&nbsp;In a grim reflection of the burden of cases on the judiciary, the Supreme Court today said a subordinate court in the country was grappling with an average of around 4,000 pending cases.

The top court, while favouring the creation of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/constitute-special-courts-to-finish-pending-cases-against-mps-mlas-supreme-court-to-government-23298" target="_blank">special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians</a> and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there.

&quot;The average number of cases each court has in the country is about 4,000 in trial courts. 4,000 is far more than what should be there,&quot; a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said.

&quot;Even if the Supreme Court says that complete the trial (in cases involving politicians) within one year, unless the judge is only hearing these cases, it would be difficult,&quot; it said.

Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni asked the bench whether these special courts, which would exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians, could be combined with special CBI courts which already exist across the country.

Replying to the Additional Solicitor General the bench refused to combine the special courts to the already existing CBI courts.&nbsp;

The bench said, &quot;it is in the interest of the nation&quot;.

&quot;Insofar as setting up of special courts are concerned, setting up of special courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the states,&quot; the bench noted in its order.

It said the problem could be resolved by having a central scheme for setting up of such special courts on the lines of fast-track courts which were established by the Centre for a period of five years and extended further, a scheme that has now been discontinued.

The apex court said a scheme in this regard should be laid before it on December 13, the next date of hearing, indicating the amount of funds that could be earmarked for setting up of special courts.

After this, the issues of appointment of judicial officers, public prosecutors, court staff and requirement of manpower and infrastructure would be dealt with, if required, by interacting with representatives of the respective states, it said.

The Centre told the court that it would place the details as sought by it within six weeks.

The top court was hearing petitions seeking to declare the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which bar convicted politician from contesting elections for six years after serving a jail term, as ultra vires to the Constitution.&nbsp;

The top court, while favouring the creation of special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there

In a grim reflection of the burden of cases on the judiciary, the Supreme Court today said a subordinate court in the country was grappling with an average of around 4,000 pending cases. The top court, while favouring the creation of special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there. "The average number of cases each court has in the country is about 4,000 in trial courts. 4,000 is far more than what should be there," a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said. "Even if the Supreme Court says that complete the trial (in cases involving politicians) within one year, unless the judge is only hearing these cases, it would be difficult," it said. Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni asked the bench whether these special courts, which would exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians, could be combined with special CBI courts which already exist across the country. Replying to the Additional Solicitor General the bench refused to combine the special courts to the already existing CBI courts. The bench said, "it is in the interest of the nation". "Insofar as setting up of special courts are concerned, setting up of special courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the states," the bench noted in its order. It said the problem could be resolved by having a central scheme for setting up of such special courts on the lines of fast-track courts which were established by the Centre for a period of five years and extended further, a scheme that has now been discontinued. The apex court said a scheme in this regard should be laid before it on December 13, the next date of hearing, indicating the amount of funds that could be earmarked for setting up of special courts. After this, the issues of appointment of judicial officers, public prosecutors, court staff and requirement of manpower and infrastructure would be dealt with, if required, by interacting with representatives of the respective states, it said. The Centre told the court that it would place the details as sought by it within six weeks. The top court was hearing petitions seeking to declare the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which bar convicted politician from contesting elections for six years after serving a jail term, as ultra vires to the Constitution.

Around 4,000 cases pending in each subordinate court: SC

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-test-pakistan-and-give-them-information-to-act-against-terrorists-tillerson-to-uscommittee-23300" target="_blank">Will test Pakistan and give them information to act against terrorists: Tillerson to US committee</a>

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that Pakistan is willing to target terrorists if provided information by the US government.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/constitute-special-courts-to-finish-pending-cases-against-mps-mlas-supreme-court-to-government-23298" target="_blank">Constitute special courts to finish pending cases against MPs, MLAs: Supreme Court to government</a>

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.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-ash-pipe-explodes-at-ntpc-100-injured-23311" target="_blank">Watch: Ash-pipe explodes at NTPC in UP; four dead, 50 injured</a>

UP ADG has said that about 60-70 people sustained injuries in the incident. The District Magistrate had previously reported 100 injuries.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/life-ban-for-convicted-mps-mlas-election-commission-to-supreme-court-6483" target="_blank">Life ban for convicted MPs, MLAs: Election Commission to Supreme Court</a>

The Election Commission said that it had written to the government to amend the law in this regard.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tiger-zinda-hai-katrina-kaif-can-kill-you-with-her-intense-gaze-in-this-new-still-23290" target="_blank">Tiger Zinda Hai: Katrina Kaif can kill you with her intense gaze in this new still</a>

Filmmaker Ali Abbas Zafar shared a new still from his upcoming film Tiger Zinda Hai on Wednesday. Featuring Katrina Kaif, Zafar captioned the photo as, &quot;Zoya , if eyes could kill #Katrina kaif @TigerZindaHai(sic)&quot;

Will test Pakistan and give them information to act against terrorists: Tillerson to US committee US secretary of state Rex Tillerson informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that Pakistan is willing to target terrorists if provided information by the US government. Constitute special courts to finish pending cases against MPs, MLAs: Supreme Court to government 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. Watch: Ash-pipe explodes at NTPC in UP; four dead, 50 injured UP ADG has said that about 60-70 people sustained injuries in the incident. The District Magistrate had previously reported 100 injuries. Life ban for convicted MPs, MLAs: Election Commission to Supreme Court The Election Commission said that it had written to the government to amend the law in this regard. Tiger Zinda Hai: Katrina Kaif can kill you with her intense gaze in this new still Filmmaker Ali Abbas Zafar shared a new still from his upcoming film Tiger Zinda Hai on Wednesday. Featuring Katrina Kaif, Zafar captioned the photo as, "Zoya , if eyes could kill #Katrina kaif @TigerZindaHai(sic)"

WION Evening News Brief, Nov 1 2017

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a plea filed by the Maharashtra Government, challenging the acquittal of Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case.

On July 5, 2016, the apex court admitted the Maharashtra Government&#39;s plea, challenging the Bombay High Court&#39;s verdict.

In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges on account of lack of substantial evidence in the case.

On May 6, 2015, a sessions court had held him guilty in the case, but Khan moved the High Court, challenging the verdict.

The Bollywood actor was accused of running his Toyota Land Cruiser over people sleeping on a sidewalk outside a bakery in Mumbai&#39;s Bandra on September 28, 2002.

One labourer died, while four others were injured in the accident.

In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges on account of lack of substantial evidence in the case.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a plea filed by the Maharashtra Government, challenging the acquittal of Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case. On July 5, 2016, the apex court admitted the Maharashtra Government's plea, challenging the Bombay High Court's verdict. In December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan of all criminal charges on account of lack of substantial evidence in the case. On May 6, 2015, a sessions court had held him guilty in the case, but Khan moved the High Court, challenging the verdict. The Bollywood actor was accused of running his Toyota Land Cruiser over people sleeping on a sidewalk outside a bakery in Mumbai's Bandra on September 28, 2002. One labourer died, while four others were injured in the accident.

Supreme Court to hear plea challenging Salman Khan's acquittal in hit-and-run case today

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear several pleas seeking a ban on cow vigilante groups across the nation.

One of the petitioners, in his plea, alleged that the vigilante groups have unleashed terror on the Minority and Dalit communities.

Earlier, the apex court had sought a response from the Centre and other states on the issue.

Many cases of harassment and violence in the name of &quot;gau raksha&quot; (cow protection) have taken place across the nation over the last few months.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in June, had condemned the attacks in the name of cow vigilantism, saying, &quot;Killing people in the name of cow is unacceptable. No one has the right to take law into his/her hands. We belong to a land of non-violence. Violence is not the solution to any problem.&quot;

Earlier, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar after the all-party meeting had said, &quot;Prime Minister Modi has asked the State Governments to take strict action against the anti-social elements creating violence in the name of cow vigilantism and punish them strictly.&quot;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear several pleas seeking a ban on cow vigilante groups across the nation.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear several pleas seeking a ban on cow vigilante groups across the nation. One of the petitioners, in his plea, alleged that the vigilante groups have unleashed terror on the Minority and Dalit communities. Earlier, the apex court had sought a response from the Centre and other states on the issue. Many cases of harassment and violence in the name of "gau raksha" (cow protection) have taken place across the nation over the last few months. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in June, had condemned the attacks in the name of cow vigilantism, saying, "Killing people in the name of cow is unacceptable. No one has the right to take law into his/her hands. We belong to a land of non-violence. Violence is not the solution to any problem." Earlier, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar after the all-party meeting had said, "Prime Minister Modi has asked the State Governments to take strict action against the anti-social elements creating violence in the name of cow vigilantism and punish them strictly."

Supreme Court to hear pleas seeking ban on cow vigilante groups

&quot;If you were really concerned about public and the society you should have started campaigns against various social evils like untouchability and safety of women. But you choose to target a particular movie.&quot;

Those were the words of justices M M Sundresh and M Sundar of Madras High Court while summarily dismissing a petition seeking a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revoke the censor certificate issued to Vijay starrer Mersal for it&#39;s &#39;&#39;anti-GST&#39;&#39; dialogues.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The petitioner argued that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country&#39;s sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The petitioner argued that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country's sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The judges while junking pseudo-nationalism propagated by the petitioner said in a mature democracy, the voices of the minority cannot be stifled and concluded that ultimately it was for the viewers to take a call on the contents of a movie.

The petitioner, forgetting that &#39;Mersal&#39; is after all just a movie, argued that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country&#39;s sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state. Here, we are made to wonder whether the petitioner a true patriot? If he is, as he claims himself to be, what&#39;s he doing on the court? Should he be fighting our country&#39;s enemies along the borders?

The petitioner&#39;s contention was that the apparent false information about GST and Digital India Scheme would encourage people to indulge in tax evasion. So, as per the petitioner&#39;s argument, nobody hides income in India and everyone files taxes without fail, and this movie was going to open black money floodgates.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The petitioner and all those who have been demanding to purge certain scenes in the film conveniently forgot that Mersal is, after all, a work of fiction.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The petitioner and all those who have been demanding to purge certain scenes in the film conveniently forgot that Mersal is, after all, a work of fiction." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Donald Trump&#39;s &quot;America first&quot; policy will draw a blank in front of the patriotic spirit of this petitioner. One wonders how the petitioner and all those who have been demanding to purge certain scenes in the film conveniently forgot that Mersal is, after all, a work of fiction.

The judges had to step forward and remind the petitioner and other BJP leaders that India and, especially, Tamil Nadu is a democracy. &quot;This is a democracy and people have their right to freedom of expression, and this applies to films as well,&quot; the judges said in their order.

&quot;Even today the media has reported that the Leader of Opposition in the state has criticised demonetisation, can the court pass a gag order against him from making such statements,&quot; the bench further said.

Wondering how the Censor Board had issued certification for the above movie, the petitioner had said: &quot;the film was full of wrong propaganda about India and fake dialogues and scenes which obviously lead to the misconception about the new taxation system (Goods and Service Tax).&quot;

The judges condemned the pseudo-nationalist petitioner and dismissed the plea as devoid of merit.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The petitioner&#39;s motivation was to invoke communal disharmony in Tamil Nadu for electrical dividends.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The petitioner's motivation was to invoke communal disharmony in Tamil Nadu for electrical dividends." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

This is not the first time the court&#39;s precious time was wasted on a&nbsp;useless petition. Recently, the Delhi High Court junked a petition filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into the death of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor&#39;s wife Sunanda Pushkar, terming his PIL as a &quot;textbook example of a political interest litigation&quot;.

While observing that the petition by Swamy cannot be entertained as a PIL, the bench said that &quot;Courts need to be careful that judicial process is not used by political persons for their own purposes&quot;.

The courts of our country have seen several such petitions now and then.

What&#39;s the intention of people filing such petitions? Are they really concerned about the issues that the country is facing? If so, why they don&#39;t suggest solutions to issues plaguing the country instead of wasting court&#39;s time and energy?

The petitioner&#39;s motivation was to invoke disharmony in Tamil Nadu for electrical dividends, not realising that the state had consigned these kinds of prejudice and preconceived notions to oblivion ages ago.

