The Supreme Court today asked the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) whether a woman can be given an option of saying &#39;no&#39; to triple talaq at the time of execution of &#39;nikahnama&#39; (Islamic marriage contract).

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar also said if all &#39;Qazis&#39; can be asked to include this condition at the time of marriage.

&quot;Is it possible that Muslim women are given an option to say &#39;no&#39; to triple talaq at the time of execution of nikahnama,&quot; asked the bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer

While seeking response from former Union minister and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing AIMPLB, the bench said, &quot;Don&#39;t infer anything from our side.&quot;

Today is the fifth day of the hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging triple talaq, polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; which is going on before a bench comprising members of different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim.

Yesterday, the law board had equated the issue of triple talaq with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, saying these were matters of faith and cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality.

(PTI)

A five-judge Constitution bench is hearing?petitions challenging triple talaq. Today is the fifth day of the hearing

The Supreme Court today asked the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) whether a woman can be given an option of saying 'no' to triple talaq at the time of execution of 'nikahnama' (Islamic marriage contract). A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar also said if all 'Qazis' can be asked to include this condition at the time of marriage. "Is it possible that Muslim women are given an option to say 'no' to triple talaq at the time of execution of nikahnama," asked the bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer While seeking response from former Union minister and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing AIMPLB, the bench said, "Don't infer anything from our side." Today is the fifth day of the hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging triple talaq, polygamy and 'nikah halala' which is going on before a bench comprising members of different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim. Yesterday, the law board had equated the issue of triple talaq with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, saying these were matters of faith and cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality. (PTI)

SC asks Muslim law board if women can be given option of saying 'no' to triple talaq

After asserting that Triple Talaq cannot be branded as unconstitutional, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said the Supreme Court 
should not be hearing the matter in the first place.

The argument began when Sibal said that the top court should not decide or interfere in one&#39;s faith and belief. To this Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, one of the five judges 
constituting the bench asked if they should not hear the matter at all.

&quot;Yes, you should not hear,&quot; replied Sibal. Earlier today, Sibal asked the Supreme Court how a 1400-year-old practice be branded &#39;unconstitutional&#39;.&quot;

Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?&quot; Sibal asked the apex court.

Sibal further argued that just like the Hindus&#39; faith about Lord Ram&#39;s birth at Ayodhya cannot be questioned, Triple Talaq, which is also a matter of faith for Muslims should not be questioned. Meanwhile, the bench also questioned the AIMPLB on the position of e-divorce given on WhatsApp in Islam.

The federal government yesterday assured the top court that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if Triple Talaq was upheld as invalid.

&quot;The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the 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 federal government arguing in front of the five-judge Constitution bench said the top 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.&nbsp;

On the second day of the hearing last Friday, senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who is the amicus curiae in the matter, had told the top court that the controversial Islamic divorce system cannot be justified whatsoever.

Citing examples, Khurshid told the court that the Triple Talaq practice cannot be validated constitutionally.&quot;There was a discussion that whether Triple Talaq is valid constitutionally.

Substantiating my view with reasons and examples, I asserted that it cannot be justified and cannot be given the law&#39;s validation,&quot; Khurshid said during the hearing.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.&nbsp;

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 board and therefore, in 
his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it.&quot; The Central Government makes rules but in my opinion the apex court should not interfere into it,&quot; Sibal said.

While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the top court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or 
not. A five-judge bench of the apex court further observed that it would not hear polygamy issue along with the triple talaq case.

