India has a problem with pollution. Facts prove it. Our everyday life experience tells the same story. This is a problem not limited to one festival or one time of the year.&nbsp;

India&#39;s pollution is a long-drawn pervasive affair that stems from a number of reasons, which include a high amount of traffic on Indian roads, particularly, vehicles using diesel. The dust on the roads is ubiquitous from the National Capital Region to muffasil towns.&nbsp;

To add to the pollution problem, on the onset of winter, farmers burn of crop residues, clouding a vast swath of land across India.&nbsp; As we witnessed in the winter of 2016, across the states of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, deep, almost, unpenetrable smog cloaked the region.&nbsp;

<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 recent&nbsp; Supreme Court&#39;s judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg.&nbsp;</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 recent? Supreme Court's judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg.?" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

India&#39;s teeming population and upwardly mobile middle-class has brought about another pollution peril for the people of the nation. Innumerable construction sites have opened up in and around the cities of India; the nation&#39;s suburbs are in an ever-expansive mode. But all the dust, the sand, the wreckage has worsened the air quality to an abysmal level. The living spaces that we are creating are making the air unlivable.&nbsp;

These amply illustrate the fact that pollution is a complicated issue in India. Thus, the recent&nbsp; Supreme Court&#39;s judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg.&nbsp; Banning pollutants, for a day or a week, will not reduce the grievous nature of the situation. It is not a long-term step and, hence, it will fail.&nbsp;

There are more layers to the issue which the supporters of the ban are conveniently ignoring. For instance, we are taking recourse to the Supreme Court&#39;s verdict on all issues, ranging from Triple Talaq to cracker ban. This is not a&nbsp; good practise in a democracy where such decisions need to come from concerned agencies. In this case, it should have been the National Pollution Control Board.&nbsp;

<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>Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters?</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=Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters?

" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Sustained by the public exchequer, these bodies have failed to live up to their public duties. Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters?

If we really want to have a long-term impact on the pollution level, we need to take some tougher measures, such as ban the sale of diesel, which is used by both big and small vehicles, from truck to auto rickshaws. But this, evidently, is not an easy feat to achieve. The initial ban on 2000 cc diesel vehicle was later withdrawn when the diesel car lobby got into action.&nbsp;

It is also imperative that we start decongesting cities and start developing public transport. More cars mean more pollution.&nbsp;

<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>While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice.</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=While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice. The Court has so far refused to ban animal sacrifice by all religious communities. Figures from Lucknow alone shows that in the last Bakrid, 5 lakh animals were sacrificed. 5-7 kg of waste is generated by killing a small animal, whereas, around 25 kg waste is generated after killing a big animal. The pollution these religious rituals -- Kali Puja, Durga Puja, Eid -- create involves huge wastage of precious water resources too. After all,&nbsp; water is needed to wash off the blood and the rest of the body waste is dumped in the drain or somewhere.

Thus, if we need a pollution free India, we have to look beyond knee-jerk reaction and go for a comprehensive solution. What the Supreme Court presently gives is no futuristic plan. The abetting pollution keeps on playing with our lives and, worst, we leave an insecure future for our kids. As a parent that is my biggest problem with the verdict.

In banning firecracker, what we got from the Supreme Court of India is a knee-jerk reaction and not a comprehensive solution for the pollution plaguing India

India has a problem with pollution. Facts prove it. Our everyday life experience tells the same story. This is a problem not limited to one festival or one time of the year. India's pollution is a long-drawn pervasive affair that stems from a number of reasons, which include a high amount of traffic on Indian roads, particularly, vehicles using diesel. The dust on the roads is ubiquitous from the National Capital Region to muffasil towns. To add to the pollution problem, on the onset of winter, farmers burn of crop residues, clouding a vast swath of land across India. As we witnessed in the winter of 2016, across the states of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, deep, almost, unpenetrable smog cloaked the region. The recent Supreme Court's judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg. × India's teeming population and upwardly mobile middle-class has brought about another pollution peril for the people of the nation. Innumerable construction sites have opened up in and around the cities of India; the nation's suburbs are in an ever-expansive mode. But all the dust, the sand, the wreckage has worsened the air quality to an abysmal level. The living spaces that we are creating are making the air unlivable. These amply illustrate the fact that pollution is a complicated issue in India. Thus, the recent Supreme Court's judgement on banning the sale of firecrackers before Diwali is just touching the tip of the iceberg. Banning pollutants, for a day or a week, will not reduce the grievous nature of the situation. It is not a long-term step and, hence, it will fail. There are more layers to the issue which the supporters of the ban are conveniently ignoring. For instance, we are taking recourse to the Supreme Court's verdict on all issues, ranging from Triple Talaq to cracker ban. This is not a good practise in a democracy where such decisions need to come from concerned agencies. In this case, it should have been the National Pollution Control Board. Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters? × Sustained by the public exchequer, these bodies have failed to live up to their public duties. Are we facing a future when all these civic bodies become defunct and the courts of India become colossally burdened with the responsibility of taking decisions on debatable matters? If we really want to have a long-term impact on the pollution level, we need to take some tougher measures, such as ban the sale of diesel, which is used by both big and small vehicles, from truck to auto rickshaws. But this, evidently, is not an easy feat to achieve. The initial ban on 2000 cc diesel vehicle was later withdrawn when the diesel car lobby got into action. It is also imperative that we start decongesting cities and start developing public transport. More cars mean more pollution. While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice. × While we ban crackers on Diwali, we conveniently forget the pollution created by animal sacrifice. The Court has so far refused to ban animal sacrifice by all religious communities. Figures from Lucknow alone shows that in the last Bakrid, 5 lakh animals were sacrificed. 5-7 kg of waste is generated by killing a small animal, whereas, around 25 kg waste is generated after killing a big animal. The pollution these religious rituals -- Kali Puja, Durga Puja, Eid -- create involves huge wastage of precious water resources too. After all, water is needed to wash off the blood and the rest of the body waste is dumped in the drain or somewhere. Thus, if we need a pollution free India, we have to look beyond knee-jerk reaction and go for a comprehensive solution. What the Supreme Court presently gives is no futuristic plan. The abetting pollution keeps on playing with our lives and, worst, we leave an insecure future for our kids. As a parent that is my biggest problem with the verdict.

Firecracker ban: As a parent my biggest worry

A wheelchair-bound man has said that he was abused and called a &quot;Pakistani&quot; for not standing up for the national anthem.&nbsp;

The incident was reported from a multiplex in Guwahati, Assam.&nbsp;

Arman Ali,&nbsp;who is the director of an NGO for the differently-abled, said he was singing the national anthem while sitting when he heard someone commenting and calling him a Pakistani.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Guwahati: Wheelchair-bound Director of NGO for differently-abled says he was abused for not standing up for national anthem in a multiplex <a href="https://t.co/vH46FdpVES">pic.twitter.com/vH46FdpVES</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/914766678155653121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 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;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I was singing along while sitting. I heard someone commenting &amp; calling me a Pakistani. 2 men sat behind me, smirking: Arman Ali <a href="https://t.co/l1XlEaWUnS">pic.twitter.com/l1XlEaWUnS</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/914766823865843712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 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;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I don&#39;t think SC would&#39;ve thought of situation like this. I&#39;ll write to Chief Justice about this incident &amp; plight of ppl like me: Arman Ali <a href="https://t.co/lMJT0yW2G2">pic.twitter.com/lMJT0yW2G2</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/914767217488572416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 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>

Ali said he didn&#39;t think the Supreme Court would have thought of a situation like this and that he would be writing to the Chief Justice of India about what had happened to him and the plight of people like him.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India had on November 30 last year ordered cinema halls to play the national anthem before every movie, and said that the people present should stand up for it. (The order was passed -- to instil patriotism and nationalism among the people of the nation -- by the current Chief Justice of India.)&nbsp;

On December 9, the court modified its order, saying the differently-abled were exempt from the order.&nbsp;

He said he would be writing to the Chief Justice of India to inform him of the plight of people like him

A wheelchair-bound man has said that he was abused and called a "Pakistani" for not standing up for the national anthem. The incident was reported from a multiplex in Guwahati, Assam. Arman Ali, who is the director of an NGO for the differently-abled, said he was singing the national anthem while sitting when he heard someone commenting and calling him a Pakistani. Guwahati: Wheelchair-bound Director of NGO for differently-abled says he was abused for not standing up for national anthem in a multiplex pic.twitter.com/vH46FdpVES — ANI (@ANI) October 2, 2017 × I was singing along while sitting. I heard someone commenting & calling me a Pakistani. 2 men sat behind me, smirking: Arman Ali pic.twitter.com/l1XlEaWUnS — ANI (@ANI) October 2, 2017 × I don't think SC would've thought of situation like this. I'll write to Chief Justice about this incident & plight of ppl like me: Arman Ali pic.twitter.com/lMJT0yW2G2 — ANI (@ANI) October 2, 2017 × Ali said he didn't think the Supreme Court would have thought of a situation like this and that he would be writing to the Chief Justice of India about what had happened to him and the plight of people like him. The Supreme Court of India had on November 30 last year ordered cinema halls to play the national anthem before every movie, and said that the people present should stand up for it. (The order was passed -- to instil patriotism and nationalism among the people of the nation -- by the current Chief Justice of India.) On December 9, the court modified its order, saying the differently-abled were exempt from the order.

Man in wheelchair abused, called 'Pakistani' for not standing for national anthem

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-verdict-5-faiths-5-judges-split-wide-open-19323">After declaring triple talaq unconstitutional</a>, now the apex court in a judgment has cut the waiting period for divorce by six months under the Hindu marriage act of 1955.&nbsp;

Supreme Court has made it clear that a couple will not have to wait for the mandatory eighteen month period for separation.&nbsp;

A bench of Justice U U Lalit and Justice Adarsh K Goyal noted that if the couple settled through mutual consent then the six month cooling off period can be scrapped, &quot;Section 13B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have a rethink so that the court grants divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation.&rdquo;&nbsp;

The provisions of section 13 (B) of the Hindu marriage act of 1955 states that a couple seeking divorce through mutual consent has to wait for 18 months.&nbsp;

Section 13 B (1) of the Hindu marriage act allows the couple to file a divorce petition for a judicial separation of one year and under 13 B (2) the couple then have to go through another six-month waiting period.&nbsp;

The court concluded that since the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directive in nature, it will be open to the court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming their relationship and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.

The apex court in a judgment has cut the waiting period for divorce by six months under the Hindu marriage act of 1955

After declaring triple talaq unconstitutional, now the apex court in a judgment has cut the waiting period for divorce by six months under the Hindu marriage act of 1955. Supreme Court has made it clear that a couple will not have to wait for the mandatory eighteen month period for separation. A bench of Justice U U Lalit and Justice Adarsh K Goyal noted that if the couple settled through mutual consent then the six month cooling off period can be scrapped, "Section 13B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have a rethink so that the court grants divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation.” The provisions of section 13 (B) of the Hindu marriage act of 1955 states that a couple seeking divorce through mutual consent has to wait for 18 months. Section 13 B (1) of the Hindu marriage act allows the couple to file a divorce petition for a judicial separation of one year and under 13 B (2) the couple then have to go through another six-month waiting period. The court concluded that since the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directive in nature, it will be open to the court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming their relationship and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.

Supreme Court cuts waiting period for divorce

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the chief secretaries of 22 states to file compliance reports in pursuance of its order on laying down a mechanism to sternly deal with cow vigilante groups, saying &ldquo;nobody can wash off their hands&rdquo;.

The top court, on 6 September, had directed all 29 states and seven union territories (UTs) to take steps to stop violence in the name of cow protection and asked them to appoint a senior police officer as the nodal officer in every district within a week to check such vigilante groups.

A bench headed by chief justice Dipak Misra said, &ldquo;let the compliance reports be filed...nobody can wash off their hands (from their duty). We will give directions to all the states.&rdquo; The bench, also comprising justices AM&nbsp;Khanwilkar and DY&nbsp;Chandrachud, was informed during the brief hearing that five states, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Gujarat,&nbsp;have already filed their compliance affidavits and Bihar and Maharashtra would be filing it during the day.

It then asked the counsel for the remaining 22 states to file compliance reports by 13 October and fixed PILs, including one filed by Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi on the issue, for hearing on 31 October.