The petition to ban few dialogues from the movie Mersal was intended to invoke communal disharmony in Tamil Nadu

"If you were really concerned about public and the society you should have started campaigns against various social evils like untouchability and safety of women. But you choose to target a particular movie." Those were the words of justices M M Sundresh and M Sundar of Madras High Court while summarily dismissing a petition seeking a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revoke the censor certificate issued to Vijay starrer Mersal for it's ''anti-GST'' dialogues. The petitioner argued that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country's sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state. × The judges while junking pseudo-nationalism propagated by the petitioner said in a mature democracy, the voices of the minority cannot be stifled and concluded that ultimately it was for the viewers to take a call on the contents of a movie. The petitioner, forgetting that 'Mersal' is after all just a movie, argued that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country's sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state. Here, we are made to wonder whether the petitioner a true patriot? If he is, as he claims himself to be, what's he doing on the court? Should he be fighting our country's enemies along the borders? The petitioner's contention was that the apparent false information about GST and Digital India Scheme would encourage people to indulge in tax evasion. So, as per the petitioner's argument, nobody hides income in India and everyone files taxes without fail, and this movie was going to open black money floodgates. The petitioner and all those who have been demanding to purge certain scenes in the film conveniently forgot that Mersal is, after all, a work of fiction. × Donald Trump's "America first" policy will draw a blank in front of the patriotic spirit of this petitioner. One wonders how the petitioner and all those who have been demanding to purge certain scenes in the film conveniently forgot that Mersal is, after all, a work of fiction. The judges had to step forward and remind the petitioner and other BJP leaders that India and, especially, Tamil Nadu is a democracy. "This is a democracy and people have their right to freedom of expression, and this applies to films as well," the judges said in their order. "Even today the media has reported that the Leader of Opposition in the state has criticised demonetisation, can the court pass a gag order against him from making such statements," the bench further said. Wondering how the Censor Board had issued certification for the above movie, the petitioner had said: "the film was full of wrong propaganda about India and fake dialogues and scenes which obviously lead to the misconception about the new taxation system (Goods and Service Tax)." The judges condemned the pseudo-nationalist petitioner and dismissed the plea as devoid of merit. The petitioner's motivation was to invoke communal disharmony in Tamil Nadu for electrical dividends. × This is not the first time the court's precious time was wasted on a useless petition. Recently, the Delhi High Court junked a petition filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking a court-monitored SIT probe into the death of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor's wife Sunanda Pushkar, terming his PIL as a "textbook example of a political interest litigation". While observing that the petition by Swamy cannot be entertained as a PIL, the bench said that "Courts need to be careful that judicial process is not used by political persons for their own purposes". The courts of our country have seen several such petitions now and then. What's the intention of people filing such petitions? Are they really concerned about the issues that the country is facing? If so, why they don't suggest solutions to issues plaguing the country instead of wasting court's time and energy? The petitioner's motivation was to invoke disharmony in Tamil Nadu for electrical dividends, not realising that the state had consigned these kinds of prejudice and preconceived notions to oblivion ages ago.

How pseudo-nationalists attempted and failed to tame 'Mersal'

The Supreme Court said today that it will set up a constitution bench on pleas against the government&#39;s decision making Aadhaar mandatory to avail various services&nbsp;and welfare scheme benefits.

A bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said the constitution bench would start hearing the petitions in last week of November, PTI reported.

Several petitions, challenging the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications to link it with mobile numbers and bank accounts, are pending in the top court.&nbsp;

The court today issued a notice to Centre on a separate plea challenging linking of mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar and sought reply within four weeks.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-can-state-challenge-parliaments-mandate-supreme-court-on-west-bengals-plea-against-aadhaar-23118">The Supreme Court also pulled up the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government</a> today for challenging the government&#39;s decision to make Aadhaar for welfare schemes and for linking it with mobile numbers.

The top court said only an individual and not a state could file a plea against a mandate by Parliament. It asked the West Bengal chief minister to file the plea as an individual.

&quot;In a federal structure, how can a state file plea challenging Parliament&#39;s mandate,&quot; the Supreme Court bench said.

The West Bengal government has agreed to amend the plea and file it again.

&quot;If the court has said on Aadhaar matter that I need to approach individually, then I respect it. They have not rejected my petition,&quot; Mamata Banerjee said.

The government had earlier told the top&nbsp;court that the deadline for the mandatory linking of the 12-digit biometric identification number to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year for those who do not have the Aadhaar card.

The petitioners had termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as illegal and unconstitutional and strongly objected to the CBSE&#39;s move to make it mandatory for students to appear for exams.

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.

A five-judge constitutional bench will decide separately whether Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy or not.

 
&nbsp;

Several petitions, challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for various services and welfare schemes, are pending in the top court

The Supreme Court said today that it will set up a constitution bench on pleas against the government's decision making Aadhaar mandatory to avail various services and welfare scheme benefits. A bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said the constitution bench would start hearing the petitions in last week of November, PTI reported. Several petitions, challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications to link it with mobile numbers and bank accounts, are pending in the top court. The court today issued a notice to Centre on a separate plea challenging linking of mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar and sought reply within four weeks. The Supreme Court also pulled up the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government today for challenging the government's decision to make Aadhaar for welfare schemes and for linking it with mobile numbers. The top court said only an individual and not a state could file a plea against a mandate by Parliament. It asked the West Bengal chief minister to file the plea as an individual. "In a federal structure, how can a state file plea challenging Parliament's mandate," the Supreme Court bench said. The West Bengal government has agreed to amend the plea and file it again. "If the court has said on Aadhaar matter that I need to approach individually, then I respect it. They have not rejected my petition," Mamata Banerjee said. The government had earlier told the top court that the deadline for the mandatory linking of the 12-digit biometric identification number to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year for those who do not have the Aadhaar card. The petitioners had termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as illegal and unconstitutional and strongly objected to the CBSE's move to make it mandatory for students to appear for exams. 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. A five-judge constitutional bench will decide separately whether Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy or not.

Supreme Court to set up constitution bench on pleas against Aadhaar

The Supreme Court has questioned the West Bengal government for filing plea against Centre&rsquo;s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of welfare schemes.&nbsp;

&quot;In a federal structure, how can a state file plea challenging Parliament&#39;s mandate,&quot; the Supreme Court bench said.

We know it is a matter which needs consideration but you satisfy us how state can challenge it, the bench added.

After the court&#39;s rap, the Bengal government has agreed to amend the plea and will file it again.&nbsp;

&quot;If the court has said on Aadhaar matter that I need to approach individually, then I respect it. They have not rejected my petition,&quot; Mamata Banerjee said.

The West Bengal government&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-challenges-aadhaar-in-supreme-court-hearing-on-october-30-23047">filed the plea last week</a> after Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee opposed the linking of her mobile phone number with Aadhaar. &quot;Aadhaar number should not be linked with one&#39;s mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhaar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped,&quot; she said at a party meeting.

However, the Aadhaar-mobile issue is not part of the state government&#39;s plea, senior advocate and Member of Parliament Kalyan Banerjee said.

The Centre had, on October 25, told the top court that the deadline for mandatory Aadhaar linking to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year. The extension concerned those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number.

Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench headed Chief Justice Dipak Misra that deadline extension would apply only to those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. Earlier, the deadline for linking of Aadhaar was December end this year.&nbsp;

Venugopal had also told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues on Aadhaar after which the court had asked him to mention the matter again on October 30.

Several petitions are pending in the top court which challenge the centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar linkage with mobile number and bank accounts mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications.

The court today&nbsp;issued notice to Centre on separate plea challenging&nbsp;linking of mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar and sought reply within four weeks.

We know it is a matter which needs consideration but you satisfy us how state can challenge it, the bench added.

The Supreme Court has questioned the West Bengal government for filing plea against Centre’s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of welfare schemes. "In a federal structure, how can a state file plea challenging Parliament's mandate," the Supreme Court bench said. We know it is a matter which needs consideration but you satisfy us how state can challenge it, the bench added. After the court's rap, the Bengal government has agreed to amend the plea and will file it again. "If the court has said on Aadhaar matter that I need to approach individually, then I respect it. They have not rejected my petition," Mamata Banerjee said. The West Bengal government filed the plea last week after Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee opposed the linking of her mobile phone number with Aadhaar. "Aadhaar number should not be linked with one's mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhaar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped," she said at a party meeting. However, the Aadhaar-mobile issue is not part of the state government's plea, senior advocate and Member of Parliament Kalyan Banerjee said. The Centre had, on October 25, told the top court that the deadline for mandatory Aadhaar linking to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year. The extension concerned those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number. Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench headed Chief Justice Dipak Misra that deadline extension would apply only to those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. Earlier, the deadline for linking of Aadhaar was December end this year. Venugopal had also told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues on Aadhaar after which the court had asked him to mention the matter again on October 30. Several petitions are pending in the top court which challenge the centre's move to make Aadhaar linkage with mobile number and bank accounts mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications. The court today issued notice to Centre on separate plea challenging linking of mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar and sought reply within four weeks.

How can state challenge Parliament's mandate: Supreme Court on Mamata govt's plea against Aadhaar

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, today moved the Supreme Court opposing a plea seeking to reopen of the 70-year-old assassination case of the Mahatma.

A bench of Justices S A Bobde and M M Shantanagoudar questioned the locus of Tushar Gandhi in the case.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Gandhi, said she will explain the locus if the court moves ahead with issuing of notice.

The bench said there were several ifs and buts in the case and will like to wait for the amicus curiae (friend of the court) Amrender Sharan&#39;s report.

Sharan sought four weeks time to file the report, saying he was yet to receive relevant documents from the National Archives.

Jaising said that she is opposing the reopening of the 70-year-old assassination case of Mahatma and also questioned the locus of the petitioner, Mumbai-based Pankaj Phadnis, a researcher and a trustee of Abhinav Bharat.

The bench listed the matter after four weeks.

The apex court had on October 6 appointed senior advocate Sharan as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter.

The bench had raised a volley of questions including how evidence could be collected now to order further investigation into the case which had led to the conviction and execution of Nathuram Vinayak Godse and Narayan Apte on November 15, 1949.

Gandhi was shot dead at point blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948 by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism.

Phadnis has sought reopening of the probe on several grounds, claiming it was one of the biggest cover-ups in the history.

He has questioned the &#39;three bullet theory&#39; relied upon by various courts of law to hold the conviction of accused Godse and Apte, who were hanged, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who was given the benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence.

He has also claimed that there could be a third assassin other than the two convicted persons and submitted that there was a need to investigate whether the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), an intelligence agency of the US during World War II and a predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), had tried to protect Gandhi.

Phadnis has challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016 had dismissed his PIL on two grounds&nbsp;firstly, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court, and secondly, the Kapur Commission has submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition has been filed 46 years later.

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, today moved the Supreme Court opposing a plea seeking to reopen of the 70-year-old assassination case of the Mahatma.

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, today moved the Supreme Court opposing a plea seeking to reopen of the 70-year-old assassination case of the Mahatma. A bench of Justices S A Bobde and M M Shantanagoudar questioned the locus of Tushar Gandhi in the case. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Gandhi, said she will explain the locus if the court moves ahead with issuing of notice. The bench said there were several ifs and buts in the case and will like to wait for the amicus curiae (friend of the court) Amrender Sharan's report. Sharan sought four weeks time to file the report, saying he was yet to receive relevant documents from the National Archives. Jaising said that she is opposing the reopening of the 70-year-old assassination case of Mahatma and also questioned the locus of the petitioner, Mumbai-based Pankaj Phadnis, a researcher and a trustee of Abhinav Bharat. The bench listed the matter after four weeks. The apex court had on October 6 appointed senior advocate Sharan as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter. The bench had raised a volley of questions including how evidence could be collected now to order further investigation into the case which had led to the conviction and execution of Nathuram Vinayak Godse and Narayan Apte on November 15, 1949. Gandhi was shot dead at point blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948 by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. Phadnis has sought reopening of the probe on several grounds, claiming it was one of the biggest cover-ups in the history. He has questioned the 'three bullet theory' relied upon by various courts of law to hold the conviction of accused Godse and Apte, who were hanged, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who was given the benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence. He has also claimed that there could be a third assassin other than the two convicted persons and submitted that there was a need to investigate whether the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), an intelligence agency of the US during World War II and a predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), had tried to protect Gandhi. Phadnis has challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016 had dismissed his PIL on two grounds firstly, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court, and secondly, the Kapur Commission has submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition has been filed 46 years later.