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 &#39;personal law&#39;. 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;

&quot;Triple talaq is unconstitutional. It violates the rights of Muslim women,&quot; ruled the high court, adding that no personal law board was above the Constitution.&nbsp;

(ANI)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

AIMPLB counsel Kapil Sibal said that the top court should not decide or interfere in one's faith and belief

After asserting that Triple Talaq cannot be branded as unconstitutional, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said the Supreme Court should not be hearing the matter in the first place. The argument began when Sibal said that the top court should not decide or interfere in one's faith and belief. To this Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, one of the five judges constituting the bench asked if they should not hear the matter at all. "Yes, you should not hear," replied Sibal. Earlier today, Sibal asked the Supreme Court how a 1400-year-old practice be branded 'unconstitutional'." Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?" Sibal asked the apex court. Sibal further argued that just like the Hindus' faith about Lord Ram's birth at Ayodhya cannot be questioned, Triple Talaq, which is also a matter of faith for Muslims should not be questioned. Meanwhile, the bench also questioned the AIMPLB on the position of e-divorce given on WhatsApp in Islam. The federal government yesterday assured the top court that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if Triple Talaq was upheld as invalid. "The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the 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 federal government arguing in front of the five-judge Constitution bench said the top 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. On the second day of the hearing last Friday, senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who is the amicus curiae in the matter, had told the top court that the controversial Islamic divorce system cannot be justified whatsoever. Citing examples, Khurshid told the court that the Triple Talaq practice cannot be validated constitutionally."There was a discussion that whether Triple Talaq is valid constitutionally. Substantiating my view with reasons and examples, I asserted that it cannot be justified and cannot be given the law's validation," Khurshid said during the hearing.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 board and therefore, in his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it." The Central Government makes rules but in my opinion the apex court should not interfere into it," Sibal said. While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the top court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not. A five-judge bench of the apex court further observed that it would not hear polygamy issue along with the triple talaq case. 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 is unconstitutional. It violates the rights of Muslim women," ruled the high court, adding that no personal law board was above the Constitution. (ANI)

Top court should not be hearing triple talaq, argues All India Muslim Personal Law Board

The government today told the Supreme Court that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is held invalid and unconstitutional by the court.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, &quot;If the practice of instant divorce (triple talaq) is struck down by the court, then Centre will bring a law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community.&quot;

Rohatgi&#39;s submission came when the court asked him what are the remedies for a Muslim man to come out of a marriage if such practices are struck down.

Earlier in the day, the apex court bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, said it was keeping open the issues of practice of polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; among Muslims for adjudication in future, as the Centre insisted on judicial deliberations on these aspects as well.

&quot;It may not be possible to deal with all the three issues in the limited time we have. We will keep them pending for future,&quot; the bench said.

The significant observation was made when Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said the issues of polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; were also part of the order of a two-judge bench, which had referred to the Constitution bench the three issues including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims.

&quot;The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench,&quot; Rohatgi said.

When the AG asked the bench to make it clear that the issues of polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; are still open and would be dealt by other bench in future, the court clarified &quot;it will be dealt in future.&quot;

Today was the third day of the hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging triple talaq, polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; which is going on before a bench comprising members of different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsee, Hindu and Muslim.

During the last hearing, the apex court had observed that triple talaq is the &quot;worst&quot; and &quot;not a desirable&quot; form of dissolution of marriage among the Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which called it &quot;legal&quot;.

The remark was made by the bench when senior lawyer Salman Khurshid referred to the various schools of thought and the stand of All India Muslim Personal Law Board that triple talaq was &quot;abhorrent&quot;, yet valid.

The hearing last Friday also saw two veterans, jurist Ram Jethmalani and former Union Minister and Islamic scholar Arif Mohammad Khan, coming out all guns blazing against the practice of triple talaq.

Advocate Farha Faiz, a petitioner in the case who is opposing the practice, had also alleged that Muslim clerics were running a parallel judicial system like the trial courts and the high courts and the clerics were forcing Muslims not to go to the courts.

&quot;Point taken, you have raised a very valid and good point,&quot; the bench had said.&nbsp;

The apex court has fixed a six-day schedule for hearing, in which three days are available for those challenging triple talaq and three days for those defending it.

(PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi how a Muslim man would get a divorce if triple talaq were struck down

The government today told the Supreme Court that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is held invalid and unconstitutional by the court. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, "If the practice of instant divorce (triple talaq) is struck down by the court, then Centre will bring a law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community." Rohatgi's submission came when the court asked him what are the remedies for a Muslim man to come out of a marriage if such practices are struck down. Earlier in the day, the apex court bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, said it was keeping open the issues of practice of polygamy and 'nikah halala' among Muslims for adjudication in future, as the Centre insisted on judicial deliberations on these aspects as well. "It may not be possible to deal with all the three issues in the limited time we have. We will keep them pending for future," the bench said. The significant observation was made when Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' were also part of the order of a two-judge bench, which had referred to the Constitution bench the three issues including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims. "The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench," Rohatgi said. When the AG asked the bench to make it clear that the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' are still open and would be dealt by other bench in future, the court clarified "it will be dealt in future." Today was the third day of the hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging triple talaq, polygamy and 'nikah halala' which is going on before a bench comprising members of different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsee, Hindu and Muslim. During the last hearing, the apex court had observed that triple talaq is the "worst" and "not a desirable" form of dissolution of marriage among the Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which called it "legal". The remark was made by the bench when senior lawyer Salman Khurshid referred to the various schools of thought and the stand of All India Muslim Personal Law Board that triple talaq was "abhorrent", yet valid. The hearing last Friday also saw two veterans, jurist Ram Jethmalani and former Union Minister and Islamic scholar Arif Mohammad Khan, coming out all guns blazing against the practice of triple talaq. Advocate Farha Faiz, a petitioner in the case who is opposing the practice, had also alleged that Muslim clerics were running a parallel judicial system like the trial courts and the high courts and the clerics were forcing Muslims not to go to the courts. "Point taken, you have raised a very valid and good point," the bench had said. The apex court has fixed a six-day schedule for hearing, in which three days are available for those challenging triple talaq and three days for those defending it. (PTI)

Will come out with law if triple talaq struck down: AG to SC

The Supreme Court of India on Monday said it was keeping open for adjudication in the future the issues of polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; among Muslims as the Centre insisted deliberations on these aspects as well.

&quot;It may not be possible to deal with all the three issues in the limited time we have. We will keep them pending for future,&quot; a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said.

The observation was made when atorney general (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said that the issues of polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; were also part of the order of a two-judge bench which had referred to the Constitutional bench the three issues, including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims.

&quot;The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench,&quot; Rohatgi said.

The Centre&#39;s assertion assumes significance in the backdrop of the remarks of the apex court that it will only deal with the issue of triple talaq that too if it was fundamental to Islam.

The AG asked the bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer to make it clear that the issues of polygamy and &#39;nikah halala&#39; are still open and would be dealt by other bench in future.

&quot;It will be dealt in future,&quot; the bench clarified.

The bench is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the practice of triple talaq among Muslims.

The Centre resumed its arguments in the case on Monday.&nbsp;

(PTI)

Will deal with only triple talaq due to paucity of time: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Monday said it was keeping open for adjudication in the future the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' among Muslims as the Centre insisted deliberations on these aspects as well. "It may not be possible to deal with all the three issues in the limited time we have. We will keep them pending for future," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said. The observation was made when atorney general (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said that the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' were also part of the order of a two-judge bench which had referred to the Constitutional bench the three issues, including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims. "The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench," Rohatgi said. The Centre's assertion assumes significance in the backdrop of the remarks of the apex court that it will only deal with the issue of triple talaq that too if it was fundamental to Islam. The AG asked the bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer to make it clear that the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' are still open and would be dealt by other bench in future. "It will be dealt in future," the bench clarified. The bench is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the practice of triple talaq among Muslims. The Centre resumed its arguments in the case on Monday. (PTI)

Observing that while there were schools of thought which termed triple talaq as legal, India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, Friday called the practice as the &quot;worst&quot; and &quot;not desirable&quot; form of marriage dissolution.

The observation by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, came on the second day of continued hearing on the matter. The court is currently hearing a bunch of petitions on the Islamic practice.

There are &quot;school of thoughts (which) say that triple talaq is legal, but it is the worst and not desirable form for dissolution of marriages among Muslims.&quot;

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who was appearing for one of the victims, called the one-sided termination of marriage &quot;abhorrent&quot;.