At the outset, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Gandhi, said the central government be directed to frame a national policy on preventing incidents of cow vigilantism.

She also said there were several judgements, which make mandatory the award of compensation to the victims of such crimes, but unfortunately, the money was not being paid. Jaising then raised the issue of Junaid, who was killed by a group of fellow passengers while returning to his Ballabhgarh home with his brothers after Eid shopping in Delhi on June 23 and said his family members were not paid any compensation and now, his father is ill and undergoing treatment at a hospital in Noida in Uttar Pradesh.

&ldquo;I am asking for the formulation of a scheme on compensation,&rdquo; she said. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t mix up the issues,&rdquo; the bench said.

Earlier, the apex court had passed a slew of directions to stop violence in the name of cow protection and asked the states to appoint a senior police officer as nodal officer in every district to act promptly to check cow vigilantes from behaving like they are &ldquo;law unto themselves&rdquo;.

It had asked the states to form a dedicated task force in every district to stop such acts and directed their chief secretaries to file a status report giving details of actions taken to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism.

The court had also asked the states to ensure highway patrolling after it was pointed out that such incidents took place on highways on the pretext that vehicles are carrying beef. Besides Gandhi, Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla has also filed a similar petition.

The top court, on 6 September, had directed all 29 states and seven union territories to take steps to stop violence in the name of cow protection

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the chief secretaries of 22 states to file compliance reports in pursuance of its order on laying down a mechanism to sternly deal with cow vigilante groups, saying “nobody can wash off their hands”. The top court, on 6 September, had directed all 29 states and seven union territories (UTs) to take steps to stop violence in the name of cow protection and asked them to appoint a senior police officer as the nodal officer in every district within a week to check such vigilante groups. A bench headed by chief justice Dipak Misra said, “let the compliance reports be filed...nobody can wash off their hands (from their duty). We will give directions to all the states.” The bench, also comprising justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, was informed during the brief hearing that five states, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, have already filed their compliance affidavits and Bihar and Maharashtra would be filing it during the day. It then asked the counsel for the remaining 22 states to file compliance reports by 13 October and fixed PILs, including one filed by Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi on the issue, for hearing on 31 October. At the outset, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Gandhi, said the central government be directed to frame a national policy on preventing incidents of cow vigilantism. She also said there were several judgements, which make mandatory the award of compensation to the victims of such crimes, but unfortunately, the money was not being paid. Jaising then raised the issue of Junaid, who was killed by a group of fellow passengers while returning to his Ballabhgarh home with his brothers after Eid shopping in Delhi on June 23 and said his family members were not paid any compensation and now, his father is ill and undergoing treatment at a hospital in Noida in Uttar Pradesh. “I am asking for the formulation of a scheme on compensation,” she said. “Don’t mix up the issues,” the bench said. Earlier, the apex court had passed a slew of directions to stop violence in the name of cow protection and asked the states to appoint a senior police officer as nodal officer in every district to act promptly to check cow vigilantes from behaving like they are “law unto themselves”. It had asked the states to form a dedicated task force in every district to stop such acts and directed their chief secretaries to file a status report giving details of actions taken to prevent incidents of cow vigilantism. The court had also asked the states to ensure highway patrolling after it was pointed out that such incidents took place on highways on the pretext that vehicles are carrying beef. Besides Gandhi, Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla has also filed a similar petition.

Nobody can wash their hands off cow vigilantism: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Friday directed all states to compensate&nbsp;victims of&nbsp;cow vigilantism, stating that&nbsp;they are under an obligation to do so.

The top court also asked states to file a compliance report on the measures they had taken to curb cow vigilantism.&nbsp;

The states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh filed their compliance reports today, ANI reported. The court has asked the remaining states to file their compliance reports soon.&nbsp;

The next hearing in the matter will take place on October 31.

On September 6, the top court had suggested a set of tough steps to states to counter instances of cow vigilantism.

The top court has been hearing a petition from Tushar Gandhi, calling for measures against cow vigilantism. His lawyer, Indira Jaisingh, had highlighted more than 60 incidents across the country.

Instances of mob lynchings and killings by cow vigilantes have been reported across the country.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had asked all the states to appoint a senior police officer as Nodal officer in every district to keep an eye on vigilante groups. It has also directed top bureaucrats in every state to ensure highway patrolling to prevent future incidents.

The first incident was reported from Uttar Pradesh&#39;s Dadri in&nbsp;2015 in which a Muslim man,&nbsp;Mohammad Akhlaq, was lynched on suspicion of stealing and slaughtering a stolen cow calf.

On September 6, the top court had suggested a set of tough steps to states to counter instances of cow vigilantism

The Supreme Court of India on Friday directed all states to compensate victims of cow vigilantism, stating that they are under an obligation to do so. The top court also asked states to file a compliance report on the measures they had taken to curb cow vigilantism. The states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh filed their compliance reports today, ANI reported. The court has asked the remaining states to file their compliance reports soon. The next hearing in the matter will take place on October 31. On September 6, the top court had suggested a set of tough steps to states to counter instances of cow vigilantism. The top court has been hearing a petition from Tushar Gandhi, calling for measures against cow vigilantism. His lawyer, Indira Jaisingh, had highlighted more than 60 incidents across the country. Instances of mob lynchings and killings by cow vigilantes have been reported across the country. The Supreme Court had asked all the states to appoint a senior police officer as Nodal officer in every district to keep an eye on vigilante groups. It has also directed top bureaucrats in every state to ensure highway patrolling to prevent future incidents. The first incident was reported from Uttar Pradesh's Dadri in 2015 in which a Muslim man, Mohammad Akhlaq, was lynched on suspicion of stealing and slaughtering a stolen cow calf.

States under obligation to compensate cow vigilantism victims: Supreme Court

A Delhi Court said today &quot;in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate&quot; while deposing a 2007 case in which four men were found guilty of assaulting their neighbour allegedly over political rivalry.

&nbsp;&quot;The need of the hour is to curb such rising intolerance and to award a suitable and adequate sentence commensurate to the gravity of offence,&quot; the court said while adding such instances reflected a return to &quot;the age of barbarism&quot;.

&quot;A person in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate,&quot; the judge observed while ordering the four men to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

&quot;The case depicts a glaring example of rising intolerance among the natives of this city who, even on trivial issues involving their alleged political faiths, do not even hesitate in attacking their own neighbours with such fury that even if the other side loses life, that would hardly matter to them,&quot; the court said.

The court was hearing the 2007 case in which four accused hit a man named Raju who was their neighbour with sticks and swords in south Delhi&#39;s Tughlakabad area. The men not only beat up Raju but severely injured his son Nilesh who had to be taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre.&nbsp;

They later lodged a complaint accusing the four men of being political workers of BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri who is currently a Parliament member from Tughlakabad.&nbsp;

&quot;Neighbours are considered to be more precious than the relatives because in the event of any emergency, it is the neighbours upon whom a person could fall back for assistance and not on the distant relatives,&quot; the court said.

&quot;However, with rise of materialistic society, somehow, we are deviating from our ancient culture, ethics, and moralities and are returning to the age of barbarism as was prevalent in the primitive society,&quot; the court said while ordering the men to be sent&nbsp;to jail.

'A person in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology,' the court said while deposing on a 2007 case.

A Delhi Court said today "in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate" while deposing a 2007 case in which four men were found guilty of assaulting their neighbour allegedly over political rivalry. "The need of the hour is to curb such rising intolerance and to award a suitable and adequate sentence commensurate to the gravity of offence," the court said while adding such instances reflected a return to "the age of barbarism". "A person in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate," the judge observed while ordering the four men to three years of rigorous imprisonment. "The case depicts a glaring example of rising intolerance among the natives of this city who, even on trivial issues involving their alleged political faiths, do not even hesitate in attacking their own neighbours with such fury that even if the other side loses life, that would hardly matter to them," the court said. The court was hearing the 2007 case in which four accused hit a man named Raju who was their neighbour with sticks and swords in south Delhi's Tughlakabad area. The men not only beat up Raju but severely injured his son Nilesh who had to be taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre. They later lodged a complaint accusing the four men of being political workers of BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri who is currently a Parliament member from Tughlakabad. "Neighbours are considered to be more precious than the relatives because in the event of any emergency, it is the neighbours upon whom a person could fall back for assistance and not on the distant relatives," the court said. "However, with rise of materialistic society, somehow, we are deviating from our ancient culture, ethics, and moralities and are returning to the age of barbarism as was prevalent in the primitive society," the court said while ordering the men to be sent to jail.

Need to curb rising intolerance: Delhi court

In a blow to Pakistan&#39;s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court has rejected the petitions filed by Sharif and his children challenging its July Panamagate verdict that disqualified him as the prime minister.

The petitions, which were filed by Nawaz Sharif, his three children - Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz, Captain Safdar and Ishaq Dar, sought a review of the earlier Supreme Court verdict which came in July and led to the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif as the prime minister of Pakistan.

The Supreme Court had ruled that Nawaz Sharif had been dishonest in not revealing his employment in the Dubai-based FZE company.

The top court had also asked the National Accountability&nbsp;Bureau (NAB) to file corruption cases against the Nawaz Sharif family.

The accountability court, on Wednesday, summoned Nawaz Sharif and his sons Hussain and Hassan on September 19. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of Pakistan had, in July, ordered the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif as Pakistan's prime minister

In a blow to Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court has rejected the petitions filed by Sharif and his children challenging its July Panamagate verdict that disqualified him as the prime minister. The petitions, which were filed by Nawaz Sharif, his three children - Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz, Captain Safdar and Ishaq Dar, sought a review of the earlier Supreme Court verdict which came in July and led to the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif as the prime minister of Pakistan. The Supreme Court had ruled that Nawaz Sharif had been dishonest in not revealing his employment in the Dubai-based FZE company. The top court had also asked the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file corruption cases against the Nawaz Sharif family. The accountability court, on Wednesday, summoned Nawaz Sharif and his sons Hussain and Hassan on September 19.

Pakistan: Supreme Court rejects Nawaz Sharif's plea seeking review of Panamagate verdict

Triple Talaq

In the triple Talaq case decided recently by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner had prayed that &lsquo;talaq-e- biddat&rsquo; (or instant triple Talaq) be declared unconstitutional.

The above question, however, seems to have already been decided in 2002 by the Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara. To the best of anyone&rsquo;s knowledge, there was no subsequent decision by the Supreme Court after 2002 which held contrary to Shamim Ara. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that if the issue was unequivocally settled by a 2 Judge Bench, then what was the need for the present matter to be decided by a 5 Judge Bench. A case which should have been decided by the Trial Court in view of the settled law was heard at length by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

In their combined dissenting Judgment, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer mentioned that the Supreme Court in the Shamim Ara case did not debate the issue of the validity of &lsquo;talaq-e-biddat&rsquo;. Therefore, it was imperative for the 5 Judge Bench to decide this issue afresh.

This, however, in my opinion, does not seem to be the correct position. It is evident that what Shamim Ara struck down was the practice of instant triple Talaq. Though Shamim Ara does not mention the term &lsquo;talaq-e- biddat&rsquo; in the judgment, but there can be no dispute that instant triple Talaq and &lsquo;talaq-e- biddat&rsquo; are entirely one and the same thing.

In fact, Justice Kurian, who was a part of the majority view in the recent decision, mentions in his judgment that the issue of triple Talaq has already been decided in the Shamim Ara verdict, and concludes by saying that &ldquo;this Court has done its part in Shamim Ara&rdquo;. Further, the combined judgment of Justice Nariman and Justice Lalit also holds that triple Talaq is no longer valid after the Shamim Ara decision.

If that was so, it begs the question why the exercise was repeated all over again by setting up a Constitution Bench.

It was observed by the 5 Judge Bench that husbands continued to divorce their wives by instant triple Talaq even after the Shamim Ara judgment. The focus, therefore, should have been to see why the 2002 decision is not being implemented, rather than setting out to decide the same controversy afresh. If the 2 Judge Bench decision given 15 years ago is being flouted with impunity, there is no reason to assume that this 5 Judge decision will be respected any more than that.

Right to Privacy

A 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was recently called upon to decide whether there exists a Fundamental Right to Privacy under our Constitution. While seeking reference to the 9 Judge Bench, the government contended that 2 old decisions of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma (8 Judges) and Kharak Singh (6 Judges) held that the Indian Constitution does not protect the Right to Privacy.