Tushar Gandhi moves SC opposing reopening of Mahatma's

The Supreme Court will on Monday hear four petitions demanding the scrapping of Article 35A which grants special privileges to Jammu &amp; Kashmir.&nbsp;

The original petition was filed by Delhi-based NGO We the citizen, saying the state&rsquo;s autonomous status granted by Article 370 and Article 35(A) of the Constitution discriminates against fellow citizens from the rest of the country.

What is article 35A?

Article 35A is a provision in the Constitution that empowers the J&amp;K Legislature to define &quot;permanent residents&quot;&nbsp;of the state.

Permanent residents&nbsp;are conferred&nbsp;special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare.

The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land.

Article 35A was added through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370.

The J&amp;K legislature can alter the definition of &quot;permanent resident&quot; only through a law passed by a two-thirds majority.

Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution by an order by then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet.

The petition We the Citizens challenges the validity of both Article 35A and Article 370. It argues that four representatives from Kashmir were part of the Constituent Assembly involved in the drafting of the Constitution, and that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never accorded any special status under the Constitution. It contends that Article 370 was only a &quot;temporary provision&quot; to help bring normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir and strengthen democracy in the state. And that the writers of the Constitution did not intend Article 370 to be a tool to bring about permanent amendments -- like Article 35A -- in the Constitution

The petition states that Article 35A is against the &ldquo;very spirit of oneness of India&rdquo; as it creates a &ldquo;class within a class of Indian citizens&rdquo;.

And that stopping citizens of other states from finding employment or buying property in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Article 35A allows the state of Jammu and Kashmir to pronounce who is a 'permanent resident' of the state

The Supreme Court will on Monday hear four petitions demanding the scrapping of Article 35A which grants special privileges to Jammu & Kashmir. The original petition was filed by Delhi-based NGO We the citizen, saying the state’s autonomous status granted by Article 370 and Article 35(A) of the Constitution discriminates against fellow citizens from the rest of the country. What is article 35A? Article 35A is a provision in the Constitution that empowers the J&K Legislature to define "permanent residents" of the state. Permanent residents are conferred special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare. The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land. Article 35A was added through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370. The J&K legislature can alter the definition of "permanent resident" only through a law passed by a two-thirds majority. Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution by an order by then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The petition We the Citizens challenges the validity of both Article 35A and Article 370. It argues that four representatives from Kashmir were part of the Constituent Assembly involved in the drafting of the Constitution, and that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never accorded any special status under the Constitution. It contends that Article 370 was only a "temporary provision" to help bring normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir and strengthen democracy in the state. And that the writers of the Constitution did not intend Article 370 to be a tool to bring about permanent amendments -- like Article 35A -- in the Constitution The petition states that Article 35A is against the “very spirit of oneness of India” as it creates a “class within a class of Indian citizens”. And that stopping citizens of other states from finding employment or buying property in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

What is Article 35A, which SC will hear petitions against today?

The Supreme Court, in the Kerala &#39;Love Jihad&#39; case, has said the &quot;consent of the girl is prime. She is a major&quot;.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court also ordered Hadiya&#39;s father Monday to produce her before it on November 27, the next date of hearing.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kerala &#39;Love Jihad&#39; Case: Supreme Court observed that the consent of the girl is prime. She is a major; Hearing underway
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/924882967859572736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 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;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kerala &#39;Love Jihad&#39; Case: Supreme Court asks the father to produce Hadiya on November 27th, the next date of hearing in the case. <a href="https://t.co/DHAMUZDg2a">pic.twitter.com/DHAMUZDg2a</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/924895569583017985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Hadiya&#39;s father Ashokan said he welcomed the order of the top court and would produce Hadiya before the court on November 27.

&quot;Welcome the order of Supreme Court. I will produce Hadiya before the Court on November 27,&quot; Hadiya&#39;s father said. 
 
In a video released recently by Rahul Easwar, Hadiya had said she was certain she would be killed soon.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-love-jihad-case-hadiya-says-father-beats-her-up-she-fears-for-life-22986" target="_blank">Also read -- Kerala &#39;Love Jihad&#39; case: &#39;I will be killed anytime... I am sure,&#39; says Hadiya in new video</a>

Hadiya&#39;s marriage to Shafin Jahan had been annulled by the Kerala High Court in May on a petition by her father.&nbsp;

When the couple approached the Supreme Court, it ordered the NIA (National Investigation Agency) to investigate whether their marriage was a case of &quot;Love Jihad&quot;.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court also turned down Hadiya&#39;s father&#39;s plea Monday that the proceedings on November 27 be conducted in-camera, saying the proceedings would be open.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC refused plea of Hadiya&#39;s father for holding of in-camera proceedings on November 27th. Court says it will be in open court .
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/924898043614306305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 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 Supreme Court also ordered Hadiya's father to produce her before it on November 27

The Supreme Court, in the Kerala 'Love Jihad' case, has said the "consent of the girl is prime. She is a major". The Supreme Court also ordered Hadiya's father Monday to produce her before it on November 27, the next date of hearing. Kerala 'Love Jihad' Case: Supreme Court observed that the consent of the girl is prime. She is a major; Hearing underway — ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2017 × Kerala 'Love Jihad' Case: Supreme Court asks the father to produce Hadiya on November 27th, the next date of hearing in the case. pic.twitter.com/DHAMUZDg2a — ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2017 × Hadiya's father Ashokan said he welcomed the order of the top court and would produce Hadiya before the court on November 27. "Welcome the order of Supreme Court. I will produce Hadiya before the Court on November 27," Hadiya's father said. In a video released recently by Rahul Easwar, Hadiya had said she was certain she would be killed soon. Also read -- Kerala 'Love Jihad' case: 'I will be killed anytime... I am sure,' says Hadiya in new video Hadiya's marriage to Shafin Jahan had been annulled by the Kerala High Court in May on a petition by her father. When the couple approached the Supreme Court, it ordered the NIA (National Investigation Agency) to investigate whether their marriage was a case of "Love Jihad". The Supreme Court also turned down Hadiya's father's plea Monday that the proceedings on November 27 be conducted in-camera, saying the proceedings would be open. SC refused plea of Hadiya's father for holding of in-camera proceedings on November 27th. Court says it will be in open court . — ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2017 ×

Kerala 'Love Jihad' case: SC says 'consent of girl is prime, she is a major'

The Supreme Court has deferred its hearing by three months on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-against-article-35a-key-points-to-know-about-the-article-35a-23109"> Article 35A which empowers the legislature of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to define permanent residents&nbsp;of the state.</a>

The top court, which had initially said it would hear the matter after two months, amended its order to defer the hearing by three months.

The petitions, filed by an NGO, contend&nbsp;that the politically contentious article was illegally added to the Constitution of India as the Article was never proposed before the Parliament.

Article 35A also allows the legislature to provide special rights and privileges to those it defines as permanent residents.

Four petitions, which demanded the scrapping of the provision, have been listed before a bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak 
Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.

The main petition was filed by &quot;We the Citizens&quot;, a Delhi-based NGO in 2014.&nbsp;

Three more petitions were also filed challenging the Article but were later clubbed with the main one.

The top court has indicated that the issue may be dealt with by a five-judge constitution bench to ascertain whether Article 35A which relates to special rights and privileges of the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir is ultra vires of the Constitution or if there is any procedural lapse.

Article 370 gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian federation. Article 35A was added to the Constitution by a Presidential Order in 1954 and accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir. It also empowers the state&#39;s legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on grounds of violating the Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution.

A plea filed by Charu Wali Khanna, a lawyer and former member of the National Commission for Women, has challenged certain provisions of Article 35A of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which deal with the &quot;permanent residents&quot; of the state. The plea has challenged those provisions which deny property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which makes such women from the state to lose rights over property, also applies to her son.&nbsp;

Article 35A empowers the legislature of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to define 'permanent residents' of the state

The Supreme Court has deferred its hearing by three months on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A which empowers the legislature of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to define permanent residents of the state. The top court, which had initially said it would hear the matter after two months, amended its order to defer the hearing by three months. The petitions, filed by an NGO, contend that the politically contentious article was illegally added to the Constitution of India as the Article was never proposed before the Parliament. Article 35A also allows the legislature to provide special rights and privileges to those it defines as permanent residents. Four petitions, which demanded the scrapping of the provision, have been listed before a bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud. The main petition was filed by "We the Citizens", a Delhi-based NGO in 2014. Three more petitions were also filed challenging the Article but were later clubbed with the main one. The top court has indicated that the issue may be dealt with by a five-judge constitution bench to ascertain whether Article 35A which relates to special rights and privileges of the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir is ultra vires of the Constitution or if there is any procedural lapse. Article 370 gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian federation. Article 35A was added to the Constitution by a Presidential Order in 1954 and accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir. It also empowers the state's legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on grounds of violating the Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution. A plea filed by Charu Wali Khanna, a lawyer and former member of the National Commission for Women, has challenged certain provisions of Article 35A of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which deal with the "permanent residents" of the state. The plea has challenged those provisions which deny property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which makes such women from the state to lose rights over property, also applies to her son.

Supreme Court defers hearing by 3 months in Article 35A case

In an attempt to preserve Jyotilinga,&nbsp;Supreme Court on Friday ordered the use of only RO water instead of Gangajal for &#39;Jal abhishek&#39; at Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain.&nbsp;

The court approved the new worship norms of the temple after reports that the idol there was shrinking. The court has also restricted the quantity of milk for &lsquo;dugdh abhishek&rsquo; ritual to 1.25 liters.

These recommendations came from a committee of experts formed by the&nbsp;court that visited the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain which recommended the restrictions on certain offerings by devotees to save the idol.

Ujjaini Vidwat Parishad, a group of intellectuals, claimed that the Shivalinga located in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple has shrunk due to excessive &ldquo;bhang shingar&rdquo; (offering of bhang) and panchamrit (milk, curd, honey, sugar, and ghee). But the expert committee formed by officials from Archeological Survey Of India and Geological Survey of India has countered the claims saying it is not the reason of shrinking.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In an attempt to preserve the Jyotilinga Supreme Court has ordered to use only RO water instead of Gangajal for 'Jal abhishek' at the temple.?

In an attempt to preserve Jyotilinga, Supreme Court on Friday ordered the use of only RO water instead of Gangajal for 'Jal abhishek' at Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain. The court approved the new worship norms of the temple after reports that the idol there was shrinking. The court has also restricted the quantity of milk for ‘dugdh abhishek’ ritual to 1.25 liters. These recommendations came from a committee of experts formed by the court that visited the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain which recommended the restrictions on certain offerings by devotees to save the idol. Ujjaini Vidwat Parishad, a group of intellectuals, claimed that the Shivalinga located in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple has shrunk due to excessive “bhang shingar” (offering of bhang) and panchamrit (milk, curd, honey, sugar, and ghee). But the expert committee formed by officials from Archeological Survey Of India and Geological Survey of India has countered the claims saying it is not the reason of shrinking.

SC sets new worship norms for Ujjain Mahakaleshwar temple

Taking into consideration the dangers posed by the blue Whale game, the Supreme Court on Friday directed broadcasters&nbsp;to conceive an educational/awareness programme to be telecast.

The Supreme Court&#39;s order comes in the wake of a petition filed by a 73-year-old Chennai advocate, NS Ponnaiah, who blamed the game for 100 suicides throughout the country in recent times.

Earlier on September 15, the apex court had issued a notice to the Centre in connection with a plea seeking a complete ban on the Blue Whale Challenge.

Taking into account the adverse impact that the game is having on children and parents, the court ordered&nbsp;broadcasters&nbsp;to begin&nbsp;the awareness programme as soon as possible.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Blue whale game ban plea: The Supreme Court observed that Blue Whale game is a national problem
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/923807651472982016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 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 court informed&nbsp;that &ldquo;anything that threatens life should be condemned.&rdquo;

The deadly Blue Whale game is an online&nbsp;game that dares players for over 50 days, telling&nbsp;them to complete levels given by an anonymous controller.