He said the practice violated the constitutional right to equality since the option of triple talaq was avaliable only to the husband and not to the wife

&quot;The right of triple talaq is available only to the husband and not to the wife and it breaches the Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution,&quot; Jethmalani said.

&quot;There is no saving grace for this method of granting divorce. One-sided termination of marriage is abhorrent, and hence, avoidable,&quot; he said.

&quot;Triple talaq makes a distinction on the ground of sex and this method is abhorrent to the tenets of holy Quran and no amount of advocacy can or will save this sinful, repugnant practice which is contrary to the constitutional provisions,&quot; he added.

No law can allow a wife to become an ex-wife &quot;at the fancy of the husband&quot; and it is &quot;the highest kind unconstitutional behaviour&quot;, Jethmalani said.

The high-profile hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq is continuing after the lunch break.&nbsp;

Former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in his personal capacity, told the bench that triple talaq was not an issue where judicial scrutiny was required and that women have the right to say &#39;no&#39; by stipulating a condition to this effect in the &quot;nikahnama&quot; (marriage contract).

The court asked Salman Khurshid to prepare a list of Islamic and non-Islamic countries where triple talaq has been banned.

The bench was then informed that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia do not allow triple talaq as a form to dissolve marriages.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

 
&nbsp;

The observation by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, came on the second day of the hearing

Observing that while there were schools of thought which termed triple talaq as legal, India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, Friday called the practice as the "worst" and "not desirable" form of marriage dissolution. The observation by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, came on the second day of continued hearing on the matter. The court is currently hearing a bunch of petitions on the Islamic practice. There are "school of thoughts (which) say that triple talaq is legal, but it is the worst and not desirable form for dissolution of marriages among Muslims." Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who was appearing for one of the victims, called the one-sided termination of marriage "abhorrent". He said the practice violated the constitutional right to equality since the option of triple talaq was avaliable only to the husband and not to the wife "The right of triple talaq is available only to the husband and not to the wife and it breaches the Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution," Jethmalani said. "There is no saving grace for this method of granting divorce. One-sided termination of marriage is abhorrent, and hence, avoidable," he said. "Triple talaq makes a distinction on the ground of sex and this method is abhorrent to the tenets of holy Quran and no amount of advocacy can or will save this sinful, repugnant practice which is contrary to the constitutional provisions," he added. No law can allow a wife to become an ex-wife "at the fancy of the husband" and it is "the highest kind unconstitutional behaviour", Jethmalani said. The high-profile hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq is continuing after the lunch break. Former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in his personal capacity, told the bench that triple talaq was not an issue where judicial scrutiny was required and that women have the right to say 'no' by stipulating a condition to this effect in the "nikahnama" (marriage contract). The court asked Salman Khurshid to prepare a list of Islamic and non-Islamic countries where triple talaq has been banned. The bench was then informed that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia do not allow triple talaq as a form to dissolve marriages. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Triple talaq worst form of marriage dissolution, observes India's top court

Calcutta High Court judge Justice CS Karnan today moved the Indian Supreme Court seeking a recall of an order for his arrest after he was found guilty of contempt of court. The apex court had ordered his arrest and sentenced him to a six-month jail term.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
A petition in this regard was mentioned before a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J S Khehar which agreed to look into it.&nbsp;

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who mentioned the plea on behalf of Justice Karnan, was asked to show papers that authorised him to represent the judge. The advocate showed the notorised papers of authorisation for filing the plea on behalf of the beleaguered judge to the Bench.&nbsp;

When the CJI asked where Justice Karnan was, Nedumpara said he was &quot;very much in Chennai&quot;. Nedumpara also said 12 advocates on record had refused to represent Justice Karnan.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
However, some Indian media outlets have reported that Justice Karnan had left probably already left the country. When the West Bengal police team reached the Chennai state guest house where he had checked in with two of his advocates, they found that all three had left, without clearing their due.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The police team then visited the famous Hindu shrine in Srikalahasthi, Andhra Pradesh, that the judge was supposed to be visiting, perhaps to pray for divine help, but they could not trace Karnan.&nbsp;