A careful perusal of the unanimous decisions of all the 9 Judges now shows that the government may have sought to create a controversy where none existed by attempting to re-agitate a well-settled issue.

M P Sharma

The Supreme Court held in MP Sharma that Right to Privacy is not a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The judgment does not adjudicate on whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21.

Kharak Singh

Kharak Singh contains contradictions in itself since it observes that Article 21 does provide a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person&rsquo;s home. However, it eventually holds that Right to Privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution.

While delivering the above two decisions, the Supreme Court relied upon the case of A.K. Gopalan which stated that Fundamental Rights were mutually exclusive. Therefore, a law which impinged on any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19 was not required to answer to the test of life and personal liberty in Article 21.

A.K. Gopalan subsequently stood overruled in the case of R.C. Cooper by the Supreme Court in an 11 Judge Bench (more than the 8 Judges in M.P. Sharma and 6 Judges in Kharak Singh), stating that the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21 were interwoven and cannot be held mutually exclusive.

The abrogation of the Gopalan doctrine in Cooper was revisited and carried to its logical conclusion by a 7 Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi which expressly overruled Kharak Singh.

Since then, the Supreme Court in dozens of Judgments such as Mr. X, PUCL, Sudhansu Sahoo, Selvi, NALSA etc. has categorically held that Right to Privacy is a part of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In fact, it has been repeatedly held that the decisions in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh are not of much help anymore in deciding whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Constitution as the very foundations of these judgments have been removed by R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi. There is thus, no dispute that MP Sharma and Kharak Singh no longer reflect the correct position of law.

In my humble view, the 3 Judge Bench and later the 5 Judge Bench would have been well within their right to decide the Aadhaar case without making any reference to the 9 Judge Bench, on the settled principle that the Constitution does recognise a Fundamental Right to Privacy, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions.

What is disturbing is that despite knowing that such a settled position of law exists (the Attorney General even conceded the existence of a Fundamental Constitutional Right to Privacy during the hearing), the government chose to attempt to set the clock back by adopting a highly regressive and archaic stand that Right to Privacy does not exist under the Constitution.

In order to defend this indefensible position, the Indian government had to resort to superficial arguments like Privacy is an elitist idea and the poor do not care about having a Right to Privacy.

Had the Court accepted the arguments of the State, not only would this have undone decades of Constitutional jurisprudence that we have painstakingly evolved, it would also have rendered vulnerable, the sheer multitude of rights that are contained in the pantheon of Right to Privacy, which by itself is a recipe for catastrophe.

Sending a message to the world outside that 70 years after independence, Indian citizens have now been granted the Right to Privacy is not in keeping with the ethos and image of the world&rsquo;s largest democracy.

The Triple Talaq and Right to Privacy Judgments decided by 5 Judges and 9 Judges over weeks and weeks of hearings, may seem like emphatic victories for citizens, unfortunately, do not lay down any new law and are rather merely reiterations of settled legal principles.

When there are so many other pressing issues in our country which are pending a determination by the Supreme Court, one wonders whether these adjudications could have been avoided altogether.

&nbsp;

Too many judgments have been passed in the past on both the issues making it irrelevant to constitute new benches to ponder on the same subjects.

Triple Talaq In the triple Talaq case decided recently by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner had prayed that ‘talaq-e- biddat’ (or instant triple Talaq) be declared unconstitutional. The above question, however, seems to have already been decided in 2002 by the Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, there was no subsequent decision by the Supreme Court after 2002 which held contrary to Shamim Ara. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that if the issue was unequivocally settled by a 2 Judge Bench, then what was the need for the present matter to be decided by a 5 Judge Bench. A case which should have been decided by the Trial Court in view of the settled law was heard at length by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In their combined dissenting Judgment, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer mentioned that the Supreme Court in the Shamim Ara case did not debate the issue of the validity of ‘talaq-e-biddat’. Therefore, it was imperative for the 5 Judge Bench to decide this issue afresh. This, however, in my opinion, does not seem to be the correct position. It is evident that what Shamim Ara struck down was the practice of instant triple Talaq. Though Shamim Ara does not mention the term ‘talaq-e- biddat’ in the judgment, but there can be no dispute that instant triple Talaq and ‘talaq-e- biddat’ are entirely one and the same thing. In fact, Justice Kurian, who was a part of the majority view in the recent decision, mentions in his judgment that the issue of triple Talaq has already been decided in the Shamim Ara verdict, and concludes by saying that “this Court has done its part in Shamim Ara”. Further, the combined judgment of Justice Nariman and Justice Lalit also holds that triple Talaq is no longer valid after the Shamim Ara decision. If that was so, it begs the question why the exercise was repeated all over again by setting up a Constitution Bench. It was observed by the 5 Judge Bench that husbands continued to divorce their wives by instant triple Talaq even after the Shamim Ara judgment. The focus, therefore, should have been to see why the 2002 decision is not being implemented, rather than setting out to decide the same controversy afresh. If the 2 Judge Bench decision given 15 years ago is being flouted with impunity, there is no reason to assume that this 5 Judge decision will be respected any more than that. Right to Privacy A 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was recently called upon to decide whether there exists a Fundamental Right to Privacy under our Constitution. While seeking reference to the 9 Judge Bench, the government contended that 2 old decisions of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma (8 Judges) and Kharak Singh (6 Judges) held that the Indian Constitution does not protect the Right to Privacy. A careful perusal of the unanimous decisions of all the 9 Judges now shows that the government may have sought to create a controversy where none existed by attempting to re-agitate a well-settled issue. M P Sharma The Supreme Court held in MP Sharma that Right to Privacy is not a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The judgment does not adjudicate on whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21. Kharak Singh Kharak Singh contains contradictions in itself since it observes that Article 21 does provide a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home. However, it eventually holds that Right to Privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution. While delivering the above two decisions, the Supreme Court relied upon the case of A.K. Gopalan which stated that Fundamental Rights were mutually exclusive. Therefore, a law which impinged on any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19 was not required to answer to the test of life and personal liberty in Article 21. A.K. Gopalan subsequently stood overruled in the case of R.C. Cooper by the Supreme Court in an 11 Judge Bench (more than the 8 Judges in M.P. Sharma and 6 Judges in Kharak Singh), stating that the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21 were interwoven and cannot be held mutually exclusive. The abrogation of the Gopalan doctrine in Cooper was revisited and carried to its logical conclusion by a 7 Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi which expressly overruled Kharak Singh. Since then, the Supreme Court in dozens of Judgments such as Mr. X, PUCL, Sudhansu Sahoo, Selvi, NALSA etc. has categorically held that Right to Privacy is a part of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In fact, it has been repeatedly held that the decisions in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh are not of much help anymore in deciding whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Constitution as the very foundations of these judgments have been removed by R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi. There is thus, no dispute that MP Sharma and Kharak Singh no longer reflect the correct position of law. In my humble view, the 3 Judge Bench and later the 5 Judge Bench would have been well within their right to decide the Aadhaar case without making any reference to the 9 Judge Bench, on the settled principle that the Constitution does recognise a Fundamental Right to Privacy, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions. What is disturbing is that despite knowing that such a settled position of law exists (the Attorney General even conceded the existence of a Fundamental Constitutional Right to Privacy during the hearing), the government chose to attempt to set the clock back by adopting a highly regressive and archaic stand that Right to Privacy does not exist under the Constitution. In order to defend this indefensible position, the Indian government had to resort to superficial arguments like Privacy is an elitist idea and the poor do not care about having a Right to Privacy. Had the Court accepted the arguments of the State, not only would this have undone decades of Constitutional jurisprudence that we have painstakingly evolved, it would also have rendered vulnerable, the sheer multitude of rights that are contained in the pantheon of Right to Privacy, which by itself is a recipe for catastrophe. Sending a message to the world outside that 70 years after independence, Indian citizens have now been granted the Right to Privacy is not in keeping with the ethos and image of the world’s largest democracy. The Triple Talaq and Right to Privacy Judgments decided by 5 Judges and 9 Judges over weeks and weeks of hearings, may seem like emphatic victories for citizens, unfortunately, do not lay down any new law and are rather merely reiterations of settled legal principles. When there are so many other pressing issues in our country which are pending a determination by the Supreme Court, one wonders whether these adjudications could have been avoided altogether.

It was unnecessary to approach the Supreme Court on triple Talaq and Right to Privacy

Modifying its 2016 order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted its ban on the sale of firecrackers in Delhi but with conditions.

The top court has halved the number of licenses to be issued across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) and said: &quot;more than 50 lakh crackers should be enough&quot;.

The Supreme Court had last year suspended the licenses of all firecracker sellers in Delhi and the NCR.

Today, it lifted its suspension of the permanent licenses already granted and put these licensees on notice for Dussehra and Diwali in 2018.

The court said that those granted licenses will be permitted to possess and sell only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and it will substantially reduce over the next couple of years.

It has also asked the police to ensure that a 100-meter &quot;silent zone&quot; is observed around hospitals, courts, educational institutions and religious places.

The Supreme Court has also prohibited the transport of fireworks into Delhi and NCR from outside the region.

&quot;Concerned law enforcement authorities will ensure that there is no further entry of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders,&quot; the court said.

In November 2016, the top court had banned the sale of fire crackers in Delhi and NCR region after the pollution levels in the national capital shot up to alarming levels.

 
&nbsp;

The top court has halved the number of licenses to be issued across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) and said 'more than 50 lakh crackers should be enough'

Modifying its 2016 order, the Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted its ban on the sale of firecrackers in Delhi but with conditions. The top court has halved the number of licenses to be issued across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) and said: "more than 50 lakh crackers should be enough". The Supreme Court had last year suspended the licenses of all firecracker sellers in Delhi and the NCR. Today, it lifted its suspension of the permanent licenses already granted and put these licensees on notice for Dussehra and Diwali in 2018. The court said that those granted licenses will be permitted to possess and sell only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and it will substantially reduce over the next couple of years. It has also asked the police to ensure that a 100-meter "silent zone" is observed around hospitals, courts, educational institutions and religious places. The Supreme Court has also prohibited the transport of fireworks into Delhi and NCR from outside the region. "Concerned law enforcement authorities will ensure that there is no further entry of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders," the court said. In November 2016, the top court had banned the sale of fire crackers in Delhi and NCR region after the pollution levels in the national capital shot up to alarming levels.

Top court lifts ban on sale of firecrackers in Delhi, halves licenses

The Supreme Court of India has allowed a 13-year-old victim of rape to terminate her pregnancy of 31 weeks.&nbsp;

Abortions in India are not allowed after 20 weeks.&nbsp;

The ruling was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices AM Khanwilkar and Amitava Roy.

The court added the pregnancy should be terminated by September 8.&nbsp;

The court had earlier on July 28 rejected a petition filed by a 10-year-old victim of rape seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy of 32 weeks.&nbsp;

That petition had been rejected on medical grounds.&nbsp;

In India, abortions are not allowed after 20 weeks

The Supreme Court of India has allowed a 13-year-old victim of rape to terminate her pregnancy of 31 weeks. Abortions in India are not allowed after 20 weeks. The ruling was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices AM Khanwilkar and Amitava Roy. The court added the pregnancy should be terminated by September 8. The court had earlier on July 28 rejected a petition filed by a 10-year-old victim of rape seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy of 32 weeks. That petition had been rejected on medical grounds.

Supreme Court allows 13-year-old rape victim to terminate 31-week pregnancy

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by BJP leader Ajay Agarwal challenging the Delhi High Court verdict that acquitted Europe-based industrialists -- the Hinduja brothers -- in the Bofors pay-off scam case.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the hearing will begin from the week starting October 30.

The petitioner had requested an early hearing in the Rs 64-crore scam.&nbsp;

The CBI which investigated the case did not challenge the Delhi High Court verdict in the stipulated 90-day period.

India and the Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors had signed a deal for Howitzer guns on March 24, 1986.&nbsp;

The Swedish Radio had on April 16, 1987 claimed that Bofors&nbsp;had paid bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel.