The game begins with each player&nbsp;being asked to draw a whale on a piece of paper, then carve the same on their body. It continues giving tasks involving life-threatening activities.&nbsp;

The court posted the case for hearing on November 15.

(With inputs from ANI)

The petition was filed by a 73-year-old Chennai advocate, NS Ponnaiah, who blamed the game for 100 suicides throughout the country in recent times.

Taking into consideration the dangers posed by the blue Whale game, the Supreme Court on Friday directed broadcasters to conceive an educational/awareness programme to be telecast. The Supreme Court's order comes in the wake of a petition filed by a 73-year-old Chennai advocate, NS Ponnaiah, who blamed the game for 100 suicides throughout the country in recent times. Earlier on September 15, the apex court had issued a notice to the Centre in connection with a plea seeking a complete ban on the Blue Whale Challenge. Taking into account the adverse impact that the game is having on children and parents, the court ordered broadcasters to begin the awareness programme as soon as possible. Blue whale game ban plea: The Supreme Court observed that Blue Whale game is a national problem — ANI (@ANI) October 27, 2017 × The court informed that “anything that threatens life should be condemned.” The deadly Blue Whale game is an online game that dares players for over 50 days, telling them to complete levels given by an anonymous controller. The game begins with each player being asked to draw a whale on a piece of paper, then carve the same on their body. It continues giving tasks involving life-threatening activities. The court posted the case for hearing on November 15. (With inputs from ANI)

Blue Whale game: Supreme Court orders broadcasters to create awareness programme

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Centre to withdraw seven of the 15 companies of Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) from strife-torn Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts of West Bengal for being used for election duties in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, asked West Bengal government to respond within a week to the Centre&#39;s appeal against the Calcutta High Court order directing it to allow all 15 companies of paramilitary forces to remain in the state.

The bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, stayed the pending proceedings before the Calcutta High Court saying it will deal with the case &quot;in a holistic manner&quot;.

The court has now fixed the appeal of the Centre for further hearing on November 27.

The Calcutta High Court had stayed the withdrawal of CAPF from the Darjeeling hills, the scene of unrest over the statehood demand, till October 27 after the state government approached it against the Centre&#39;s decision.

The high court had on July 14 directed the Centre to deploy four more companies of CAPF in addition to the 11 that was already present in the hills then.

The West Bengal government had written to the Centre seeking extended deployment of CAPF till December 25, but was told that of the 15 companies present, 10 would be withdrawn on October 15 and the rest by October 20.&nbsp;

A bench asked West Bengal government to respond within a week to the Centre's appeal against the Calcutta High Court order directing it to allow all 15 companies of paramilitary forces to remain in the state.

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Centre to withdraw seven of the 15 companies of Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) from strife-torn Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts of West Bengal for being used for election duties in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. A bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, asked West Bengal government to respond within a week to the Centre's appeal against the Calcutta High Court order directing it to allow all 15 companies of paramilitary forces to remain in the state. The bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, stayed the pending proceedings before the Calcutta High Court saying it will deal with the case "in a holistic manner". The court has now fixed the appeal of the Centre for further hearing on November 27. The Calcutta High Court had stayed the withdrawal of CAPF from the Darjeeling hills, the scene of unrest over the statehood demand, till October 27 after the state government approached it against the Centre's decision. The high court had on July 14 directed the Centre to deploy four more companies of CAPF in addition to the 11 that was already present in the hills then. The West Bengal government had written to the Centre seeking extended deployment of CAPF till December 25, but was told that of the 15 companies present, 10 would be withdrawn on October 15 and the rest by October 20.

Supreme Court allows Centre to withdraw forces from trouble-hit Darjeeling

The Supreme Court today stayed its order on the demolition of a car parking currently under construction Agra&#39;s iconic Taj Mahal and said that no further construction will be carried out there.

The top court asked authorities to maintain status quo at the site, located at a distance of about one kilometre from the eastern gate of the 17th century monument.

A bench comprising Justices MB Lokur and Dipak Gupta asked additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Uttar Pradesh govenrment to file a comprehensive policy on preservation and pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and nearby areas.

The Taj Trapezium Zone is an area of 10,400 sq km around the Taj Mahal and is aimed at protecting the ancient monument.

The additional Solicitor General told the bench that the government was committed to protecting the Taj Mahal and he will file a comprehensive policy regarding this before the court.

The top court fixed the matter for further hearing on November 15.

On October 24, the Supreme Court had ordered the demolition of the multi-level car parking which is under construction.

The Supreme Court, which is dealing with a petition filed by environmentalist MC Mehta, has been monitoring development in the area to protect the Taj Mahal.

In his PIL, the environmentalist has sought protection of the monument made of white marble from the ill-effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area.

The top court had earlier passed a slew of directions to protect the monument.&nbsp; 
 
The Taj Mahal was builtby Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in&nbsp;memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal in 1631.

The historic mausoleum is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The top court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to file a comprehensive policy on preservation and pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and nearby areas

The Supreme Court today stayed its order on the demolition of a car parking currently under construction Agra's iconic Taj Mahal and said that no further construction will be carried out there. The top court asked authorities to maintain status quo at the site, located at a distance of about one kilometre from the eastern gate of the 17th century monument. A bench comprising Justices MB Lokur and Dipak Gupta asked additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Uttar Pradesh govenrment to file a comprehensive policy on preservation and pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and nearby areas. The Taj Trapezium Zone is an area of 10,400 sq km around the Taj Mahal and is aimed at protecting the ancient monument. The additional Solicitor General told the bench that the government was committed to protecting the Taj Mahal and he will file a comprehensive policy regarding this before the court. The top court fixed the matter for further hearing on November 15. On October 24, the Supreme Court had ordered the demolition of the multi-level car parking which is under construction. The Supreme Court, which is dealing with a petition filed by environmentalist MC Mehta, has been monitoring development in the area to protect the Taj Mahal. In his PIL, the environmentalist has sought protection of the monument made of white marble from the ill-effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area. The top court had earlier passed a slew of directions to protect the monument. The Taj Mahal was builtby Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal in 1631. The historic mausoleum is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Supreme Court stays its order to demolish parking lot near Taj Mahal

The Supreme Court today made it clear that it would not stay away from an issue just because Parliament was debating it and would rather ensure that the people&#39;s rights are protected.&nbsp;

The observation was made by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra which is hearing two petitions to decide questions including whether the court can rely on or refer to parliamentary committee reports in judicial proceedings.&nbsp;

The issue whether a parliamentary panel report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings had arisen after the petitioners had referred to the 81st Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee, issued on December 22, 2014, allegedly indicating some pharma firms for conducting trials of the controversial Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine.&nbsp;

&quot;The power of judicial review remains unaffected...We would not stay our hands just because Parliament is debating an issue. We will proceed to ensure that people&#39;s rights are protected. You cannot say that this issue has been debated in Parliament, so stay away. No, we cannot do this,&quot; the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.&nbsp;

It said that the apex court can enforce its orders under Article 142 and ask for setting up of commissions, seek reports and order enquiry to ensure justice.&nbsp;

At the outset, Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal referred to the privileges of the House and its committees and the concept of separation of powers and said that no report of any committee of Parliament can be subjected to &quot;judicial scrutiny or review&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;The separation of power has been recognised as part of basic structure of Constitution,&quot; the top law officer said.&nbsp;

In a parliamentary form of democracy, there is a doctrine of collective responsibility of the government and &quot;the question is where do we draw the line. Like separation of power, the power of judicial review is also part of basic structure,&quot; the bench observed.&nbsp;

&quot;It is not that our power of judicial review gets affected. We can take up a case and do the needful on our own,&quot; it said, adding the issue was that can a PIL have an affidavit containing details of a report of a parliamentary committee.&nbsp;

During the hearing, the AG said the Indian Supreme Court was the strongest court in the world as &quot;the government of the day&quot; respects it. He then submitted that at least 30 more fundamental rights have been created under Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) and most of them cannot be enforced.&nbsp;

&quot;Article 21 is worded negatively but Your Lordships have read at least 30 positive rights into it. And they cannot be enforced,&quot; Venugopal said.&nbsp;

&quot;It can be enforced. Take our orders for ensuring green environment. My learned brother judge, Justice Sikri&#39;s order ensured that we could breathe after Diwali,&quot; Justice Chandrachud said, adding that the order ensured compliance of right to clean environment as a fundamental right.&nbsp;

On the issue whether parliamentary panel reports can be used in court, the AG said, &quot;the Committees of Parliament being an essential adjunct to Parliament, and their reports being for the purpose of advising and guiding Parliament for framing laws and the Executive for framing policies, it would be a breach of privilege of Parliament to judicially scrutinise and/or review these reports for any purpose whatsoever.&quot;&nbsp;

The broad separation of powers, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, would prevent the courts from subjecting the reports of Parliamentary Committees to judicial scrutiny or review, he said.&nbsp;

Referring to constitutional provisions, he said they established that there was a bar on the courts on scrutinising or judicially reviewing the functioning of the legislature or their reports.&nbsp;

Earlier, some pharma companies had said the report of a parliamentary standing committee has &quot;persuasive&quot; value but it is neither binding nor can it be used to prove disputed facts.&nbsp;

The case came up for hearing in the apex court in 2012 and centred around aspects relating to action taken by the Drugs Controller General of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research pertaining to the approval of HPV vaccine manufactured by M/s GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd and MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for preventing cervical cancer among women.&nbsp;

The hearing remained inconclusive and would resume on October 31.

'We will proceed to ensure that people's rights are protected,' a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said

The Supreme Court today made it clear that it would not stay away from an issue just because Parliament was debating it and would rather ensure that the people's rights are protected. The observation was made by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra which is hearing two petitions to decide questions including whether the court can rely on or refer to parliamentary committee reports in judicial proceedings. The issue whether a parliamentary panel report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings had arisen after the petitioners had referred to the 81st Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee, issued on December 22, 2014, allegedly indicating some pharma firms for conducting trials of the controversial Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine. "The power of judicial review remains unaffected...We would not stay our hands just because Parliament is debating an issue. We will proceed to ensure that people's rights are protected. You cannot say that this issue has been debated in Parliament, so stay away. No, we cannot do this," the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said. It said that the apex court can enforce its orders under Article 142 and ask for setting up of commissions, seek reports and order enquiry to ensure justice. At the outset, Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal referred to the privileges of the House and its committees and the concept of separation of powers and said that no report of any committee of Parliament can be subjected to "judicial scrutiny or review". "The separation of power has been recognised as part of basic structure of Constitution," the top law officer said. In a parliamentary form of democracy, there is a doctrine of collective responsibility of the government and "the question is where do we draw the line. Like separation of power, the power of judicial review is also part of basic structure," the bench observed. "It is not that our power of judicial review gets affected. We can take up a case and do the needful on our own," it said, adding the issue was that can a PIL have an affidavit containing details of a report of a parliamentary committee. During the hearing, the AG said the Indian Supreme Court was the strongest court in the world as "the government of the day" respects it. He then submitted that at least 30 more fundamental rights have been created under Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) and most of them cannot be enforced. "Article 21 is worded negatively but Your Lordships have read at least 30 positive rights into it. And they cannot be enforced," Venugopal said. "It can be enforced. Take our orders for ensuring green environment. My learned brother judge, Justice Sikri's order ensured that we could breathe after Diwali," Justice Chandrachud said, adding that the order ensured compliance of right to clean environment as a fundamental right. On the issue whether parliamentary panel reports can be used in court, the AG said, "the Committees of Parliament being an essential adjunct to Parliament, and their reports being for the purpose of advising and guiding Parliament for framing laws and the Executive for framing policies, it would be a breach of privilege of Parliament to judicially scrutinise and/or review these reports for any purpose whatsoever." The broad separation of powers, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, would prevent the courts from subjecting the reports of Parliamentary Committees to judicial scrutiny or review, he said. Referring to constitutional provisions, he said they established that there was a bar on the courts on scrutinising or judicially reviewing the functioning of the legislature or their reports. Earlier, some pharma companies had said the report of a parliamentary standing committee has "persuasive" value but it is neither binding nor can it be used to prove disputed facts. The case came up for hearing in the apex court in 2012 and centred around aspects relating to action taken by the Drugs Controller General of India and the Indian Council of Medical Research pertaining to the approval of HPV vaccine manufactured by M/s GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd and MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for preventing cervical cancer among women. The hearing remained inconclusive and would resume on October 31.