At present police teams from three Indian states are looking for the missing judge. The plea on behalf of Justice Karnan was today mentioned before the Bench which had just concluded the day&#39;s hearing on the issue of triple talaq. &nbsp;

The seven-judge bench of apex court had on May 9 passed the order sentencing Karnan to jail by holding him guilty of contempt of court and ordering the West Bengal police to take him into custody.&nbsp;

Karnan was found guilty of contempt of court after he named 20 sitting judges as corrupt and wrote to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to initiate a probe.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The Supreme Court had also barred the Indian media from reporting on any of the utterances by Justice Karnan.&nbsp;

(WION with agency inputs)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The apex court had ordered his arrest and sentenced him to a six-month jail term

Calcutta High Court judge Justice CS Karnan today moved the Indian Supreme Court seeking a recall of an order for his arrest after he was found guilty of contempt of court. The apex court had ordered his arrest and sentenced him to a six-month jail term. A petition in this regard was mentioned before a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J S Khehar which agreed to look into it. Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who mentioned the plea on behalf of Justice Karnan, was asked to show papers that authorised him to represent the judge. The advocate showed the notorised papers of authorisation for filing the plea on behalf of the beleaguered judge to the Bench. When the CJI asked where Justice Karnan was, Nedumpara said he was "very much in Chennai". Nedumpara also said 12 advocates on record had refused to represent Justice Karnan. However, some Indian media outlets have reported that Justice Karnan had left probably already left the country. When the West Bengal police team reached the Chennai state guest house where he had checked in with two of his advocates, they found that all three had left, without clearing their due. The police team then visited the famous Hindu shrine in Srikalahasthi, Andhra Pradesh, that the judge was supposed to be visiting, perhaps to pray for divine help, but they could not trace Karnan. At present police teams from three Indian states are looking for the missing judge. The plea on behalf of Justice Karnan was today mentioned before the Bench which had just concluded the day's hearing on the issue of triple talaq. The seven-judge bench of apex court had on May 9 passed the order sentencing Karnan to jail by holding him guilty of contempt of court and ordering the West Bengal police to take him into custody. Karnan was found guilty of contempt of court after he named 20 sitting judges as corrupt and wrote to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to initiate a probe. The Supreme Court had also barred the Indian media from reporting on any of the utterances by Justice Karnan. (WION with agency inputs)

Justice Karnan moves Indian top court for recall of arrest order, still missing

The Supreme Court today commenced its historic hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of triple talaq and nikah halala among Muslims, saying it would first determine whether the practice is fundamental to Islam.

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, however, made it clear that the issue of polygamy among the Muslims may not be deliberated upon as it is not connected with the triple talaq issue.

&quot;We will deal with the issue as to whether triple talaq is sacramental and whether it can be enforced as a Fundamental Right,&quot; the bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, said while framing the issue to be deliberated upon.

The top&nbsp;court also said if it came to the conclusion that triple talaq is fundamental to religion, then it will not go into the question of its constitutional validity.

The bench said it will also deal with the aspect of whether triple talaq formed part of the enforceable Fundamental Right to practice religion under the Constitution.

Senior advocate Amit Singh Chadha, appearing for Saira Bano, one of the petitioners in the case, initiated the arguments against the practice of triple talaq among Muslims and said this practice was not fundamental to Islam and hence can be done away with.

He also referred to the practices in the neighbouring Islamic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh to buttress his plea that triple talaq is un-Islamic.

The bench intervened and said it would like to peruse the prevalent laws in various Islamic countries on the issue.

Another senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the petitioners, said in the case of divorces being granted through the extra-judicial mechanism, there should be a &quot;judicial oversight&quot; to deal with the consequences.

Former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in his personal capacity, termed triple talaq as a &quot;non-issue&quot; saying it is not considered complete without conciliation efforts between the husband and the wife.

He said there was no adjudication to determine the validity of the grounds of talaq.