&nbsp;

BJP leader Ajay Agarwal had challenged a Delhi High Court verdict setting the accused in the case free

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea filed by BJP leader Ajay Agarwal challenging the Delhi High Court verdict that acquitted Europe-based industrialists -- the Hinduja brothers -- in the Bofors pay-off scam case. A bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the hearing will begin from the week starting October 30. The petitioner had requested an early hearing in the Rs 64-crore scam. The CBI which investigated the case did not challenge the Delhi High Court verdict in the stipulated 90-day period. India and the Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors had signed a deal for Howitzer guns on March 24, 1986. The Swedish Radio had on April 16, 1987 claimed that Bofors had paid bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel.

Supreme Court set to hear Bofors pay-off case in October

The Supreme Court on Friday refused&nbsp;former <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/karti-chidambaram-seeks-time-from-cbi-ahead-of-questioning-17463">union minister P&nbsp;Chidambaram&#39;s son&nbsp;Karti Chidambaram&#39;s plea </a>to move abroad and has made it clear that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-asks-karti-chidambaram-to-join-cbi-investigation-against-him-18991">he cannot leave India.</a>

The top court will hear Karti&#39;s&nbsp;<a href="http://aninews.in/keysearch/keyword-search/inx-media-case.html">INX media case</a>&nbsp;on September 11.Till then the look out notice will continue.

The&nbsp;<a href="http://aninews.in/keysearch/keyword-search/central-bureau-of-investigation-cbi-.html">Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)</a>, the probe agency in the case, alleged that Karti illegally took service charges for getting the FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) clearance when his father P&nbsp;Chidambaram was the finance minister.

In the last hearing, the Apex Court had directed Karti to appear before the probe agency in the case.

Earlier, the Madras High Court had directed Karti to approach a court in Delhi to quash the FIR lodged against him in a bribery case.

The Madras High Court informed Karti that he would have to take his petition to the Delhi High Court, as the case does not come under the jurisdiction of Madras High Court.

Karti had moved the court after the&nbsp;<a href="http://aninews.in/keysearch/keyword-search/supreme-court.html">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;asked him to appear before the CBI in New Delhi, to help the investigating agency with its probe.

Earlier in August, the&nbsp;Madras High Court&nbsp;had stayed the&nbsp;Look out Circular (LOC)&nbsp;issued against Karti and four others.

The Apex Court had later said that it would review the High Court order cancelling the LOC issued by&nbsp;Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).

On May 16, the CBI raided Chidambaram&#39;s residence, along with 13 other locations in New Delhi, Gurugram, Mumbai, and Chandigarh.

The raids were regarding a 2007 case, in which INX Media had allegedly paid bribes to get a FIPB approval.

An FIR was filed against Karti, Indrani Mukherjee, and Peter Mukerjea, who owned INX media.

The Supreme Court refused Karti Chidambaram's plea to move abroad, said that he cannot leave India

The Supreme Court on Friday refused former union minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram's plea to move abroad and has made it clear that he cannot leave India. The top court will hear Karti's INX media case on September 11.Till then the look out notice will continue. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the probe agency in the case, alleged that Karti illegally took service charges for getting the FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) clearance when his father P Chidambaram was the finance minister. In the last hearing, the Apex Court had directed Karti to appear before the probe agency in the case. Earlier, the Madras High Court had directed Karti to approach a court in Delhi to quash the FIR lodged against him in a bribery case. The Madras High Court informed Karti that he would have to take his petition to the Delhi High Court, as the case does not come under the jurisdiction of Madras High Court. Karti had moved the court after the Supreme Court asked him to appear before the CBI in New Delhi, to help the investigating agency with its probe. Earlier in August, the Madras High Court had stayed the Look out Circular (LOC) issued against Karti and four others. The Apex Court had later said that it would review the High Court order cancelling the LOC issued by Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO). On May 16, the CBI raided Chidambaram's residence, along with 13 other locations in New Delhi, Gurugram, Mumbai, and Chandigarh. The raids were regarding a 2007 case, in which INX Media had allegedly paid bribes to get a FIPB approval. An FIR was filed against Karti, Indrani Mukherjee, and Peter Mukerjea, who owned INX media.

Top court refuses Karti Chidambaram's plea to move abroad

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Gujarat High Court order in connection with the re-building of mosques destroyed during the state&#39;s 2002 riots, triggered after the Godhra train carnage.

A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice PC&nbsp;Pant, allowed the state government&#39;s appeal challenging the High Court verdict that it should reimburse for reconstruction and repair works of religious structures damaged during the 2002 riots.

The top&nbsp;court was hearing a petition filed by the Gujarat government challenging a 2012 High Court order directing it to compensate for damages caused to religious structures during the 2002 riots for the failure of law and order machinery.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court allowed the Gujarat government's appeal challenging the high court verdict that it should reimburse for reconstruction and repair works of religious structures damaged during the 2002 riots

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Gujarat High Court order in connection with the re-building of mosques destroyed during the state's 2002 riots, triggered after the Godhra train carnage. A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice PC Pant, allowed the state government's appeal challenging the High Court verdict that it should reimburse for reconstruction and repair works of religious structures damaged during the 2002 riots. The top court was hearing a petition filed by the Gujarat government challenging a 2012 High Court order directing it to compensate for damages caused to religious structures during the 2002 riots for the failure of law and order machinery.

2002 Gujarat riots: Top court sets aside high court order on re-building destroyed mosques

The government today welcomed the Supreme Court judgement declaring the right to privacy a fundamental right.

Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, while addressing the media, said that the government has been of the view that the right to privacy is a fundamental right with regard to Aadhar.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Govt welcomes judgement. Govt hs been of view, particularly with regard to Aadhar that <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RightToPrivacy?src=hash">#RightToPrivacy</a> should be Fundamental Right-RS Prasad <a href="https://t.co/7fOwQIe6zF">pic.twitter.com/7fOwQIe6zF</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900659862589161472">August 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>

He said that the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, argued that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right with reasonable restrictions.

Earlier, the opposition led by the Congress slammed the government for its view on the issue.

Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal who appeared before the apex court for non-BJP ruled states said that the government&#39;s stand in opposing the declaration of right to privacy as a fundamental right reflects its narrow-mindedness. &nbsp;

&quot;Individual house, marriages, sexual orientation, right to space, right to move freely, right to eat what an individual likes, right to be left alone are protected both within the home and at public places to the extent necessary,&quot; Sibal told PTI.

A nine-judge Constitutional bench of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-verdict-on-whether-right-to-privacy-a-fundamental-right-today-19404" target="_blank">Supreme Court today declared the right to privacy</a> a fundamental right.

&nbsp;

The opposition has slammed the government's stand on the privacy issue

The government today welcomed the Supreme Court judgement declaring the right to privacy a fundamental right. Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, while addressing the media, said that the government has been of the view that the right to privacy is a fundamental right with regard to Aadhar. Govt welcomes judgement. Govt hs been of view, particularly with regard to Aadhar that #RightToPrivacy should be Fundamental Right-RS Prasad pic.twitter.com/7fOwQIe6zF — ANI (@ANI) August 24, 2017 × He said that the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, argued that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right with reasonable restrictions. Earlier, the opposition led by the Congress slammed the government for its view on the issue. Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal who appeared before the apex court for non-BJP ruled states said that the government's stand in opposing the declaration of right to privacy as a fundamental right reflects its narrow-mindedness. "Individual house, marriages, sexual orientation, right to space, right to move freely, right to eat what an individual likes, right to be left alone are protected both within the home and at public places to the extent necessary," Sibal told PTI. A nine-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court today declared the right to privacy a fundamental right.

Government welcomes Supreme Court verdict on right to privacy

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday&nbsp;upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India, a verdict that could impact the government&#39;s unique identification Aadhaar programme.

The nine-judge constitutional bench&nbsp;unanimously held that an individual&#39;s right to privacy was &nbsp;protected as a part of the rights under Article 21 of &nbsp;the Constitution.

Privacy&nbsp;was &quot;protected as an intrinsic part of Article 21 that protects life and liberty,&quot;&nbsp;Chief Justice JS&nbsp;Khehar said in a brief statement.

The Supreme Court overruled the MP&nbsp;Sharma (1962) and Kharak Singh (1954) judgements&nbsp;which held&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the mandatory use of the biometric identification cards, known as Aadhaar, as an infringement of privacy.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitutional bench will decide separately whether Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy or not.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FLASH?src=hash">#FLASH</a> Supreme Court&#39;s nine judge bench upholds <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RightToPrivacy?src=hash">#RightToPrivacy</a> as a fundamental right. <a href="https://t.co/dB3yCdABZq">pic.twitter.com/dB3yCdABZq</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900586965749321728">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

 
The government had earlier argued that the right to privacy was a &quot;wholly qualified right&quot; which allowed the government to interfere in a matter in special circumstances.

Attorney General KK Venugopal had earlier told the top court that &quot;privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy&quot;.

The government view was that&nbsp;the right to privacy was&nbsp;not an individual right and is only a common law right evolved through judicial decisions. It argued that&nbsp;privacy as a &quot;vague and amorphous&quot; right which cannot be granted primacy if it deprives poor people&nbsp;their rights to life, food and shelter. It held that&nbsp;Aadhaar was&nbsp;necessary for various measures like bringing people under the tax network, opening bank accounts, securing loans for cash transfers and subsidies.

The petitioners contended that &nbsp;enforcing Aadhaar was&nbsp;an encroachment on privacy, adding that the right to privacy was&nbsp;&quot;inalienable&quot; and &quot;inherent&quot; to the most important fundamental right -&nbsp;the right to liberty.&nbsp; 
 
They argued that the right to liberty includes the&nbsp;right to privacy and is a pre-existing &quot;natural right&quot; which the Constitution acknowledges&nbsp;and guarantees&nbsp;to the citizens in case of infringement by the state.

During the arguments, the top court had&nbsp;favoured overarching guidelines to protect private information in the public domain. It has observed&nbsp;there&nbsp;is&nbsp;a need to &quot;maintain the core of privacy&quot; as the notion of privacy is fast becoming irrelevant in an all- pervading technological era.

The nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had on August 2 reserved its verdict after hearing marathon arguments over a period of three weeks for and against the issue.&nbsp;

While reserving its verdict, the bench had voiced concern over the possible misuse of personal information in the public domain and said that protection of the concept of privacy in the all-pervading technological era was a &quot;losing battle&quot;.

The decision to set up the nine-judge bench was taken to examine the correctness of two Supreme Court judgements delivered in the Kharak Singh and MP Sharma cases which were&nbsp;decided by six and eight judge benches. 
 
On July 19, during the course of arguments, the court observed that the right to privacy cannot be an absolute right and the state may have some power to put reasonable restrictions. 
 
The high-profile arguments also saw the top court asking searching questions about the contours of right to privacy in the digital age when personal information was randomly shared with all types of government and private entities. 
 
The bench had wanted to know about the tests which could be used to regulate and enforce privacy right when there could be &quot;legitimate or illegitimate&quot; use of data. 
&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The contentious issue had emerged when the top court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India, a verdict that could impact the government's unique identification Aadhaar programme. The nine-judge constitutional bench unanimously held that an individual's right to privacy was protected as a part of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Privacy was "protected as an intrinsic part of Article 21 that protects life and liberty," Chief Justice JS Khehar said in a brief statement. The Supreme Court overruled the MP Sharma (1962) and Kharak Singh (1954) judgements which held that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right. The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the mandatory use of the biometric identification cards, known as Aadhaar, as an infringement of privacy. A five-judge constitutional bench will decide separately whether Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy or not. #FLASH Supreme Court's nine judge bench upholds #RightToPrivacy as a fundamental right. pic.twitter.com/dB3yCdABZq — ANI (@ANI) August 24, 2017 × The government had earlier argued that the right to privacy was a "wholly qualified right" which allowed the government to interfere in a matter in special circumstances. Attorney General KK Venugopal had earlier told the top court that "privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy". The government view was that the right to privacy was not an individual right and is only a common law right evolved through judicial decisions. It argued that privacy as a "vague and amorphous" right which cannot be granted primacy if it deprives poor people their rights to life, food and shelter. It held that Aadhaar was necessary for various measures like bringing people under the tax network, opening bank accounts, securing loans for cash transfers and subsidies. The petitioners contended that enforcing Aadhaar was an encroachment on privacy, adding that the right to privacy was "inalienable" and "inherent" to the most important fundamental right - the right to liberty. They argued that the right to liberty includes the right to privacy and is a pre-existing "natural right" which the Constitution acknowledges and guarantees to the citizens in case of infringement by the state. During the arguments, the top court had favoured overarching guidelines to protect private information in the public domain. It has observed there is a need to "maintain the core of privacy" as the notion of privacy is fast becoming irrelevant in an all- pervading technological era. The nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had on August 2 reserved its verdict after hearing marathon arguments over a period of three weeks for and against the issue. While reserving its verdict, the bench had voiced concern over the possible misuse of personal information in the public domain and said that protection of the concept of privacy in the all-pervading technological era was a "losing battle". The decision to set up the nine-judge bench was taken to examine the correctness of two Supreme Court judgements delivered in the Kharak Singh and MP Sharma cases which were decided by six and eight judge benches. On July 19, during the course of arguments, the court observed that the right to privacy cannot be an absolute right and the state may have some power to put reasonable restrictions. The high-profile arguments also saw the top court asking searching questions about the contours of right to privacy in the digital age when personal information was randomly shared with all types of government and private entities. The bench had wanted to know about the tests which could be used to regulate and enforce privacy right when there could be "legitimate or illegitimate" use of data.