Won't stay away from issue just because Parliament is debating it: Supreme Court

The Supreme court will hear a plea filed by the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government on October 30 against the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.

Senior advocate and member of parliament Kalyan Banerjee said the petition was filed earlier and would come up for hearing before the bench, comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, on October 30.

He said that the West Bengal government has challenged the provision which said that without Aadhaar, the benefits of social welfare schemes would not be extended.

At a party meeting in Kolkata on Wednesday, the Trinamool Congress chief had also opposed the linking of Aadhaar with mobile phone number, saying &quot;Aadhaar number should not be linked with one&#39;s mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhaar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped.&quot;

However, the Aadhaar-mobile issue is not part of the state government&#39;s plea, Kalyan Banerjee said.

The centre on October 25 told the top court that the deadline for mandatory Aadhaar linking to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year. The extension concerned those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number.

Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench headed Chief Justice Dipak Misra that deadline extension would apply only to those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. Earlier, the deadline for linking of Aadhaar was December end this year.&nbsp;

Venugopal had also told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues on Aadhaar after which the court had asked him to mention the matter again on October 30.

Several petitions are pending in the top court which challenge the centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar linkage with mobile number and bank accounts mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications.

 
&nbsp;

The West Bengal government is against the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes

The Supreme court will hear a plea filed by the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government on October 30 against the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes. Senior advocate and member of parliament Kalyan Banerjee said the petition was filed earlier and would come up for hearing before the bench, comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, on October 30. He said that the West Bengal government has challenged the provision which said that without Aadhaar, the benefits of social welfare schemes would not be extended. At a party meeting in Kolkata on Wednesday, the Trinamool Congress chief had also opposed the linking of Aadhaar with mobile phone number, saying "Aadhaar number should not be linked with one's mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhaar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped." However, the Aadhaar-mobile issue is not part of the state government's plea, Kalyan Banerjee said. The centre on October 25 told the top court that the deadline for mandatory Aadhaar linking to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year. The extension concerned those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number. Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench headed Chief Justice Dipak Misra that deadline extension would apply only to those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. Earlier, the deadline for linking of Aadhaar was December end this year. Venugopal had also told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues on Aadhaar after which the court had asked him to mention the matter again on October 30. Several petitions are pending in the top court which challenge the centre's move to make Aadhaar linkage with mobile number and bank accounts mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications.

Mamata Banerjee challenges Aadhaar in Supreme Court, hearing on October 30

&quot;You have to get me out. I will be killed anytime...&quot; says Hadiya in a video released by activist Rahul Easwar in Ernakulam in India&#39;s southern state of Kerala.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/not-all-love-marriages-are-love-jihads-observes-kerala-high-court-22629" target="_blank">Hadiya, who was placed in the protective custody of her parents by Kerala High Court,</a> can be heard saying in the video released by The News Minute that her father was beating her up at random and she feared serious physical injury.&nbsp;

Hadiya was Akhila and a Hindu before converting to Islam and marrying a Muslim man. Their marriage is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for being a case of what is called &quot;Love Jihad&quot;, seen by many Right-wing activists as an Islamist ploy to convert Hindu young women. &nbsp;

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/sc-refuses-to-nullify-marriage-of-25-year-old-hadiya-to-a-muslim-man-5630" target="_blank">Kerala High Court annulled her marriage</a> to Shafin Jahan in May after which she has been staying with her parents who have allegedly not allowed her out of the house since then. &nbsp;

The video ends suddenly even as Hadiya hurriedly tries to get her message recorded.&nbsp;

&quot;You need to get me out. I will be killed anytime, tomorrow or the day after, I am sure. I know my father is getting angry. When I walk, he is hitting and kicking me. If my head or any other part of my body hits somewhere and I die...&quot;, says Hadiya in the 16-second video, shot on August 17, purportedly recorded by Easwar at her house in Vaikom in Kottayam.&nbsp;

Easwar said the entire video was not released since there was communal content in it and also added that Hadiya&#39;s father had moved legally after he released the first video.&nbsp;

&quot;After I released the first video, Hadiya&rsquo;s father, Ashokan, had moved legally against me, accusing me of breach of trust. Now the HC has said that his case won&#39;t stand. In that circumstance, I can confidently release the footage,&quot; Easwar was quoted in media reports as saying when he was asked about the timing of the video being released. &nbsp;

Easwar has released the video after film-maker Gopal Menon revealed that the former has a video in which Hadiya has claimed she was being beaten up by her father.&nbsp;

Easwar also told reported that on August 23 he had given the footage to Justice RV Raveendran who was appointed by Supreme Court of India to monitor the NIA probe.&nbsp;

&quot;I followed all legal steps and mailed the video to Justice Raveendran. But when he did not take up the case, I gave a written complaint to the Women&#39;s Commission and also submitted the footage to them... Hadiya&#39;s rights cannot be compromised with,&quot; he told the news outlet. &nbsp;

The next hearing of the case scheduled on October 30.&nbsp;

In the 16-second video released by Rahul Easwar, Hadiya said her father had been beating her

"You have to get me out. I will be killed anytime..." says Hadiya in a video released by activist Rahul Easwar in Ernakulam in India's southern state of Kerala. Hadiya, who was placed in the protective custody of her parents by Kerala High Court, can be heard saying in the video released by The News Minute that her father was beating her up at random and she feared serious physical injury. Hadiya was Akhila and a Hindu before converting to Islam and marrying a Muslim man. Their marriage is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for being a case of what is called "Love Jihad", seen by many Right-wing activists as an Islamist ploy to convert Hindu young women. The Kerala High Court annulled her marriage to Shafin Jahan in May after which she has been staying with her parents who have allegedly not allowed her out of the house since then. The video ends suddenly even as Hadiya hurriedly tries to get her message recorded. "You need to get me out. I will be killed anytime, tomorrow or the day after, I am sure. I know my father is getting angry. When I walk, he is hitting and kicking me. If my head or any other part of my body hits somewhere and I die...", says Hadiya in the 16-second video, shot on August 17, purportedly recorded by Easwar at her house in Vaikom in Kottayam. Easwar said the entire video was not released since there was communal content in it and also added that Hadiya's father had moved legally after he released the first video. "After I released the first video, Hadiya’s father, Ashokan, had moved legally against me, accusing me of breach of trust. Now the HC has said that his case won't stand. In that circumstance, I can confidently release the footage," Easwar was quoted in media reports as saying when he was asked about the timing of the video being released. Easwar has released the video after film-maker Gopal Menon revealed that the former has a video in which Hadiya has claimed she was being beaten up by her father. Easwar also told reported that on August 23 he had given the footage to Justice RV Raveendran who was appointed by Supreme Court of India to monitor the NIA probe. "I followed all legal steps and mailed the video to Justice Raveendran. But when he did not take up the case, I gave a written complaint to the Women's Commission and also submitted the footage to them... Hadiya's rights cannot be compromised with," he told the news outlet. The next hearing of the case scheduled on October 30.

Kerala 'Love Jihad' case: 'I will be killed anytime... I am sure,' says Hadiya in new video

The deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail the benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year for those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number, the Centre today told the Supreme Court.

It told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that extension of the deadline from December end this year till March 31, 2018, would apply only to those persons who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it.

&quot;We (Centre) have decided to extend it till March 31, 2018,&quot; Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.

The petitioners challenging the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for welfare schemes termed the linking of the identity number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as illegal and unconstitutional, while one of their lawyers strongly objected to the CBSE&#39;s move to make it mandatory for students to appear for exams.

Venugopal told the court that no coercive action would be taken against those who do not have Aadhaar but were willing to enrol for it and added that they would not be denied the benefits of social welfare schemes till March 31 next.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>This case is crying for final hearing since long,&#39; senior advocate Shyam Divan said, adding that now even CBSE has asked students for their Aadhaar cards before appearing for the Board examinations</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This case is crying for final hearing since long,' senior advocate Shyam Divan said, adding that now even CBSE has asked students for their Aadhaar cards before appearing for the Board examinations" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

In a note given to the court, the government has said that &quot;those who have Aadhaar are required to seed/link their Aadhaar with SIM card, with bank account, PAN card and other schemes where section 7 notifications have been issued&quot;.

&quot;The government will be open for the deadline for linking Aadhaar to various programmes being extended for another three months till March 31, 2018 for those who do not have Aadhaar,&quot; the note said.

It said that persons, who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it, &quot;will be facilitated to enroll for Aadhaar and will be provided benefits and services through alternate means of identification untill such enrollment.&quot;

The counsel for the petitioners, who have challenged the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for these schemes, raised the issue of the mandatory linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for some of the petitioners, contended that final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter which is pending before the apex court was necessary as the government &quot;cannot compel&quot; citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or mobile numbers.

&quot;This case is crying for final hearing since long,&quot; he said, adding that now even Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has asked students to give their Aadhaar for appearing in board examinations.

&quot;What are they (government) doing? A school children can not go to school and give his exams without giving his Aadhaar. Is this the civil liberty we are talking about in the country,&quot; Divan said while repeatedly urging the bench that a full-fledged hearing was necessary in the main matter.

Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for some other petitioners, argued that the move to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile numbers was illegal and unconstitutional.

Divan told the bench that complaints have started coming in that after linking bank accounts with Aadhaar, the accounts were being &quot;wiped out&quot; and there were people who have UIDAI number, but do not want to link it.

&quot;They say extension till March next year will be only for those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. They cannot compel us to link Aadhaar,&quot; he said, adding &quot;they can make a statement that they will not take coercive action against those who don&#39;t want to link Aadhaar&quot;.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for petitioners, claimed that not linking Aadhaar with bank accounts would make citizens liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

When the petitioners said earlier the court had said that the main Aadhaar matter would be heard in the first week of November, the Attorney General said &quot;we are ready for hearing&quot;.

However, Venugopal told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues related to Aadhaar and come back to the court.

The court asked him to mention the matter on October 30.

During the hearing, the Attorney General referred to the apex court&#39;s judgement declaring right to privacy as a fundamental right and said in that verdict, Justice Chandrachud had emphasised that a robust regime for protection of data should be put in place.

Regarding the issue of data protection regulation, the bench observed, &quot;there are large number of working rules and if they will rush, we might have a poor data protection regulation. Countries across the world are struggling to have a data protection mechanism&quot;.

Venugopal said the Justice Sri Krishna committee which has initiated the process of reviewing the entire issue of data protection, had in its October 16 meeting recommended certain issues after detailed deliberations.

In a note handed over to the bench, the Centre has said the committee has recommended that &quot;each working group shall provide specific comments/amendements on clauses of the draft data protection bill circulated by MeitY (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology).