When the bench asked whether reconciliation after the pronouncement of triple talaq in one go is codified, Khurshid replied in the negative.

Another former Union Minister and counsel for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Kapil Sibal, concurred with Khurshid, saying &quot;it&#39;s a non-issue, as no prudent Muslim would wake up one fine morning and say talaq, talaq and talaq&quot;.

The bench continued with the hearing in the post-lunch session.

The pleas before the top court have also challenged the constitutional validity of other practices like nikah halala&nbsp;and polygamy among the Muslims.

The bench is also taking up the main matter on its own as a petition titled &quot;Muslim Women&#39;s quest for equality&quot;.

The top 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 assumes significance as the top court has decided to hear the case during the summer vacation and is likely to sit on Saturdays and Sundays to expeditiously decide the contentious and sensitive issues arising in the matter.

It holds importance as the Allahabad High Court, in its verdict pronounced in the last week of April, had held the practice of triple talaq as unilateral and bad in law.

The High Court had given its verdict while dismissing a petition filed by one Aaqil Jamil whose wife had filed a criminal complaint against him alleging that he had tortured her for dowry and when his demands were not met, he gave her triple talaq.

The apex court had on March 30 said that the Muslim practices of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy are issues that are &quot;very important&quot; and involve &quot;sentiments&quot;.

Influential Muslim organisations like the AIMPLB have opposed the court&#39;s adjudication of these matters, maintaining that these practices stemmed from the Holy Quran and hence not justiciable.

The Muslim women, who have filed the petitions, have challenged the practice of triple talaq in which the husband, quite often, pronounces talaq thrice in one go, sometimes even by phone or text message.

Nikah halala is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her having to go through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced, observing the separation period called &#39;Iddat&#39; and then returning to him.

Earlier, the apex court, while referring to the matter to a larger bench, had observed that &quot;sentiments&quot; were involved in it and a five-judge constitution bench would adjudicate the issue which needed a detailed hearing.

The court had said it would decide the issues pertaining to the legal aspects of the practices of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy among Muslims, but would not deal with the question whether divorce under Muslim law needs to be supervised by courts as it fell under the legislative domain.

The Centre had on October 7 last opposed in the Supreme Court the practice of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy among Muslims and favoured a relook on the grounds like gender equality and secularism.

AIMPLB had on March 27 told the apex court that pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable as the issues fell outside the realm of the judiciary.

The Board had also said the validity of the Mohammedan Law, founded essentially in the Holy Quran and sources based on it, cannot be tested on particular provisions of the Constitution.

It had said there was a need for &quot;judicial restraint&quot; before going into the constitutional interpretation of these issues unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable.

The Ministry of Law and Justice, in its affidavit, had referred to the constitutional principles like gender equality, secularism, international covenants, religious practices and marital law prevalent in various Islamic countries to drive home the point that the practice of triple talaq and polygamy needed to be adjudicated upon afresh by the apex court. 
 
(PTI)

The top court said if it came to the conclusion that triple talaq is fundamental to religion, then it will not go into the question of its constitutional validity