Supreme Court upholds right to privacy as a fundamental right

Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Purohit was released from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai Wednesday morning. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit released from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MalegaonBlastCase?src=hash">#MalegaonBlastCase</a> <a href="https://t.co/5cy8YXJnZ9">pic.twitter.com/5cy8YXJnZ9</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900227046667943936">August 23, 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>

He was escorted out by Army vehicles. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash">#WATCH</a>: Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit released from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MalegaonBlastCase?src=hash">#MalegaonBlastCase</a> <a href="https://t.co/LLjfAuFuwu">pic.twitter.com/LLjfAuFuwu</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900227155384205314">August 23, 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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MalegaonBlastCase?src=hash">#MalegaonBlastCase</a>: Army vehicles escort Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit after his release from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai <a href="https://t.co/AIz5DWxVsI">pic.twitter.com/AIz5DWxVsI</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900228013161361412">August 23, 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>

Col Purohit has spent close to nine years in jail.&nbsp;

He was given bail by the Supreme Court on Monday.&nbsp;

Purohit is accused of being involved in the 2006 Malegaon blasts.&nbsp;

Purohit is accused of pilfering the explosive used in the blasts from the army.&nbsp;

He is also accused of being a member of the right-wing Hindu group Abhinav Bharat.&nbsp;

Purohit&#39;s defence is that he is not a member of Abhinav Bharat but that he was infiltrating it, and that his superior officers were in the know. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Navi Mumbai: Police team, army vehicles at the Taloja jail ahead of Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit&#39;s release <a href="https://t.co/vkAISorVbm">pic.twitter.com/vkAISorVbm</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900215899373920257">August 23, 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;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Navi Mumbai: Army vehicles arrive at the Taloja jail ahead of Leuitenant Colonel Prasad Purohit&#39;s release <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MalegaonBlast?src=hash">#MalegaonBlast</a> <a href="https://t.co/aYqZatmwxQ">pic.twitter.com/aYqZatmwxQ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900208893883711489">August 23, 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;

Purohit was given bail by the Supreme Court on Monday

Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Purohit was released from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai Wednesday morning. Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit released from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai #MalegaonBlastCase pic.twitter.com/5cy8YXJnZ9 — ANI (@ANI) August 23, 2017 × He was escorted out by Army vehicles. #WATCH: Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit released from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai #MalegaonBlastCase pic.twitter.com/LLjfAuFuwu — ANI (@ANI) August 23, 2017 × #MalegaonBlastCase: Army vehicles escort Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit after his release from Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai pic.twitter.com/AIz5DWxVsI — ANI (@ANI) August 23, 2017 × Col Purohit has spent close to nine years in jail. He was given bail by the Supreme Court on Monday. Purohit is accused of being involved in the 2006 Malegaon blasts. Purohit is accused of pilfering the explosive used in the blasts from the army. He is also accused of being a member of the right-wing Hindu group Abhinav Bharat. Purohit's defence is that he is not a member of Abhinav Bharat but that he was infiltrating it, and that his superior officers were in the know. Navi Mumbai: Police team, army vehicles at the Taloja jail ahead of Lt Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit's release pic.twitter.com/vkAISorVbm — ANI (@ANI) August 23, 2017 × Navi Mumbai: Army vehicles arrive at the Taloja jail ahead of Leuitenant Colonel Prasad Purohit's release #MalegaonBlast pic.twitter.com/aYqZatmwxQ — ANI (@ANI) August 23, 2017 ×

WATCH: Malegaon blasts accused Col Shrikant Purohit released from Navi Mumbai's Taloja jail

&nbsp;As the Supreme Court will on Tuesday pronounce the verdict on the controversial issue of Triple Talaq, the victims hope for a favourable judgment.

They, however, plan to protest if the verdict doesn&#39;t come in their favour.

Talking to ANI, a victim said, &quot;If verdict comes in favour of us, then this will be the victory for those fighting against Triple Talaq. If in any case, the verdict comes against us, then we all women will protest because then it will be victory for exploiters not for us.

&quot;Meanwhile, another victim said, &quot;We hope that the judgment will come in favour of us. We were waiting for this day since long. We want complete justice, proper punishment for the culprits and enacting of new law.&quot;

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS&nbsp;Khehar had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.

During the hearing, the Centre had assured the apex court that it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is upheld as invalid.

&quot;The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if court holds triple talaq as invalid,&quot; Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench

.Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that triple talaq violates Muslim women&#39;s right to equality within the community, and also within the country.

Earlier in the hearing, the apex court refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time.

The Attorney General and top law officers representing the Central government told the five judge Constitution bench that apex court should hear other cases also, besides Triple Talaq.

However, the top court said that they have limited time, so all the matters could not be covered at present.The Centre, earlier on May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice.

However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal told the apex court that Triple Talaq is a matter that comes under the Muslim Personal Law Board and therefore, in his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it.

While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the apex court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not.

Relentless debates on the validity and plausibility of this practice were instigated soon after one petitioner, Shayara Banu, challenged the Muslim Personal Law over instantaneous application of triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), polygamy and nikah-halala.

Supporting the stance of ending the practice of triple talaq, the Allahabad High Court had earlier asserted that the rights of any person, including Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of `Personal Law`.In December last year, the Allahabad High Court termed the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word &quot;talaq&quot; thrice &quot;unconstitutional&quot;

They plan to protest if the verdict is not in their favour

As the Supreme Court will on Tuesday pronounce the verdict on the controversial issue of Triple Talaq, the victims hope for a favourable judgment. They, however, plan to protest if the verdict doesn't come in their favour. Talking to ANI, a victim said, "If verdict comes in favour of us, then this will be the victory for those fighting against Triple Talaq. If in any case, the verdict comes against us, then we all women will protest because then it will be victory for exploiters not for us. "Meanwhile, another victim said, "We hope that the judgment will come in favour of us. We were waiting for this day since long. We want complete justice, proper punishment for the culprits and enacting of new law." A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing. During the hearing, the Centre had assured the apex court that it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is upheld as invalid. "The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if court holds triple talaq as invalid," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench .Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that triple talaq violates Muslim women's right to equality within the community, and also within the country. Earlier in the hearing, the apex court refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time. The Attorney General and top law officers representing the Central government told the five judge Constitution bench that apex court should hear other cases also, besides Triple Talaq. However, the top court said that they have limited time, so all the matters could not be covered at present.The Centre, earlier on May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice. However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal told the apex court that Triple Talaq is a matter that comes under the Muslim Personal Law Board and therefore, in his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it. While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the apex court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not. Relentless debates on the validity and plausibility of this practice were instigated soon after one petitioner, Shayara Banu, challenged the Muslim Personal Law over instantaneous application of triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), polygamy and nikah-halala. Supporting the stance of ending the practice of triple talaq, the Allahabad High Court had earlier asserted that the rights of any person, including Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of `Personal Law`.In December last year, the Allahabad High Court termed the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word "talaq" thrice "unconstitutional"

Triple Talaq verdict: Victims hope for 'favourable' judgement

In a setback for the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court of India today (August 22) observed that the National Eligibility Cum Admissions Test (NEET) would be the only basis for admissions to the state&#39;s medical colleges.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra directed the Tamil Nadu government to start counselling for admissions to the MBBS and BDS seats in the state based on the NEET and complete the process by September 4.

The ruling came after the central government told the court that it was not in favour of the recent ordinance passed by Tamil Nadu government to exempt it from the NEET.&nbsp;

The top court was hearing a plea filed by six students from Tamil Nadu that the state government conduct counselling for the medical seats solely on the basis of the merit list prepared on the basis of NEET marks.

On August 17, it had put on hold till August 22 the counselling for medical seats in the state and asked the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the state government to find a balanced solution to deal with the interests of state board students and those who cleared NEET.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) conducted the NEET examination on May 7.

The National Eligibility and Entrance Test was made mandatory for admission in the MBBS and the BDS courses across India last year. The exam replaced the All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) and all individual MBBS exams conducted by states or colleges.&nbsp;

Tamil Nadu became the first state to introduce Bills&nbsp;to exempt students from appearing for the NEET. Many medical colleges.

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The top court had put on hold the counselling for medical seats in the state

In a setback for the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court of India today (August 22) observed that the National Eligibility Cum Admissions Test (NEET) would be the only basis for admissions to the state's medical colleges. A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra directed the Tamil Nadu government to start counselling for admissions to the MBBS and BDS seats in the state based on the NEET and complete the process by September 4. The ruling came after the central government told the court that it was not in favour of the recent ordinance passed by Tamil Nadu government to exempt it from the NEET. The top court was hearing a plea filed by six students from Tamil Nadu that the state government conduct counselling for the medical seats solely on the basis of the merit list prepared on the basis of NEET marks. On August 17, it had put on hold till August 22 the counselling for medical seats in the state and asked the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the state government to find a balanced solution to deal with the interests of state board students and those who cleared NEET. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) conducted the NEET examination on May 7. The National Eligibility and Entrance Test was made mandatory for admission in the MBBS and the BDS courses across India last year. The exam replaced the All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) and all individual MBBS exams conducted by states or colleges. Tamil Nadu became the first state to introduce Bills to exempt students from appearing for the NEET. Many medical colleges.

NEET to be the only basis of admissions: Supreme Court to Tamil Nadu govt

The Supreme Court of India has asked the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to investigate the annulment of the marriage of a Muslim man by the Kerala High Court for alleged &quot;love jihad&quot;.

The top court directed the NIA to probe the case under the supervision of retired judge of the top court, Justice RV Ravindran.

The NIA has recently conducted probes into some cases of &#39;love jihad,&#39; in which some women were allegedly being sent to Syria to join the Islamic State.

The woman, Akhila, a Hindu, had converted to Islam and then married the man, Shafeen Jahan.

While dissolving the marriage, the Kerala High Court had described the case as an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39; and ordered the state police to conduct probe into such cases.

The petitioner, Shafeen Jahan, moved the top court against the high court order, stating that the annulment of his marriage was an insult to the independence of women in the country.

The Supreme Court said that before passing its verdict, it would require the inputs from the woman, the NIA and the Kerala Police.

The court &quot;shall require the presence of the girl&quot;, the bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud said.

The order came after Kapil Sibal, counsel for the petitioner said the court should decide the matter after speaking to the girl.&nbsp;

The girl&#39;s father had alleged that there was a &quot;well-oiled systematic mechanism&quot; for conversion and Islamic radicalisation.

The Supreme Court had asked the father of the woman to bring material on record in support of his claims, terming the matter as &quot;serious&quot; and &quot;sensitive&quot;.

 
&nbsp;

The marriage of a Muslim man was dissolved by the Kerala High Court for alleged 'love jihad'

The Supreme Court of India has asked the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to investigate the annulment of the marriage of a Muslim man by the Kerala High Court for alleged "love jihad". The top court directed the NIA to probe the case under the supervision of retired judge of the top court, Justice RV Ravindran. The NIA has recently conducted probes into some cases of 'love jihad,' in which some women were allegedly being sent to Syria to join the Islamic State. The woman, Akhila, a Hindu, had converted to Islam and then married the man, Shafeen Jahan. While dissolving the marriage, the Kerala High Court had described the case as an instance of 'love jihad' and ordered the state police to conduct probe into such cases. The petitioner, Shafeen Jahan, moved the top court against the high court order, stating that the annulment of his marriage was an insult to the independence of women in the country. The Supreme Court said that before passing its verdict, it would require the inputs from the woman, the NIA and the Kerala Police. The court "shall require the presence of the girl", the bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud said. The order came after Kapil Sibal, counsel for the petitioner said the court should decide the matter after speaking to the girl. The girl's father had alleged that there was a "well-oiled systematic mechanism" for conversion and Islamic radicalisation. The Supreme Court had asked the father of the woman to bring material on record in support of his claims, terming the matter as "serious" and "sensitive".