&quot;They should also suggest changes that may be required, if any, to other allied legislation such as the Aadhaar Act 2016 or the Information Technology Act 2000,&quot; the note said, adding that the next meeting of this expert committee would be held on November 7. PTI&nbsp;

The new deadline applies only to people who do not have Aadhar cards

The deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail the benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year for those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number, the Centre today told the Supreme Court. It told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that extension of the deadline from December end this year till March 31, 2018, would apply only to those persons who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. "We (Centre) have decided to extend it till March 31, 2018," Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud. The petitioners challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for welfare schemes termed the linking of the identity number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as illegal and unconstitutional, while one of their lawyers strongly objected to the CBSE's move to make it mandatory for students to appear for exams. Venugopal told the court that no coercive action would be taken against those who do not have Aadhaar but were willing to enrol for it and added that they would not be denied the benefits of social welfare schemes till March 31 next. This case is crying for final hearing since long,' senior advocate Shyam Divan said, adding that now even CBSE has asked students for their Aadhaar cards before appearing for the Board examinations × In a note given to the court, the government has said that "those who have Aadhaar are required to seed/link their Aadhaar with SIM card, with bank account, PAN card and other schemes where section 7 notifications have been issued". "The government will be open for the deadline for linking Aadhaar to various programmes being extended for another three months till March 31, 2018 for those who do not have Aadhaar," the note said. It said that persons, who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it, "will be facilitated to enroll for Aadhaar and will be provided benefits and services through alternate means of identification untill such enrollment." The counsel for the petitioners, who have challenged the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for these schemes, raised the issue of the mandatory linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for some of the petitioners, contended that final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter which is pending before the apex court was necessary as the government "cannot compel" citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or mobile numbers. "This case is crying for final hearing since long," he said, adding that now even Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has asked students to give their Aadhaar for appearing in board examinations. "What are they (government) doing? A school children can not go to school and give his exams without giving his Aadhaar. Is this the civil liberty we are talking about in the country," Divan said while repeatedly urging the bench that a full-fledged hearing was necessary in the main matter. Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for some other petitioners, argued that the move to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile numbers was illegal and unconstitutional. Divan told the bench that complaints have started coming in that after linking bank accounts with Aadhaar, the accounts were being "wiped out" and there were people who have UIDAI number, but do not want to link it. "They say extension till March next year will be only for those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it. They cannot compel us to link Aadhaar," he said, adding "they can make a statement that they will not take coercive action against those who don't want to link Aadhaar". Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for petitioners, claimed that not linking Aadhaar with bank accounts would make citizens liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. When the petitioners said earlier the court had said that the main Aadhaar matter would be heard in the first week of November, the Attorney General said "we are ready for hearing". However, Venugopal told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues related to Aadhaar and come back to the court. The court asked him to mention the matter on October 30. During the hearing, the Attorney General referred to the apex court's judgement declaring right to privacy as a fundamental right and said in that verdict, Justice Chandrachud had emphasised that a robust regime for protection of data should be put in place. Regarding the issue of data protection regulation, the bench observed, "there are large number of working rules and if they will rush, we might have a poor data protection regulation. Countries across the world are struggling to have a data protection mechanism". Venugopal said the Justice Sri Krishna committee which has initiated the process of reviewing the entire issue of data protection, had in its October 16 meeting recommended certain issues after detailed deliberations. In a note handed over to the bench, the Centre has said the committee has recommended that "each working group shall provide specific comments/amendements on clauses of the draft data protection bill circulated by MeitY (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology). "They should also suggest changes that may be required, if any, to other allied legislation such as the Aadhaar Act 2016 or the Information Technology Act 2000," the note said, adding that the next meeting of this expert committee would be held on November 7. PTI

New deadline to link Aadhaar with govt schemes is March 31, Centre tells SC

The Supreme Court has&nbsp;passed an order for demolition of parking lot around Taj Mahal in Agra, stating that this could potentially be an environmental hazard.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court passed the order on a petition of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC ordered demolition of parking lot around Taj Mahal, noted that the parking lot could be an environmental hazard: Lawyer appearing for ASI
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/922722505139167232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Earlier in August, during&nbsp;the hearing of an application seeking its nod to cut over 400 trees to lay down an additional railway track between Mathura in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, the Supreme Court had lashed out at the government.&nbsp;

&quot;This (Taj Mahal) is a<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal">&nbsp;world-famous&nbsp;</a>monument and you (government) want to destroy it? Have you seen the recent pictures of Taj? Go to the internet and have a look at it,&rdquo; a&nbsp;bench comprising of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak&nbsp;Gupta had said.

The apex court, which was dealing with a petition filed by environmentalist M C Mehta, has&nbsp;been monitoring development in the area to protect the historic Taj Mahal.&nbsp;The plea had&nbsp;said that in order to clear the bottleneck of train movement, it was necessary to lay down the additional track in the stretch.&nbsp;The court would hear the matter next month.

Moreover, The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on August 2&nbsp;directed the Uttar Pradesh government to demolish illegal restaurant constructed by a private party near Taj Mahal in Agra, observeing&nbsp;that the ecology of the area surrounding the Taj Mahal cannot be compromised.

The apex court had earlier passed directions on the issue of protecting the iconic monument.&nbsp;

(With inputs from news agency PTI)

SC Notes parking lots to be an environmental hazard, lawyer appearing for Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)

The Supreme Court has passed an order for demolition of parking lot around Taj Mahal in Agra, stating that this could potentially be an environmental hazard. The Supreme Court passed the order on a petition of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). SC ordered demolition of parking lot around Taj Mahal, noted that the parking lot could be an environmental hazard: Lawyer appearing for ASI — ANI (@ANI) October 24, 2017 × Earlier in August, during the hearing of an application seeking its nod to cut over 400 trees to lay down an additional railway track between Mathura in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, the Supreme Court had lashed out at the government. "This (Taj Mahal) is a world-famous monument and you (government) want to destroy it? Have you seen the recent pictures of Taj? Go to the internet and have a look at it,” a bench comprising of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta had said. The apex court, which was dealing with a petition filed by environmentalist M C Mehta, has been monitoring development in the area to protect the historic Taj Mahal. The plea had said that in order to clear the bottleneck of train movement, it was necessary to lay down the additional track in the stretch. The court would hear the matter next month. Moreover, The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on August 2 directed the Uttar Pradesh government to demolish illegal restaurant constructed by a private party near Taj Mahal in Agra, observeing that the ecology of the area surrounding the Taj Mahal cannot be compromised. The apex court had earlier passed directions on the issue of protecting the iconic monument. (With inputs from news agency PTI)

Supreme Court orders demolition of parking lot around Taj Mahal

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to consider amending the national flag code for regulating the playing of national anthem in cinema halls across the country.

A bench, comprising Chief&nbsp;Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said the Centre has to take a call uninfluenced by its earlier order on the playing of national anthem in the theatres.

&quot;Just because someone doesn&#39;t sing the national anthem in cinema halls, they do not become less patriotic,&quot; Justice Chandrachud said.

During the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said India was a diverse country and the national anthem needs to be played in the cinema halls to bring in uniformity.

The bench indicated that it may modify its order of December 1, 2016, by which the playing of the anthem was made mandatory for cinema halls before the screening of a movie, and it may replace the word &quot;shall&quot; with &quot;may&quot;.

&quot;One doesn&#39;t have to wear patriotism up his sleeves all the time.&nbsp;People are afraid of being called anti-national if they oppose mandatory singing of national anthem,&quot; the bench said.&nbsp;

The apex court had last year ordered the theatres across the country to mandatorily play the national anthem before a movie and the audience must stand and show respect, in a bid to &quot;instil committed patriotism and nationalism&quot;.

It had said that &quot;love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag&quot;.

The court had barred printing of the anthem or a part of it on any object and displaying it in such a manner at places which may be &quot;disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect&quot;.

The court&#39;s directions had come on a PIL filed by one Shyam Narayan Chouksey seeking directions that the national anthem should be played in all the cinema halls before a film begins.

It had also said proper norms and protocol should be fixed regarding its playing and singing at official functions and programmes where those holding constitutional office are present.

(With PTI inputs)

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to consider amending the national flag code for regulating the playing of national anthem in cinema halls across the country.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to consider amending the national flag code for regulating the playing of national anthem in cinema halls across the country. A bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said the Centre has to take a call uninfluenced by its earlier order on the playing of national anthem in the theatres. "Just because someone doesn't sing the national anthem in cinema halls, they do not become less patriotic," Justice Chandrachud said. During the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said India was a diverse country and the national anthem needs to be played in the cinema halls to bring in uniformity. The bench indicated that it may modify its order of December 1, 2016, by which the playing of the anthem was made mandatory for cinema halls before the screening of a movie, and it may replace the word "shall" with "may". "One doesn't have to wear patriotism up his sleeves all the time. People are afraid of being called anti-national if they oppose mandatory singing of national anthem," the bench said. The apex court had last year ordered the theatres across the country to mandatorily play the national anthem before a movie and the audience must stand and show respect, in a bid to "instil committed patriotism and nationalism". It had said that "love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag". The court had barred printing of the anthem or a part of it on any object and displaying it in such a manner at places which may be "disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect". The court's directions had come on a PIL filed by one Shyam Narayan Chouksey seeking directions that the national anthem should be played in all the cinema halls before a film begins. It had also said proper norms and protocol should be fixed regarding its playing and singing at official functions and programmes where those holding constitutional office are present. (With PTI inputs)

Singing national anthem in theatres not a measure of patriotism: Supreme Court

Organised crime is not restricted to a &quot;particular state&quot; and a trial court can take note of charge sheets filed against offenders outside the state for invoking the stringent MCOCA, the Supreme Court has held.

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), which is in force in Delhi too, is invoked against offenders to curb the menace of organised crimes.

A bench comprising justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao made the observation while dealing with the appeal of Delhi government against an order of the high court.

The high court had upheld a trial court order discharging Uttar Pradesh-based alleged gangster Brijesh Singh from the charges under the MCOCA on many grounds, including that the charge sheets, pertaining to running of organised crimes syndicate, were filed in cases outside the national capital.

The apex court, which upheld the order of the high court, said &quot;the words &#39;competent Court&#39; in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not restricted to courts in Delhi and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity&quot;.

&quot;The commission of crimes like contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering etc by organised crime syndicates was on the rise.

&quot;To prevent such organised crime, an immediate need was felt to promulgate a stringent legislation. The government realised that organised crime syndicates have connections with terrorist gangs and were fostering narcotic terrorism beyond the national boundaries.

&quot;The MCOCA was promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to the society. The interpretation of the provisions of the MCOCA should be made in a manner which would advance the object of the MCOCA,&quot; the bench said in a 34-page judgement.

Justice Bobde, writing the judgement for the bench, said the menace of organised crime posed a serious threat to civil society and there was a need for making special provisions for prevention and control of criminal activities of the organised crime syndicates and gangs.

This need was recognised by the Maharashtra Legislature which brought the MCOCA in 1999, it said.

The top court considered the question whether charge sheets filed in competent courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a &quot;continuing unlawful activity&quot; and booking offenders under the MCOCA.

It also dealt with the question whether there can be prosecution under the MCOCA without any offence of organised crime committed under the jurisdiction of the particular court.

It held that the words &#39;competent court&#39; under the MCOCA was not restricted to the courts of a particular state where the law is in force and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can also be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity.

The apex court also held that an offender cannot be prosecuted under MCOCA without an organised crime being committed within Delhi.

A trial court can take note of charge sheets filed against offenders outside the state for invoking the stringent MCOCA, the Supreme Court has held

Organised crime is not restricted to a "particular state" and a trial court can take note of charge sheets filed against offenders outside the state for invoking the stringent MCOCA, the Supreme Court has held. The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), which is in force in Delhi too, is invoked against offenders to curb the menace of organised crimes. A bench comprising justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao made the observation while dealing with the appeal of Delhi government against an order of the high court. The high court had upheld a trial court order discharging Uttar Pradesh-based alleged gangster Brijesh Singh from the charges under the MCOCA on many grounds, including that the charge sheets, pertaining to running of organised crimes syndicate, were filed in cases outside the national capital. The apex court, which upheld the order of the high court, said "the words 'competent Court' in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not restricted to courts in Delhi and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity". "The commission of crimes like contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering etc by organised crime syndicates was on the rise. "To prevent such organised crime, an immediate need was felt to promulgate a stringent legislation. The government realised that organised crime syndicates have connections with terrorist gangs and were fostering narcotic terrorism beyond the national boundaries. "The MCOCA was promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to the society. The interpretation of the provisions of the MCOCA should be made in a manner which would advance the object of the MCOCA," the bench said in a 34-page judgement. Justice Bobde, writing the judgement for the bench, said the menace of organised crime posed a serious threat to civil society and there was a need for making special provisions for prevention and control of criminal activities of the organised crime syndicates and gangs. This need was recognised by the Maharashtra Legislature which brought the MCOCA in 1999, it said. The top court considered the question whether charge sheets filed in competent courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a "continuing unlawful activity" and booking offenders under the MCOCA. It also dealt with the question whether there can be prosecution under the MCOCA without any offence of organised crime committed under the jurisdiction of the particular court. It held that the words 'competent court' under the MCOCA was not restricted to the courts of a particular state where the law is in force and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can also be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity. The apex court also held that an offender cannot be prosecuted under MCOCA without an organised crime being committed within Delhi.