The Supreme Court today commenced its historic hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of triple talaq and nikah halala among Muslims, saying it would first determine whether the practice is fundamental to Islam. A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, however, made it clear that the issue of polygamy among the Muslims may not be deliberated upon as it is not connected with the triple talaq issue. "We will deal with the issue as to whether triple talaq is sacramental and whether it can be enforced as a Fundamental Right," the bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, said while framing the issue to be deliberated upon. The top court also said if it came to the conclusion that triple talaq is fundamental to religion, then it will not go into the question of its constitutional validity. The bench said it will also deal with the aspect of whether triple talaq formed part of the enforceable Fundamental Right to practice religion under the Constitution. Senior advocate Amit Singh Chadha, appearing for Saira Bano, one of the petitioners in the case, initiated the arguments against the practice of triple talaq among Muslims and said this practice was not fundamental to Islam and hence can be done away with. He also referred to the practices in the neighbouring Islamic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh to buttress his plea that triple talaq is un-Islamic. The bench intervened and said it would like to peruse the prevalent laws in various Islamic countries on the issue. Another senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the petitioners, said in the case of divorces being granted through the extra-judicial mechanism, there should be a "judicial oversight" to deal with the consequences. Former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in his personal capacity, termed triple talaq as a "non-issue" saying it is not considered complete without conciliation efforts between the husband and the wife. He said there was no adjudication to determine the validity of the grounds of talaq. When the bench asked whether reconciliation after the pronouncement of triple talaq in one go is codified, Khurshid replied in the negative. Another former Union Minister and counsel for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Kapil Sibal, concurred with Khurshid, saying "it's a non-issue, as no prudent Muslim would wake up one fine morning and say talaq, talaq and talaq". The bench continued with the hearing in the post-lunch session. The pleas before the top court have also challenged the constitutional validity of other practices like nikah halala and polygamy among the Muslims. The bench is also taking up the main matter on its own as a petition titled "Muslim Women's quest for equality". The top 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 assumes significance as the top court has decided to hear the case during the summer vacation and is likely to sit on Saturdays and Sundays to expeditiously decide the contentious and sensitive issues arising in the matter. It holds importance as the Allahabad High Court, in its verdict pronounced in the last week of April, had held the practice of triple talaq as unilateral and bad in law. The High Court had given its verdict while dismissing a petition filed by one Aaqil Jamil whose wife had filed a criminal complaint against him alleging that he had tortured her for dowry and when his demands were not met, he gave her triple talaq. The apex court had on March 30 said that the Muslim practices of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy are issues that are "very important" and involve "sentiments". Influential Muslim organisations like the AIMPLB have opposed the court's adjudication of these matters, maintaining that these practices stemmed from the Holy Quran and hence not justiciable. The Muslim women, who have filed the petitions, have challenged the practice of triple talaq in which the husband, quite often, pronounces talaq thrice in one go, sometimes even by phone or text message. Nikah halala is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her having to go through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced, observing the separation period called 'Iddat' and then returning to him. Earlier, the apex court, while referring to the matter to a larger bench, had observed that "sentiments" were involved in it and a five-judge constitution bench would adjudicate the issue which needed a detailed hearing. The court had said it would decide the issues pertaining to the legal aspects of the practices of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy among Muslims, but would not deal with the question whether divorce under Muslim law needs to be supervised by courts as it fell under the legislative domain. The Centre had on October 7 last opposed in the Supreme Court the practice of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy among Muslims and favoured a relook on the grounds like gender equality and secularism. AIMPLB had on March 27 told the apex court that pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable as the issues fell outside the realm of the judiciary. The Board had also said the validity of the Mohammedan Law, founded essentially in the Holy Quran and sources based on it, cannot be tested on particular provisions of the Constitution. It had said there was a need for "judicial restraint" before going into the constitutional interpretation of these issues unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable. The Ministry of Law and Justice, in its affidavit, had referred to the constitutional principles like gender equality, secularism, international covenants, religious practices and marital law prevalent in various Islamic countries to drive home the point that the practice of triple talaq and polygamy needed to be adjudicated upon afresh by the apex court. (PTI)

India's top court begins triple talaq hearings, says will examine whether issue fundamental to Islam

The Supreme Court has found Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt, and has ordered him to appear before it on July 10.&nbsp;

Mallya was found guilty on a plea by a consortium of banks here.&nbsp;

Mallya, 61, who fled India last year, owes over Rs 9,000 crore to the banks.&nbsp;

Mallya is currently living in London. He is wanted in India for defaulting on his loan repayments.&nbsp;

The former liquor baron -- he once owned United Breweries, the maker of the popular Kingfisher beer -- has been declared a proclaimed offender in India.

The banks pleaded for contempt proceedings against Mallya after he received $40 million from British firm Diageo Plc in February last year but transferred the money to his children, instead of repaying the loan.