After high court annuls marriage, Supreme Court orders NIA to probe 'love jihad' case

The Supreme Court of India on Monday overruled a Madras High Court order staying the lookout notice against Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chidambaram, to prevent him from leaving the country.

The lookout circulars were issued by the central government over a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The top court has asked Karti Chidambaram, a businessman and Congress member, to join the CBI investigation in the corruption case against him. The court has directed him to appear before the CBI and has forbidden him from travelling abroad.

The court also asked the Madras High Court to decide on Karti&rsquo;s plea seeking quashing of the FIR against him.

A bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud stayed the August 10 order till the next date of hearing which it fixed for Friday.

The top court order came on a petition by the CBI that the Madras High Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plea and stay the lookout notice.

The CBI told the court that the lookout notice was only to prevent Karti Chidambaram from leaving the country.

The Madras High Court had granted an interim stay on the look out circulars.&nbsp;

In his petition to the high court, Karti said that the circular was part of the central government&#39;s &ldquo;political vendetta&rdquo; which was issued &ldquo;arbitrarily&rdquo;.

He also said it was issued without jurisdiction to prevent him from travelling abroad.

Lookout circulars are issued by an investigating agency over apprehensions that the suspect may leave the country or try to evade the probe.

The CBI had on June 15 issued a notice to Karti and his four associates to appear before it for questioning in their headquarters at Delhi between June 27 and June 29.

The CBI accuses Karti of facilitating Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to media group INX Media Pvt Ltd for &quot;kickbacks&quot; when his father P Chidambaram was the finance minister.

Karti has denied the accusations against him as being politically motivated.

Chidambaram has denied the charges and said that FIPB approval was granted in &quot;hundreds of cases.&quot;

He also accused the government of using investigating agencies to target his son and his friends to &quot;silence&quot; his voice against the government.

The court asked Karti -- former finance minister P Chidambaram's son -- to join the CBI investigation in the corruption case against him

The Supreme Court of India on Monday overruled a Madras High Court order staying the lookout notice against Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chidambaram, to prevent him from leaving the country. The lookout circulars were issued by the central government over a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The top court has asked Karti Chidambaram, a businessman and Congress member, to join the CBI investigation in the corruption case against him. The court has directed him to appear before the CBI and has forbidden him from travelling abroad. The court also asked the Madras High Court to decide on Karti’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR against him. A bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud stayed the August 10 order till the next date of hearing which it fixed for Friday. The top court order came on a petition by the CBI that the Madras High Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plea and stay the lookout notice. The CBI told the court that the lookout notice was only to prevent Karti Chidambaram from leaving the country. The Madras High Court had granted an interim stay on the look out circulars. In his petition to the high court, Karti said that the circular was part of the central government's “political vendetta” which was issued “arbitrarily”. He also said it was issued without jurisdiction to prevent him from travelling abroad. Lookout circulars are issued by an investigating agency over apprehensions that the suspect may leave the country or try to evade the probe. The CBI had on June 15 issued a notice to Karti and his four associates to appear before it for questioning in their headquarters at Delhi between June 27 and June 29. The CBI accuses Karti of facilitating Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to media group INX Media Pvt Ltd for "kickbacks" when his father P Chidambaram was the finance minister. Karti has denied the accusations against him as being politically motivated. Chidambaram has denied the charges and said that FIPB approval was granted in "hundreds of cases." He also accused the government of using investigating agencies to target his son and his friends to "silence" his voice against the government.

Supreme Court says Karti Chidambaram cannot leave country

The Supreme Court has&nbsp;sought clarification&nbsp;from the central government over&nbsp;a plea against a Delhi High Court order which had rejected a petition challenging the validity of Article 370 of the Constitution giving special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

The Delhi High Court had on April&nbsp;rejected the plea challenging the validity of Article 370, saying nothing survives in it as the Supreme Court has already dismissed a petition on the issue.

The petitioner in High Court, Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha&nbsp;had claimed that the issue raised before the High Court was different from the matter which was put before the apex court.

She contended that Article 370 was a temporary provision that had lapsed with the dissolution of the state&#39;s Constituent Assembly in 1957.

The petition had said that the continuance of the temporary provision of Article 370 even after dissolution of the state&#39;s Constituent Assembly and its Constitution which has never got the assent of the President of India or Parliament or the Government of India, &quot;amounts to fraud on the basic structure of our Constitution&quot;.

In July 2014, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea challenging the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir and had asked the petitioner to move the High Court.

The Supreme Court has given the Centre one month to reply.

In July 2014, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea challenging the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir and had asked the petitioner to move the High Court

The Supreme Court has sought clarification from the central government over a plea against a Delhi High Court order which had rejected a petition challenging the validity of Article 370 of the Constitution giving special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The Delhi High Court had on April rejected the plea challenging the validity of Article 370, saying nothing survives in it as the Supreme Court has already dismissed a petition on the issue. The petitioner in High Court, Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha had claimed that the issue raised before the High Court was different from the matter which was put before the apex court. She contended that Article 370 was a temporary provision that had lapsed with the dissolution of the state's Constituent Assembly in 1957. The petition had said that the continuance of the temporary provision of Article 370 even after dissolution of the state's Constituent Assembly and its Constitution which has never got the assent of the President of India or Parliament or the Government of India, "amounts to fraud on the basic structure of our Constitution". In July 2014, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea challenging the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir and had asked the petitioner to move the High Court. The Supreme Court has given the Centre one month to reply.

J&K special status: Supreme Court seeks government's reply

Another elected prime minister has been &quot;sent home&quot;, Nawaz Sharif&#39;s daughter Maryam said today but asserted that her father&#39;s disqualification by the Supreme Court would not deter him from staging a comeback.

In her first reaction to the verdict in the Panama Papers scandal, she tweeted: &quot;Today will pave the way for Nawaz Sharif&#39;s resounding victory in 2018. He will be unstoppable. Insha&#39;Allah. Rok sakte ho to rok lo (Stop him, if you can)!&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Today will pave the way for Nawaz Sharif&#39;s resounding victory in 2018. He will be unstoppable. Insha&#39;Allah. Rok sakte ho to rok lo !
&mdash; Maryam Nawaz Sharif (@MaryamNSharif) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaryamNSharif/status/890874550984069120">July 28, 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>

Maryam, 43, is seen by many as a political heir to the veteran politician and three-time premier of Pakistan. 
She has vigorously defended Sharif during the probe.

The Panam papers scandal is about alleged money laundering by Sharif in the 1990s, when he twice served as prime minister, to purchase assets in London.

The assets surfaced when Panama Papers leak last year revealed that they were managed through offshore companies owned by Sharif&#39;s two sons and daughter, Maryam.

&quot;Another elected prime minister sent home, but only to see him return with greater force and support and soonest Insha&#39;Allah,&quot; she said in another tweet.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Another elected Prime Minister sent home, but only to see him return with greater force &amp; support &amp; soonest Insha&#39;Allah. Stay strong PMLN.
&mdash; Maryam Nawaz Sharif (@MaryamNSharif) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaryamNSharif/status/890867636296441857">July 28, 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 apex court verdict in the Panama Papers scandal came as a setback for Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), threatening a revolt within the ruling party.

But Maryam said: &quot;PML-N stands united, more resolute and unfazed. That&#39;s also unprecedented.&quot;

When a follower tweeted her that the supporters of Sharif were disappointed, Maryam wrote back: &quot;Kion ghum main hain (Why are they sad)? Not the first time your leader had to face ouster and trial. Every such act has made him stronger. History bears witness.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kion ghum main hain? Not the first time your leader had to face ouster &amp; trial. Every such act has made him stronger. History bears witness. <a href="https://t.co/aWAG5LnDi1">https://t.co/aWAG5LnDi1</a>
&mdash; Maryam Nawaz Sharif (@MaryamNSharif) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaryamNSharif/status/890880569449603072">July 28, 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;

'Another elected prime minister sent home, but only to see him return with greater force and support and soonest Insha'Allah,' she said in a tweet

Another elected prime minister has been "sent home", Nawaz Sharif's daughter Maryam said today but asserted that her father's disqualification by the Supreme Court would not deter him from staging a comeback. In her first reaction to the verdict in the Panama Papers scandal, she tweeted: "Today will pave the way for Nawaz Sharif's resounding victory in 2018. He will be unstoppable. Insha'Allah. Rok sakte ho to rok lo (Stop him, if you can)!" Today will pave the way for Nawaz Sharif's resounding victory in 2018. He will be unstoppable. Insha'Allah. Rok sakte ho to rok lo ! — Maryam Nawaz Sharif (@MaryamNSharif) July 28, 2017 × Maryam, 43, is seen by many as a political heir to the veteran politician and three-time premier of Pakistan. She has vigorously defended Sharif during the probe. The Panam papers scandal is about alleged money laundering by Sharif in the 1990s, when he twice served as prime minister, to purchase assets in London. The assets surfaced when Panama Papers leak last year revealed that they were managed through offshore companies owned by Sharif's two sons and daughter, Maryam. "Another elected prime minister sent home, but only to see him return with greater force and support and soonest Insha'Allah," she said in another tweet. Another elected Prime Minister sent home, but only to see him return with greater force & support & soonest Insha'Allah. Stay strong PMLN. — Maryam Nawaz Sharif (@MaryamNSharif) July 28, 2017 × The apex court verdict in the Panama Papers scandal came as a setback for Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), threatening a revolt within the ruling party. But Maryam said: "PML-N stands united, more resolute and unfazed. That's also unprecedented." When a follower tweeted her that the supporters of Sharif were disappointed, Maryam wrote back: "Kion ghum main hain (Why are they sad)? Not the first time your leader had to face ouster and trial. Every such act has made him stronger. History bears witness." Kion ghum main hain? Not the first time your leader had to face ouster & trial. Every such act has made him stronger. History bears witness. https://t.co/aWAG5LnDi1 — Maryam Nawaz Sharif (@MaryamNSharif) July 28, 2017 ×

Maryam Nawaz Sharif on father's disqualification: Another elected PM 'sent home' in Pakistan

Four states, all non-BJP ruled, moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to intervene in the hearing on whether the Right to Privacy can be declared as one of the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution.&nbsp;

The states include Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal is representing the four states. He initiated his arguments before a nine-judge Constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and said that the court needs to take a fresh look on the Right to Privacy in the light of technological advancements.&nbsp;

&quot;Privacy cannot be an absolute right. But it is a Fundamental Right. This court needs to strike a balance,&quot; he submitted before the bench, PTI reported.&nbsp;

The top court had set up a Constitution bench on July 18 after the issue was referred to a larger bench by a five-judge bench.&nbsp;

The petitioners have claimed that the collection and sharing of biometric information under the Aadhaar scheme is a breach of the &quot;fundamental&quot; right to privacy.

The Central government on July 19 submitted a report before the Supreme Court saying that Right to Privacy is a common law right and not a Fundamental Right. 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The states include Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry.

Four states, all non-BJP ruled, moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to intervene in the hearing on whether the Right to Privacy can be declared as one of the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. The states include Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal is representing the four states. He initiated his arguments before a nine-judge Constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and said that the court needs to take a fresh look on the Right to Privacy in the light of technological advancements. "Privacy cannot be an absolute right. But it is a Fundamental Right. This court needs to strike a balance," he submitted before the bench, PTI reported. The top court had set up a Constitution bench on July 18 after the issue was referred to a larger bench by a five-judge bench. The petitioners have claimed that the collection and sharing of biometric information under the Aadhaar scheme is a breach of the "fundamental" right to privacy. The Central government on July 19 submitted a report before the Supreme Court saying that Right to Privacy is a common law right and not a Fundamental Right.

Four non-BJP ruled states move Supreme Court in favour of Right to Privacy

The nine-judge Constitution bench hearing the issue of right to privacy has said that it is not an absolute right.