Organised crimes not restricted to particular state: Supreme Court

Over 1,200 kg of firecrackers have been seized and 29 people arrested by police as part of a drive being carried out after the Supreme Court order temporarily banning the sale of firecrackers.

After the Supreme Court order, Delhi Police commissioner Amulya Patnaik had directed the deputy commissioners of police of the 13 police districts to ensure that crackers are not sold in the city.

Special teams have been deployed in districts to monitor the situation.

In the crackdown, following the Supreme Court order, the police have seized 1,241 kilogrammes of firecrackers and registered 29 FIRs and arrested 29 people, said Madhur Verma, PRO, Delhi Police.

According to the data, eight cases have been registered in the north district against the people found selling firecrackers, the maximum among all the districts.

Police have seized 368 kilogrammes of firecrackers from the southwest district, the maximum among all districts with Rohini a close second at 344.5 kg.

Two Delhi Police personnel posted at the Mangolpuri police station in the outer district were suspended for allegedly failing to curb the sale of firecrackers in their beat areas.

After the Supreme Court order, Delhi Police commissioner Amulya Patnaik had directed the deputy commissioners of police of the 13 police districts to ensure that crackers are not sold in the city.

Over 1,200 kg of firecrackers have been seized and 29 people arrested by police as part of a drive being carried out after the Supreme Court order temporarily banning the sale of firecrackers. After the Supreme Court order, Delhi Police commissioner Amulya Patnaik had directed the deputy commissioners of police of the 13 police districts to ensure that crackers are not sold in the city. Special teams have been deployed in districts to monitor the situation. In the crackdown, following the Supreme Court order, the police have seized 1,241 kilogrammes of firecrackers and registered 29 FIRs and arrested 29 people, said Madhur Verma, PRO, Delhi Police. According to the data, eight cases have been registered in the north district against the people found selling firecrackers, the maximum among all the districts. Police have seized 368 kilogrammes of firecrackers from the southwest district, the maximum among all districts with Rohini a close second at 344.5 kg. Two Delhi Police personnel posted at the Mangolpuri police station in the outer district were suspended for allegedly failing to curb the sale of firecrackers in their beat areas.

Over 1,200 kg firecrackers seized in Delhi, 29 arrested post Supreme Court ban

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to modify its earlier order banning the sale of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.

The&nbsp;court dismissed the plea of firecracker traders who had sought relaxation in the October 9 ban order and sought permission to sell crackers for at least a day or two before Diwali on October 19.

The court said it hasn&rsquo;t stopped people from celebrating the festival of lights. &quot;It&rsquo;s just an experiment for one year, we will take stock after that,&quot; Justice A K Sikri,&nbsp;who heard the case today, said.

The judge said its November 11, 2016 order suspending the licences &quot;should be given one chance to test itself&quot; to see if there is a positive effect of this, particularly during Diwali.

Justice Sikri also expressed anguish at people giving his order a communal angle.&nbsp;&quot;I am a very spiritual person but this is something different,&quot; Justice Sikri said.

The court had recently banned the sale of crackers in Delhi-NCR till November 1, dealing a body blow to the traders and businessmen dealing in them.

The court also said that the order passed by it last month, temporarily lifting the stay and allowing the sale of firecrackers, would be made effective only from November 1, 12 days after Diwali.

The Supreme Court passed the order on a petition asking for a ban on the the sale of firecrackers in the National Capital Region over alarming rise in pollution levels after Diwali.

After the order, the administration in Delhi and its nearby areas, which constitute the National Capital Region, has issued directives to the shopkeepers to stop selling firecrackers which make a lot of noise. The business community has raised concerns saying the order will adversely affect the sales in the festival season.

However, the administration has allowed those people who have already purchased firecrackers to burst them on October 19 (Diwali) during a stipulated time. The Gurugram authority has said that the bursting of firecrackers will be allowed between 6pm to 10pm.

The court had recently banned the sale of crackers in Delhi-NCR till November 1, dealing a body blow to the traders and businessmen dealing in them.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to modify its earlier order banning the sale of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR. The court dismissed the plea of firecracker traders who had sought relaxation in the October 9 ban order and sought permission to sell crackers for at least a day or two before Diwali on October 19. The court said it hasn’t stopped people from celebrating the festival of lights. "It’s just an experiment for one year, we will take stock after that," Justice A K Sikri, who heard the case today, said. The judge said its November 11, 2016 order suspending the licences "should be given one chance to test itself" to see if there is a positive effect of this, particularly during Diwali. Justice Sikri also expressed anguish at people giving his order a communal angle. "I am a very spiritual person but this is something different," Justice Sikri said. The court had recently banned the sale of crackers in Delhi-NCR till November 1, dealing a body blow to the traders and businessmen dealing in them. The court also said that the order passed by it last month, temporarily lifting the stay and allowing the sale of firecrackers, would be made effective only from November 1, 12 days after Diwali. The Supreme Court passed the order on a petition asking for a ban on the the sale of firecrackers in the National Capital Region over alarming rise in pollution levels after Diwali. After the order, the administration in Delhi and its nearby areas, which constitute the National Capital Region, has issued directives to the shopkeepers to stop selling firecrackers which make a lot of noise. The business community has raised concerns saying the order will adversely affect the sales in the festival season. However, the administration has allowed those people who have already purchased firecrackers to burst them on October 19 (Diwali) during a stipulated time. The Gurugram authority has said that the bursting of firecrackers will be allowed between 6pm to 10pm.

Supreme Court refuses to lift ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, says 'it's an experiment for 1 year'

The Supreme Court will today hear a Public Interest Litigation filed by two Rohingya Muslims that challenges the Indian government&#39;s decision to deport around 40,000 people of the community.&nbsp;

The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Deepak Misra, had earlier said it will hear in detail various aspects of the case including the government&#39;s preliminary objection that the issue falls under the domain of the executive and cannot be decided by the judiciary.

The Supreme Court had also asked the central government and the Rohingya Muslims to desist from making emotional arguments and personal attacks and to file documents, including international conventions.

The top court made it clear that it will hear arguments only on the points of law, ANI reported.

In their petition, the two Rohingya immigrants, Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir, argue that they had taken refuge in India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against the community there.&nbsp;

They contend that many Rohingyas, who had fled to India after the earlier spate of violence, are settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.&nbsp;

Besides Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the bench comprises of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud,&nbsp; 
 
The Indian government earlier told the top court that besides being a security threat because of links to the ISI and the IS, Rohingyas will exhaust natural resources meant for Indian citizens resulting in hostility and social tensions.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-links-with-is-isi-rohingya-refugee-to-supreme-court-20549">Another Rohingya refugee then filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India</a>, denying the Indian government&#39;s claims that the Muslim community from Myanmar has terror links with Pakistan&#39;s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Islamic State.

The affidavit states that the Rohingyas should be treated at par with Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees.

Meanwhile, a group of civil society activists have written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling for a &quot;new and bold vision&quot; to end the Rohingya crisis and not to deport the 40,000 refugees and asylum seekers currently residing in India.

The activists, which include human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor, former Union minister P Cgidambaram and journalist Karan Thapar, ask to India to &quot;exert its diplomatic clout to pressurise the Government of Myanmar to end the security crackdown in Rakhine.&quot;

The three-judge bench had earlier said it will hear in detail various aspects of the case including the government's preliminary objection that the issue falls under the domain of the executive

The Supreme Court will today hear a Public Interest Litigation filed by two Rohingya Muslims that challenges the Indian government's decision to deport around 40,000 people of the community. The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Deepak Misra, had earlier said it will hear in detail various aspects of the case including the government's preliminary objection that the issue falls under the domain of the executive and cannot be decided by the judiciary. The Supreme Court had also asked the central government and the Rohingya Muslims to desist from making emotional arguments and personal attacks and to file documents, including international conventions. The top court made it clear that it will hear arguments only on the points of law, ANI reported. In their petition, the two Rohingya immigrants, Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir, argue that they had taken refuge in India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against the community there. They contend that many Rohingyas, who had fled to India after the earlier spate of violence, are settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. Besides Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the bench comprises of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, The Indian government earlier told the top court that besides being a security threat because of links to the ISI and the IS, Rohingyas will exhaust natural resources meant for Indian citizens resulting in hostility and social tensions. Another Rohingya refugee then filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India, denying the Indian government's claims that the Muslim community from Myanmar has terror links with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Islamic State. The affidavit states that the Rohingyas should be treated at par with Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees. Meanwhile, a group of civil society activists have written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling for a "new and bold vision" to end the Rohingya crisis and not to deport the 40,000 refugees and asylum seekers currently residing in India. The activists, which include human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor, former Union minister P Cgidambaram and journalist Karan Thapar, ask to India to "exert its diplomatic clout to pressurise the Government of Myanmar to end the security crackdown in Rakhine."

Supreme Court to hear Rohingya refugees' PIL challenging deportation

The Supreme Court today (October 13) referred the matter pertaining to a ban on the entry of women into Kerala&#39;s Sabarimala temple to a constitution&nbsp;bench.&nbsp;

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also framed six questions to dealt with by the constitution&nbsp;bench. The questions included whether the historic temple can restrict women&#39;s entry and whether the restriction of entry of women into the temple was violative of their rights under the Constitution.

The top court said the constitution&nbsp;bench will also deal with the question of whether this practice amounts to discrimination against the women, PTI reported.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/india-security-tightened-at-somnath-temple-after-suspected-is-operatives-held-in-gujarat-12835" target="_blank">On February 20, the court had reserved its order</a> on whether to refer the matter to a constitutional bench.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the practice of the ban on entry of women by the management of the Sabarimala temple.&nbsp;

The management of the Sabarimala temple, located on a hilltop in the Western Ghats of Pathanamthitta district, had earlier told the top court that the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years was because they cannot maintain &quot;purity&quot; on account of menstruation.

However, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/india-kerala-government-favours-entry-of-women-inside-historic-sabarimala-temple-8467" target="_blank">the Kerala government on November 7 had informed the&nbsp;</a>Supreme Court that it favoured the entry of women of all age groups in the temple.&nbsp;

In 2007, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government had taken a progressive stand by favouring women&#39;s entry into the temple, which was later overturned by the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) dispensation.

The UDF government had taken a view that they were against the entry of women of the age group of 10-to-50 years as such a practice was being followed since time immemorial. 
&nbsp;

The top court said that the constitutional bench will also deal with the question, including several other questions, whether temple can restrict women's entry

The Supreme Court today (October 13) referred the matter pertaining to a ban on the entry of women into Kerala's Sabarimala temple to a constitution bench. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also framed six questions to dealt with by the constitution bench. The questions included whether the historic temple can restrict women's entry and whether the restriction of entry of women into the temple was violative of their rights under the Constitution. The top court said the constitution bench will also deal with the question of whether this practice amounts to discrimination against the women, PTI reported. On February 20, the court had reserved its order on whether to refer the matter to a constitutional bench. The Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the practice of the ban on entry of women by the management of the Sabarimala temple. The management of the Sabarimala temple, located on a hilltop in the Western Ghats of Pathanamthitta district, had earlier told the top court that the ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years was because they cannot maintain "purity" on account of menstruation. However, the Kerala government on November 7 had informed the Supreme Court that it favoured the entry of women of all age groups in the temple. In 2007, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government had taken a progressive stand by favouring women's entry into the temple, which was later overturned by the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) dispensation. The UDF government had taken a view that they were against the entry of women of the age group of 10-to-50 years as such a practice was being followed since time immemorial.

Supreme Court refers ban on women's entry at Sabarimala temple to constitution bench

Jaiprakash Associates, the flagship firm of the debt-ridden infrastructure major Jaypee Group, has sought permission from the Supreme Court to sell the Yamuna Expressway to generate money.

The court had asked Jaiprakash Associates to deposit Rs 2,000 crore to cover its liability towards home buyers of Jaypee Infratech.

