme Court to the Centre for people unable to deposit old notes into their bank accounts

The Centre told the Supreme Court on Friday that no criminal action would be taken against people with demonetised notes in their possession. Centre told Supreme Court no criminal action would be taken against those petitioners who were holding old currency notes of Rs500 & Rs 1000 — ANI (@ANI) November 3, 2017 × The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by one Sudha Mishra, seeking a direction from the Supreme Court to the Centre for people unable to deposit old notes into their bank accounts. The government had demonetised Rs 500- and 1,000-notes on November 8 last year. The government had said the demonetised notes were to be deposited with banks by December 31 last year, and had at the time said criminal action would be taken against anyone failing to do so.

No action against those holding demonetised notes: Centre to SC

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to constitute special courts on the lines of &quot;fast-track courts&quot; in order to quickly finish cases pending against MPs and MLAs in the country.

In September, India&#39;s top court had asked the government to consider legislating on setting up of new fast- track courts to expedite criminal case trials against parliamentarians and legislators.

&quot;With regard to MPs and MLAs, it falls under the domain of Parliament. It has the necessary competence to come up with a law. Make law and create necessary infrastructure,&quot; a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer said.

&quot;Every time Parliament and assembly makes a law, it creates rights and obligations resulting in more cases which are dealt with by the same set of courts,&quot; it observed.

&quot;Expect for some specific tribunals, no new courts have come up. You (Centre) should create new courts and infrastructure as at present, the Government of India is spending only one or two per cent of the budget (judicial system),&quot; it said, adding that this would also reduce the huge pendency.

The apex court said that inadequate infrastructure in the courts was resulting in pendency and said that Parliament should pass laws and create fast-track courts for speedy disposal of such cases against the lawmakers.

Attorney General K K Venugopal agreed that fast-track courts were the need of the hour and said that some such courts have in the past done an excellent job and several people, especially those in jails, were benefitted by the system.

The apex court had said earlier that inadequate infrastructure in the courts was resulting in pendency

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to constitute special courts on the lines of "fast-track courts" in order to quickly finish cases pending against MPs and MLAs in the country. In September, India's top court had asked the government to consider legislating on setting up of new fast- track courts to expedite criminal case trials against parliamentarians and legislators. "With regard to MPs and MLAs, it falls under the domain of Parliament. It has the necessary competence to come up with a law. Make law and create necessary infrastructure," a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer said. "Every time Parliament and assembly makes a law, it creates rights and obligations resulting in more cases which are dealt with by the same set of courts," it observed. "Expect for some specific tribunals, no new courts have come up. You (Centre) should create new courts and infrastructure as at present, the Government of India is spending only one or two per cent of the budget (judicial system)," it said, adding that this would also reduce the huge pendency. The apex court said that inadequate infrastructure in the courts was resulting in pendency and said that Parliament should pass laws and create fast-track courts for speedy disposal of such cases against the lawmakers. Attorney General K K Venugopal agreed that fast-track courts were the need of the hour and said that some such courts have in the past done an excellent job and several people, especially those in jails, were benefitted by the system.

Constitute special courts to finish pending cases against MPs, MLAs: Supreme Court to government

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