According to a report in The Hindu, the bench observed that privacy cannot prevent the state from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens.

The nine-judge bench is headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprises Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.

The nine-judge Constitution bench was constituted on Tuesday for deciding on the issue whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right or not.

Petitions challenging Aadhaar will continue to be heard before the five-judge Constitution bench.

The five-judge bench had referred to the larger bench the issue of privacy in the context of&nbsp;two previous judgements of the top court delivered in 1950 and 1962 which held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium said that the rights to life and liberty are pre-existing natural rights and how can liberty be experienced without privacy.

&quot;Life and liberty are natural existing rights which our Constitution has. Now can liberty be at all experienced without privacy? Can liberty be exercised without privacy at least with regard to all the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

The bench will continue hearing the arguments on Thursday also.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A nine-bench Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India is listening to arguments on the issue of right to privacy

The nine-judge Constitution bench hearing the issue of right to privacy has said that it is not an absolute right. According to a report in The Hindu, the bench observed that privacy cannot prevent the state from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens. The nine-judge bench is headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprises Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer. The nine-judge Constitution bench was constituted on Tuesday for deciding on the issue whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right or not. Petitions challenging Aadhaar will continue to be heard before the five-judge Constitution bench. The five-judge bench had referred to the larger bench the issue of privacy in the context of two previous judgements of the top court delivered in 1950 and 1962 which held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right. Appearing for the petitioners, senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium said that the rights to life and liberty are pre-existing natural rights and how can liberty be experienced without privacy. "Life and liberty are natural existing rights which our Constitution has. Now can liberty be at all experienced without privacy? Can liberty be exercised without privacy at least with regard to all the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution," he said. The bench will continue hearing the arguments on Thursday also.

Right to privacy is not absolute: Supreme Court

PM&nbsp;Nawaz Sharif&#39;s legal&nbsp;team has dismissed as &quot;illegal and biased&quot; the Panama Papers probe by Pakistan&#39;s Joint investigation team&nbsp;(JIT).&nbsp;

The Joint Investigation Team in its final report recommended the filing of graft case against him and his children as the Supreme Court resumed the hearing of the Panama Papers graft case.

The JIT was formed after the Supreme Court&rsquo;s judgment on April 20 &nbsp;to probe Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family&#39;s offshore business dealings.&nbsp;

The panel submitted its 60-day investigation report to the court on July 10, pointing out discrepancies in the wealth details of Sharif and members of his family.&nbsp;

The report found them &ldquo;guilty&rdquo; of being beneficial owners of multiple offshore companies, and recommended initiation of reference against Sharif and his family members in the National Accountability Bureau.

Following the report, the special bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, issued notices to the parties to submit their responses.

The opposition parties have been demanding the prime minister&rsquo;s resignation since the JIT report became public.&nbsp;

Khawja Harris on behalf of PM Sharif filed a response to the JIT report, rejecting its findings and accusing it of bias and violation of the original mandate, reports PTI.&nbsp;

&quot;The JIT report is not only against the law but also the constitution of the country and its finding are, therefore, of no legal value,&quot; he said. 
&nbsp;

Khawja Harris&nbsp;also objected to the documents obtained from the foreign countries, which he said was against laws of the country.&nbsp;He asked the court to provide the volume 10 of the report which was kept confidential on JIT&#39;s request.

Harris also urged the court to reject the JIT report.&nbsp;Finance minister Ishaq Dar on his behalf separately submitted objections over the JIT report in the Supreme Court registrar&#39;s office.

Meanwhile, Imran Khan&#39;s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif`s brother and current Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif over allegations of conflict of interest.&nbsp;The plea alleges that Shahbaz &quot;violated his oath&quot; that he took when he assumed the office of Punjab chief minister as he remained involved in his private business despite holding a public office.&nbsp;

The petition would be heard by the Lahore High Court on Tuesday.

Pak Army distances itself

The Pakistan Army has said that it has no direct link with the Panama case Joint Investigation Team against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members,&nbsp;

Reports had claimed that the army is part of a controversy to remove the civilian government.&nbsp;

Geo News quoted major general Asif Ghafoor, director general, of Pakistan Army&rsquo;s media wing as saying, &quot;I don&#39;t think this even merits a response. I have shown you what the army is doing&quot;.

Gafoor faced a flurry&nbsp;of questions on the Panamagate controversy during a press conference, ANI reported.

He said the members of the JIT worked with honesty and dedication and added that &quot;it is a sub-judice matter and the Supreme Court will make its decision in the case&quot;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XVrptMb6MQU"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
Nawaz Sharif is the first sitting premier to appear before a team probing graft charges (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

The proceedings in the case are expected to begin from 9.30 am

PM Nawaz Sharif's legal team has dismissed as "illegal and biased" the Panama Papers probe by Pakistan's Joint investigation team (JIT). The Joint Investigation Team in its final report recommended the filing of graft case against him and his children as the Supreme Court resumed the hearing of the Panama Papers graft case. The JIT was formed after the Supreme Court’s judgment on April 20 to probe Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family's offshore business dealings. The panel submitted its 60-day investigation report to the court on July 10, pointing out discrepancies in the wealth details of Sharif and members of his family. The report found them “guilty” of being beneficial owners of multiple offshore companies, and recommended initiation of reference against Sharif and his family members in the National Accountability Bureau. Following the report, the special bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, issued notices to the parties to submit their responses. The opposition parties have been demanding the prime minister’s resignation since the JIT report became public. Khawja Harris on behalf of PM Sharif filed a response to the JIT report, rejecting its findings and accusing it of bias and violation of the original mandate, reports PTI. "The JIT report is not only against the law but also the constitution of the country and its finding are, therefore, of no legal value," he said. Khawja Harris also objected to the documents obtained from the foreign countries, which he said was against laws of the country. He asked the court to provide the volume 10 of the report which was kept confidential on JIT's request. Harris also urged the court to reject the JIT report. Finance minister Ishaq Dar on his behalf separately submitted objections over the JIT report in the Supreme Court registrar's office. Meanwhile, Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif`s brother and current Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif over allegations of conflict of interest. The plea alleges that Shahbaz "violated his oath" that he took when he assumed the office of Punjab chief minister as he remained involved in his private business despite holding a public office. The petition would be heard by the Lahore High Court on Tuesday. Pak Army distances itself The Pakistan Army has said that it has no direct link with the Panama case Joint Investigation Team against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members, Reports had claimed that the army is part of a controversy to remove the civilian government. Geo News quoted major general Asif Ghafoor, director general, of Pakistan Army’s media wing as saying, "I don't think this even merits a response. I have shown you what the army is doing". Gafoor faced a flurry of questions on the Panamagate controversy during a press conference, ANI reported. He said the members of the JIT worked with honesty and dedication and added that "it is a sub-judice matter and the Supreme Court will make its decision in the case". Nawaz Sharif is the first sitting premier to appear before a team probing graft charges (WION) ×

Panama Papers case: PM Nawaz Sharif's legal team dismisses JIT report

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the counselling and admission into Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs) across the country on the basis of the results of the IIT-JEE (Advance) 2017&nbsp;by vacating its stay on it.

The top court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra vacated its stay ordered last Friday, but asked the high courts not to interfere in the petitions regarding counselling and admission to the IITs to avoid any confusion.

Counselling is a process in which a candidate, who clears the entrance examination, chooses the best college and stream according to his or her choice based on their rank.

The bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, asked the IITs to give an undertaking that such mistakes will not recur and make sure that no situation in which bonus marks have to be awarded arose in future.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the IITs, said such a situation will not arise in future. 
 
The bench said the 2005 judgement in Guru Nanak University case will not apply in the present matter as there were a huge number of students involved and there was a system of negative marking in the exam.

The apex court also noted that an experts&#39; body of IITs had met twice to decide that bonus marks should be awarded across the board for the wrong questions.

The Supreme Court had on July 7 restrained the IITs from conducting further counselling and admissions saying the court will go by its earlier judgement of 2005 and bonus marks cannot be given to those who have not attempted the wrong questions.

The AG had, however, pointed out that there was negative marking for every unsuccessful question and there may be some students who had opted not to answer &quot;the said vague questions fearing negative marking&quot;.

Therefore, across the board bonus marks were given to the candidates, Venugopal had told the court, adding that otherwise the IITs would have to strike down the marks.

The AG had also said that it was difficult to re-evaluate the answersheets of over two lakh students who took the examination and awarding of bonus marks across board was the most practical solution.

The apex court had on June 30 issued notice to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on a plea seeking quashing of the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list.

The petition, filed by an IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court&#39;s direction to declare that the action of awarding bonus marks to candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced)- 2017 examination was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students.

Since then several other students had approached the apex court seeking quashing of rank list.

Several IIT aspirants in their pleas had sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks for the incorrect questions to the candidates who had attempted the right answers.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had on July 7 restrained the IITs from conducting further counselling and admissions

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the counselling and admission into Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs) across the country on the basis of the results of the IIT-JEE (Advance) 2017 by vacating its stay on it. The top court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra vacated its stay ordered last Friday, but asked the high courts not to interfere in the petitions regarding counselling and admission to the IITs to avoid any confusion. Counselling is a process in which a candidate, who clears the entrance examination, chooses the best college and stream according to his or her choice based on their rank. The bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, asked the IITs to give an undertaking that such mistakes will not recur and make sure that no situation in which bonus marks have to be awarded arose in future. Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the IITs, said such a situation will not arise in future. The bench said the 2005 judgement in Guru Nanak University case will not apply in the present matter as there were a huge number of students involved and there was a system of negative marking in the exam. The apex court also noted that an experts' body of IITs had met twice to decide that bonus marks should be awarded across the board for the wrong questions. The Supreme Court had on July 7 restrained the IITs from conducting further counselling and admissions saying the court will go by its earlier judgement of 2005 and bonus marks cannot be given to those who have not attempted the wrong questions. The AG had, however, pointed out that there was negative marking for every unsuccessful question and there may be some students who had opted not to answer "the said vague questions fearing negative marking". Therefore, across the board bonus marks were given to the candidates, Venugopal had told the court, adding that otherwise the IITs would have to strike down the marks. The AG had also said that it was difficult to re-evaluate the answersheets of over two lakh students who took the examination and awarding of bonus marks across board was the most practical solution. The apex court had on June 30 issued notice to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on a plea seeking quashing of the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The petition, filed by an IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court's direction to declare that the action of awarding bonus marks to candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced)- 2017 examination was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students. Since then several other students had approached the apex court seeking quashing of rank list. Several IIT aspirants in their pleas had sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks for the incorrect questions to the candidates who had attempted the right answers.

Supreme Court lifts stay on IIT-JEE admissions

The Supreme Court prohibited the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) across the country from conducting counselling sessions or admitting students into the institutes till further notice this year.

The stay is over an 18-marks bonus being awarded to all students who appeared in the Advanced Joint Entrance Exams this year as the answer key to seven questions had been lost. It is applicable to all the institutes which use the IIT-JEE (Advanced) results for admissions.

A bench of Justices headed by Dipak Misra restrained the high courts from entertaining any writ petition relating to counselling and admissions to the IITs from now on.

It also sought details of the number of cases and petitioners challenging the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The apex court had issued notice to the Indian ministry of (MHRD) human resource development on a plea seeking an end to the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list.

The petition filed by IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court&#39;s direction to declare that the action of awarding &quot;bonus marks&quot; to the candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced) 2017 examination, was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students.

It sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks to the candidates who had attempted the answers for the incorrect questions.

As an alternative, the petitioner said the institution should conduct fresh examination and prepare a fresh merit list or grant all students another opportunity to appear in the examination to be conducted next year.

The petition also sought an interim stay on the merit list and the counselling, saying it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner&nbsp;and other deserving candidates.

The next hearing on the matter will be on Monday, July 10.