The company told the court that it has decided to hive off Yamuna Expressway to another company for Rs 2,500 crore.

The court will hear the matter on October 23.

Jaypee Group is a diversified infrastructure company engaged in engineering, construction or real estate development, manufacture or marketing of cement, hospitality and sports management.

The group is facing a huge protest from home buyers because of significant delays in delivery of projects.

One of the group&rsquo;s firm, Jaypee Infratech, has been taken over by a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-appointed IRP for the recovery of bad loans.

The court had asked Jaiprakash Associates to deposit Rs 2,000 crore to cover its liability towards home buyers of Jaypee Infratech.

Jaiprakash Associates, the flagship firm of the debt-ridden infrastructure major Jaypee Group, has sought permission from the Supreme Court to sell the Yamuna Expressway to generate money. The court had asked Jaiprakash Associates to deposit Rs 2,000 crore to cover its liability towards home buyers of Jaypee Infratech. The company told the court that it has decided to hive off Yamuna Expressway to another company for Rs 2,500 crore. The court will hear the matter on October 23. Jaypee Group is a diversified infrastructure company engaged in engineering, construction or real estate development, manufacture or marketing of cement, hospitality and sports management. The group is facing a huge protest from home buyers because of significant delays in delivery of projects. One of the group’s firm, Jaypee Infratech, has been taken over by a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-appointed IRP for the recovery of bad loans.

Jaypee Group plans to sell Yamuna Expressway, seeks Supreme Court's permission

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre how app-based transport services like Uber, Ola, and redBus can be regulated.&nbsp;

The court was responding to a petition seeking compensation for rape victims. (While the petitioner had asked for compensation, it was the court which asked why more guarantees of women&#39;s safety could not be put in place.)&nbsp;

The petitioner had asked that all public transport vehicles be fitted with GPS systems, high-security registration plates, and that they maintain logbooks.&nbsp;

The petitioner had also asked that the government encourage the hiring of more women drivers.&nbsp;

The court will now hear the petition on December 7.&nbsp;

Taxi aggregators in India (and elsewhere) have for some time now said that the only technology they provide is to help drivers and passengers connect with each other.&nbsp;

And that while they might terminate or suspend the services of a driver who has done something illegal -- they themselves cannot be held liable.&nbsp;

That is why their drivers are often referred to as &quot;driver partners&quot;.&nbsp;

This is a very wide grey zone -- and one that the petition might help find answers to.&nbsp;

If, say, a person is assaulted in a taxi, who is to be held accountable? Just the driver or also the company that provided his services?&nbsp;

The courts have asked a similar question earlier.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court had last year in February asked the government and police to check if all cab drivers in the city had valid licences.&nbsp;

This was after a foreign tourist had been molested by a taxi driver.&nbsp;

&quot;If someone comes to Delhi from another country and hires a taxi and if a driver commits a crime, who will be held responsible?&quot; the court had asked then.&nbsp;

The court was responding to a petition seeking compensation for rape victims

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre how app-based transport services like Uber, Ola, and redBus can be regulated. The court was responding to a petition seeking compensation for rape victims. (While the petitioner had asked for compensation, it was the court which asked why more guarantees of women's safety could not be put in place.) The petitioner had asked that all public transport vehicles be fitted with GPS systems, high-security registration plates, and that they maintain logbooks. The petitioner had also asked that the government encourage the hiring of more women drivers. The court will now hear the petition on December 7. Taxi aggregators in India (and elsewhere) have for some time now said that the only technology they provide is to help drivers and passengers connect with each other. And that while they might terminate or suspend the services of a driver who has done something illegal -- they themselves cannot be held liable. That is why their drivers are often referred to as "driver partners". This is a very wide grey zone -- and one that the petition might help find answers to. If, say, a person is assaulted in a taxi, who is to be held accountable? Just the driver or also the company that provided his services? The courts have asked a similar question earlier. The Delhi High Court had last year in February asked the government and police to check if all cab drivers in the city had valid licences. This was after a foreign tourist had been molested by a taxi driver. "If someone comes to Delhi from another country and hires a taxi and if a driver commits a crime, who will be held responsible?" the court had asked then.

SC to Centre: How can app-based transport services be regulated??

The Supreme Court today took strong exception to the Sahara group writing a letter to the Pune police raising the issue of law and order at its Aamby Valley property, which is undergoing a court-mandated auctioning process.

Taking note of SEBI&#39;s allegation in this regard, a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said the group should not have entered into a communication with Pune&#39;s Superintendent of the Police (Rural) on the issue since the auction has been ordered by the top court.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and A K Sikri, directed the Director General of Police, Maharashtra to see that the property is handed over to the official liquidator of the Bombay High Court within 48 hours.

&quot;If any impediment is caused in the auctioning process by anyone, he shall be liable of contempt of this court and sent to jail,&quot; the bench said.

The apex court asked the official liquidator to go ahead with the auctioning process under the direct supervision of the company judge.

The bench also said the official liquidator shall take guidance from Justice A S Oka, sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, in the matter.

At the outset, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the SEBI, referred to the communication addressed to the SP of police and claimed that due to this, the police has taken over the custody of the property.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Sahara group, countered the submission and said the custody of the property has not been handed over to the police and &quot;completely wrong statements are being made to prejudice the court.&quot;

The bench, however, clarified that they were not initiating any contempt action at this stage.

The top court was hearing SEBI&#39;s plea seeking contempt action against the Sahara group for allegedly obstructing the auctioning process of Aamby Valley.

Taking note of SEBI's allegation in this regard, a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said the group should not have entered into a communication with Pune's Superintendent of the Police (Rural) on the issue since the auction has been ordered by the top court

The Supreme Court today took strong exception to the Sahara group writing a letter to the Pune police raising the issue of law and order at its Aamby Valley property, which is undergoing a court-mandated auctioning process. Taking note of SEBI's allegation in this regard, a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said the group should not have entered into a communication with Pune's Superintendent of the Police (Rural) on the issue since the auction has been ordered by the top court. The bench, also comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and A K Sikri, directed the Director General of Police, Maharashtra to see that the property is handed over to the official liquidator of the Bombay High Court within 48 hours. "If any impediment is caused in the auctioning process by anyone, he shall be liable of contempt of this court and sent to jail," the bench said. The apex court asked the official liquidator to go ahead with the auctioning process under the direct supervision of the company judge. The bench also said the official liquidator shall take guidance from Justice A S Oka, sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, in the matter. At the outset, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the SEBI, referred to the communication addressed to the SP of police and claimed that due to this, the police has taken over the custody of the property. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Sahara group, countered the submission and said the custody of the property has not been handed over to the police and "completely wrong statements are being made to prejudice the court." The bench, however, clarified that they were not initiating any contempt action at this stage. The top court was hearing SEBI's plea seeking contempt action against the Sahara group for allegedly obstructing the auctioning process of Aamby Valley.

Aamby Valley auctioning: SC irked over Sahara's letter to cops

&quot;One day will find Hindu cremation banned or someone filed petition to ban it on grounds of pollution,&quot; ANI reported the Tripura governor Tathagata Roy as saying on the firecracker ban.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
One day will find Hindu cremation banned or someone filed petition to ban it on grounds of pollution: Tripura Guv Tathagata Roy <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CrackerBan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CrackerBan</a> <a href="https://t.co/cKqjquGs0M">pic.twitter.com/cKqjquGs0M</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/917964546014400514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Supreme Court had on Tuesday banned the sale of firecrackers in Delhi till November 1, saying they were polluting.&nbsp;

The air quality in Delhi, which is never very good, takes an alarming dip -- because of the firecrackers -- after Diwali.&nbsp;

Diwali this year falls on October 19.&nbsp;

The Chhattisgarh government has since the Supreme Court order also banned the use of high-decibel firecrackers during firecrackers.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chhattisgarh-government-bans-use-of-firecrackers-with-high-decibels-on-diwali-21260" target="_blank">Also read:&nbsp;Chhattisgarh government bans use of firecrackers with high decibel levels on Diwali</a>

The Supreme Court had on Tuesday banned the sale of firecrackers in Delhi till November 1, saying they were polluting

"One day will find Hindu cremation banned or someone filed petition to ban it on grounds of pollution," ANI reported the Tripura governor Tathagata Roy as saying on the firecracker ban. One day will find Hindu cremation banned or someone filed petition to ban it on grounds of pollution: Tripura Guv Tathagata Roy #CrackerBan pic.twitter.com/cKqjquGs0M — ANI (@ANI) October 11, 2017 × The Supreme Court had on Tuesday banned the sale of firecrackers in Delhi till November 1, saying they were polluting. The air quality in Delhi, which is never very good, takes an alarming dip -- because of the firecrackers -- after Diwali. Diwali this year falls on October 19. The Chhattisgarh government has since the Supreme Court order also banned the use of high-decibel firecrackers during firecrackers. Also read: Chhattisgarh government bans use of firecrackers with high decibel levels on Diwali

One day will find Hindu cremation banned: Tripura governor on firecracker ban

In a landmark verdict, India&#39;s top court has declared that sex&nbsp;with wife between 15 and 18 years of age will be considered rape and be a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
 
The Supreme Court of India overturned an exception clause in the rape law that permits sexual intercourse between a man and his wife who is underage&nbsp;but above 15 years of age and said the law was &quot;discriminatory,&nbsp;capricious and arbitrary.&quot;

The bench clarified that it has not dealt with the issue of marital rape as it was not raised before it by the parties.

Expressing concern over the practice of child marriage in the country, a&nbsp;bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said&nbsp;social justice laws in the country had not been implemented with the spirit they have been enacted.&nbsp;

Justice Gupta, who wrote a separate but concurrent verdict, said the age of marriage was 18 in all laws and the exception clause was &quot;capricious, arbitrary and violates the rights of a girl child&quot;. 
 
The exception in rape law under the IPC is contrary to the philosophy of other statutes, and violates bodily integrity of girl child, the Supreme Court said.

The apex court said the exception is violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

It asked the Centre and the states to take proactive steps to prohibit child marriage across the country.

It voiced concern over thousands of minor girls being married in mass wedding ceremonies on the occasion of Akshaya Tritiya.

The top court gave its verdict on a petition by an NGO,&nbsp;Independent Thought,&nbsp;challenging the validity of an exception clause (2) in Section 375 of the IPC that states that intercourse or sexual act by a man with his wife, not below 15 years, is not rape.

The petition contended that this created a dichotomy as the age of consent was 18 years and it also defeated the purpose of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.&nbsp;

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) considers sex with children (those below 18 years of age) as rape.

The&nbsp;bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur had on September 6 had reserved its order in the case.

The top court gave its verdict on a petition challenging the validity of an exception clause in the rape law which permits sexual intercourse between a man and his wife who is not below 15 years.

In a landmark verdict, India's top court has declared that sex with wife between 15 and 18 years of age will be considered rape and be a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court of India overturned an exception clause in the rape law that permits sexual intercourse between a man and his wife who is underage but above 15 years of age and said the law was "discriminatory, capricious and arbitrary." The bench clarified that it has not dealt with the issue of marital rape as it was not raised before it by the parties. Expressing concern over the practice of child marriage in the country, a bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said social justice laws in the country had not been implemented with the spirit they have been enacted. Justice Gupta, who wrote a separate but concurrent verdict, said the age of marriage was 18 in all laws and the exception clause was "capricious, arbitrary and violates the rights of a girl child". The exception in rape law under the IPC is contrary to the philosophy of other statutes, and violates bodily integrity of girl child, the Supreme Court said. The apex court said the exception is violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It asked the Centre and the states to take proactive steps to prohibit child marriage across the country. It voiced concern over thousands of minor girls being married in mass wedding ceremonies on the occasion of Akshaya Tritiya. The top court gave its verdict on a petition by an NGO, Independent Thought, challenging the validity of an exception clause (2) in Section 375 of the IPC that states that intercourse or sexual act by a man with his wife, not below 15 years, is not rape. The petition contended that this created a dichotomy as the age of consent was 18 years and it also defeated the purpose of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) considers sex with children (those below 18 years of age) as rape. The bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur had on September 6 had reserved its order in the case.

Sex with wife under 18 is rape: Supreme Court

supreme-court

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

supreme court