Bonus marks were awarded to each candidate as the answer key to seven questions was lost

The Supreme Court prohibited the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) across the country from conducting counselling sessions or admitting students into the institutes till further notice this year. The stay is over an 18-marks bonus being awarded to all students who appeared in the Advanced Joint Entrance Exams this year as the answer key to seven questions had been lost. It is applicable to all the institutes which use the IIT-JEE (Advanced) results for admissions. A bench of Justices headed by Dipak Misra restrained the high courts from entertaining any writ petition relating to counselling and admissions to the IITs from now on. It also sought details of the number of cases and petitioners challenging the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The apex court had issued notice to the Indian ministry of (MHRD) human resource development on a plea seeking an end to the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The petition filed by IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court's direction to declare that the action of awarding "bonus marks" to the candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced) 2017 examination, was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students. It sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks to the candidates who had attempted the answers for the incorrect questions. As an alternative, the petitioner said the institution should conduct fresh examination and prepare a fresh merit list or grant all students another opportunity to appear in the examination to be conducted next year. The petition also sought an interim stay on the merit list and the counselling, saying it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and other deserving candidates. The next hearing on the matter will be on Monday, July 10.

Indian Supreme Court stays IIT counselling over "bonus marks" in IIT-JEE Advance

The Supreme Court has refused to pass an interim order on the Centre&#39;s notification that an Aadhar card is necessary to avail the benefits of government welfare schemes.&nbsp;

PTI reported that a vacation bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha said no interim order can be passed at this stage on the &quot;mere apprehension&quot; of the petitioners that the government may deprive people of the benefits of government welfare schemes if they do not have an Aadhaar card.&nbsp;

During the hearing, PTI reported, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Centre has extended the June 30 deadline to September 30 for people who do not have an Aadhaar card and are availing social welfare schemes.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, PTI reported, told the court that the Centre should be directed not to deprive any person of the benefits of government welfare schemes due to the lack of an Aadhaar card.&nbsp;

&quot;No interim order can be passed in mandamus on mere apprehensions. You have to wait for one week. If somebody is deprived (of the benefits) you can point out the same to this court,&quot; PTI reported the bench as telling Divan.&nbsp;

The court has posted the matter for further hearing on July 7.&nbsp;

The apex court was hearing three separate petitions challenging the government&#39;s notification making Aadhaar cards mandatory for the availing of government welfare schemes.&nbsp;

The Centre had said an Aadhar card is necessary to avail the benefits of govt welfare schemes

The Supreme Court has refused to pass an interim order on the Centre's notification that an Aadhar card is necessary to avail the benefits of government welfare schemes. PTI reported that a vacation bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha said no interim order can be passed at this stage on the "mere apprehension" of the petitioners that the government may deprive people of the benefits of government welfare schemes if they do not have an Aadhaar card. During the hearing, PTI reported, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Centre has extended the June 30 deadline to September 30 for people who do not have an Aadhaar card and are availing social welfare schemes. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, PTI reported, told the court that the Centre should be directed not to deprive any person of the benefits of government welfare schemes due to the lack of an Aadhaar card. "No interim order can be passed in mandamus on mere apprehensions. You have to wait for one week. If somebody is deprived (of the benefits) you can point out the same to this court," PTI reported the bench as telling Divan. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on July 7. The apex court was hearing three separate petitions challenging the government's notification making Aadhaar cards mandatory for the availing of government welfare schemes.

Supreme Court refuses interim order against govt's notification on Aadhar

In what could spell fresh trouble for Sanjay Dutt, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the Maharashtra government to justify its decision to grant the actor early release from prison in the 1993 serial blasts case.

A division bench of justices R M Sawant and Sadhana Jadhav was today hearing a public interest litigation by Pune resident Pradeep Bhalekar challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was serving his sentence.

The court then directed the state government to file an affidavit stating what parameters were considered and the procedures followed while deciding that Sanjay Dutt deserved leniency.

&quot;Was the DIG, Prisons, consulted or did the jail superintendent directly send his recommendation to the governor?&quot; Justice Sawant asked.

&quot;Also, how did the authorities assess that Dutt&#39;s conduct was good? When did they get the time to make such assessment when he was out on parole half the time?&quot; he asked.

Dutt was earlier sentenced to five years in jail for possession of arms, which were a part of the consignment used in the 1993 blasts. 
 
The actor, who was on bail during the trial, had surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

Dutt was let out in February 2016, eight months early, on account of his good conduct while in Pune&#39;s Yerwada prison.

The court will further hear the matter after one week.

During the investigation and the marathon trial, Dutt spent 18 months in jail.

On July 31, 2007, the TADA court in Mumbai sentenced him to six years&#39; rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000.

In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling but reduced the sentence to five years following which he surrendered to serve the remainder of his sentence.

During his imprisonment, Dutt was granted parole of 90 days in December 2013 and later again for 30 days.

(PTI)

The Bombay High Court was hearing a PIL challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was in jail

In what could spell fresh trouble for Sanjay Dutt, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the Maharashtra government to justify its decision to grant the actor early release from prison in the 1993 serial blasts case. A division bench of justices R M Sawant and Sadhana Jadhav was today hearing a public interest litigation by Pune resident Pradeep Bhalekar challenging the regular paroles and furloughs granted to the actor when he was serving his sentence. The court then directed the state government to file an affidavit stating what parameters were considered and the procedures followed while deciding that Sanjay Dutt deserved leniency. "Was the DIG, Prisons, consulted or did the jail superintendent directly send his recommendation to the governor?" Justice Sawant asked. "Also, how did the authorities assess that Dutt's conduct was good? When did they get the time to make such assessment when he was out on parole half the time?" he asked. Dutt was earlier sentenced to five years in jail for possession of arms, which were a part of the consignment used in the 1993 blasts. The actor, who was on bail during the trial, had surrendered in May 2013 after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Dutt was let out in February 2016, eight months early, on account of his good conduct while in Pune's Yerwada prison. The court will further hear the matter after one week. During the investigation and the marathon trial, Dutt spent 18 months in jail. On July 31, 2007, the TADA court in Mumbai sentenced him to six years' rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000. In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling but reduced the sentence to five years following which he surrendered to serve the remainder of his sentence. During his imprisonment, Dutt was granted parole of 90 days in December 2013 and later again for 30 days. (PTI)

How did authorities assess Sanjay Dutt's conduct was good? High Court asks govt

From &quot;social boycott&quot; of Muslims who resort to triple talaq to the appointment of an arbitrator to settle marital disputes are some features of the new guidelines issued by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) for married couples.

The AIMPLB today (May 22)&nbsp;told the Supreme Court that it has issued &quot;guidelines for the husband and wife at the time of dispute&quot; which has to be followed, days after the court reserved its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging triple talaq.

Giving details of the guidelines framed by it, the AIMPLB told the top&nbsp;court that if there are differences between a husband and his wife, they should first try to mutually resolve the issues by keeping in mind the provisions of the &quot;Shariat&quot;&nbsp;(Islamic law) and try to overlook the mistakes of others.

It said in the second step, if the dispute is not resolved mutually and no desired results are achieved, then there may be a &quot;temporary withdrawal&quot;.

&quot;In case of failure of the first two steps, then senior members of both families should try to reconcile or one arbitrator may be appointed from each side for resolution of the differences,&quot; the fresh AIMPLB guidelines said.

It said &quot;the Muslim community should boycott such persons socially who have pronounced three divorces (talaq) in one go, so that such incidents may be minimised&quot;.

In its affidavit,&nbsp;the AIMPLB stated&nbsp;that only if the dispute still remained unresolved, the husband may pronounce one divorce during the period of purity of his wife and leave his wife till the time her &quot;waiting period&quot;&nbsp;(iddat) ended.

&quot;If a favourable situation arises during the waiting period, the husband should retain her and then both of them should live as spouses. If the husband does not retain his wife during the waiting period, then the marriage will be automatically dissolved after the lapse of waiting period and both of them will be free and authorised to start a new life,&quot; the board said.

It, however, clarified that if the wife is pregnant during the waiting period, then the period will extend till the time of delivery and the husband will have to bear the expenses incurred during waiting period and in case the dower (dowry) has not been paid, then he has to pay it immediately.

&quot;If they reach any amicable settlement after the waiting period, then both of them may restore their relationship by the solemnisation of their marriage afresh with mutual consent along with a new dower,&quot; the guidelines said.

The board has also suggested a second way to annul the marriage in which the husband should pronounce one divorce during the period of the purity of his wife, followed by another divorce in the second month and the third divorce in the third month.

&quot;If they (husband and wife) reach an amicable settlement before the pronouncement of the third divorce, then he has to retain her and restore the previous marriage,&quot; it said, adding that if the wife is not willing to live with her husband then she can terminate the relationship by &quot;Khulaa&quot;&nbsp;(a form of divorce initiated by the wife).&nbsp;

(PTI)

It suggested spouses should first mutually resolve their issues, then temporarily withdraw from the marriage, or involve their family members or an arbitrator if these steps didn't work

From "social boycott" of Muslims who resort to triple talaq to the appointment of an arbitrator to settle marital disputes are some features of the new guidelines issued by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) for married couples. The AIMPLB today (May 22) told the Supreme Court that it has issued "guidelines for the husband and wife at the time of dispute" which has to be followed, days after the court reserved its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging triple talaq. Giving details of the guidelines framed by it, the AIMPLB told the top court that if there are differences between a husband and his wife, they should first try to mutually resolve the issues by keeping in mind the provisions of the "Shariat" (Islamic law) and try to overlook the mistakes of others. It said in the second step, if the dispute is not resolved mutually and no desired results are achieved, then there may be a "temporary withdrawal". "In case of failure of the first two steps, then senior members of both families should try to reconcile or one arbitrator may be appointed from each side for resolution of the differences," the fresh AIMPLB guidelines said. It said "the Muslim community should boycott such persons socially who have pronounced three divorces (talaq) in one go, so that such incidents may be minimised". In its affidavit, the AIMPLB stated that only if the dispute still remained unresolved, the husband may pronounce one divorce during the period of purity of his wife and leave his wife till the time her "waiting period" (iddat) ended. "If a favourable situation arises during the waiting period, the husband should retain her and then both of them should live as spouses. If the husband does not retain his wife during the waiting period, then the marriage will be automatically dissolved after the lapse of waiting period and both of them will be free and authorised to start a new life," the board said. It, however, clarified that if the wife is pregnant during the waiting period, then the period will extend till the time of delivery and the husband will have to bear the expenses incurred during waiting period and in case the dower (dowry) has not been paid, then he has to pay it immediately. "If they reach any amicable settlement after the waiting period, then both of them may restore their relationship by the solemnisation of their marriage afresh with mutual consent along with a new dower," the guidelines said. The board has also suggested a second way to annul the marriage in which the husband should pronounce one divorce during the period of the purity of his wife, followed by another divorce in the second month and the third divorce in the third month. "If they (husband and wife) reach an amicable settlement before the pronouncement of the third divorce, then he has to retain her and restore the previous marriage," it said, adding that if the wife is not willing to live with her husband then she can terminate the relationship by "Khulaa" (a form of divorce initiated by the wife). (PTI)

'Social boycott' to arbitration: AIMPLB submits triple talaq 'guidelines' to top court

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India Thursday reserved its verdict on batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of talaq practice among Muslims.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar heard the issue for six days during which various parties including the government, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and various others made the submissions.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, had begun the hearing on May 11.

The members of the bench are from different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim.

The bench had made it clear that it would examine whether the practice of triple talaq among Muslims is fundamental to their religion and had also said for the time being it will not deliberate upon the issue of polygamy and &quot;nikah halala&quot;.

It had also said that the issue of polygamy and &quot;nikah halala&quot;&nbsp;would be kept pending and will be dealt with later.

&quot;Nikah Halala&quot;&nbsp;is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her going through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced, observing the separation period called &quot;Iddat&quot;&nbsp;and then returning to him.

The apex court had on its own taken cognisance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands.

The hearing assumed significance as the apex court has heard the matter during the summer vacation.

(PTI)

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar heard the issue for six days

India's top court, the Supreme Court of India Thursday reserved its verdict on batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of talaq practice among Muslims. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar heard the issue for six days during which various parties including the government, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and various others made the submissions. The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, had begun the hearing on May 11. The members of the bench are from different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim. The bench had made it clear that it would examine whether the practice of triple talaq among Muslims is fundamental to their religion and had also said for the time being it will not deliberate upon the issue of polygamy and "nikah halala". It had also said that the issue of polygamy and "nikah halala" would be kept pending and will be dealt with later. "Nikah Halala" is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her going through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced, observing the separation period called "Iddat" and then returning to him. The apex court had on its own taken cognisance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands. The hearing assumed significance as the apex court has heard the matter during the summer vacation. (PTI)

Triple Talaq: India's top court reserves verdict

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