(WION)

Mallya was found guilty on a plea by a consortium of banks

The Supreme Court has found Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt, and has ordered him to appear before it on July 10. Mallya was found guilty on a plea by a consortium of banks here. Mallya, 61, who fled India last year, owes over Rs 9,000 crore to the banks. Mallya is currently living in London. He is wanted in India for defaulting on his loan repayments. The former liquor baron -- he once owned United Breweries, the maker of the popular Kingfisher beer -- has been declared a proclaimed offender in India. The banks pleaded for contempt proceedings against Mallya after he received $40 million from British firm Diageo Plc in February last year but transferred the money to his children, instead of repaying the loan. (WION)

Supreme Court finds Mallya guilty of contempt, orders him to appear before it on July 10

The Supreme Court today held Calcutta high court judge Justice CS Karnan guilty in the contempt case that the top court had initiated against him.

He has been sentenced to six months in jail. The top court ordered his immediate arrest.

A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said, &quot;We are of unanimous view that Justice C S Karnan committed contempt of court, contempt of judiciary and the process.&quot;

&quot;The sentence shall be executed and he be taken into custody forthwith,&quot; the bench added.

The court has also barred electronic and print media from carrying any of Karnan&#39;s statements.&nbsp;

Justice Karnan had on May 4 refused to undergo a mental examination which was ordered by the apex court, telling a team of doctors he is &quot;absolutely normal&quot; and has a &quot;stable mind&quot;, according to PTI.

The apex court has taken suo motu cognisance of various letters written by Justice Karnan against judges of the Madras high court and the Supreme Court and restrained him from exercising administrative and judicial power from February 8.

Justice Karnan appeared before the Supreme Court on March 31 in connection with the contempt proceeding, becoming the first high court judge to do so in the history of Indian judiciary.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Calcutta High Couret Judge CS Karnan was asked to undergo a medical examination which he refused

The Supreme Court today held Calcutta high court judge Justice CS Karnan guilty in the contempt case that the top court had initiated against him. He has been sentenced to six months in jail. The top court ordered his immediate arrest. A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said, "We are of unanimous view that Justice C S Karnan committed contempt of court, contempt of judiciary and the process." "The sentence shall be executed and he be taken into custody forthwith," the bench added. The court has also barred electronic and print media from carrying any of Karnan's statements. Justice Karnan had on May 4 refused to undergo a mental examination which was ordered by the apex court, telling a team of doctors he is "absolutely normal" and has a "stable mind", according to PTI. The apex court has taken suo motu cognisance of various letters written by Justice Karnan against judges of the Madras high court and the Supreme Court and restrained him from exercising administrative and judicial power from February 8. Justice Karnan appeared before the Supreme Court on March 31 in connection with the contempt proceeding, becoming the first high court judge to do so in the history of Indian judiciary. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court finds Justice Karnan guilty of contempt

Calcutta High Court judge Justice C S Karnan, who is facing contempt charges, today &quot;sentenced&quot; Chief Justice of India J S Khehar and seven other judges of the Supreme Court to five years rigorous imprisonment.

In an escalation of his confrontation with the Supreme Court, Justice Karnan whsaid the eight judges have &quot;jointly committed the offences punishable under the SC/ST Atrocities Act of 1989 and amended Act of 2015.&quot;

He named members of the apex court&#39;s seven-judge bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Kurian Joseph.

The bench had initiated suo motu(on its own) contempt proceedings against Justice Karnan and restrained him from performing judicial and administrative work.

Justice Karnan also added another supreme court judge Justice R Banumathi in the list against whom the order was passed for having restrained his judicial and administrative work along with CJI Khehar.

Justice Karnan had on May 4 declined to undergo a mental health checkup as ordered by the Supreme Court, telling a team of doctors he is &quot;absolutely normal&quot; and has a &quot;stable mind&quot;.

Stating that the eight judges of the apex court have committed caste discrimination, Justice Karnan said they &quot;shall be punished under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Act, 1989.&quot;

He said that the eight judges &quot;have operated judicial and adminstrative power and harassed a dalit judge besides insulting me at a public institution. The same has been proved beyond all the reasonable doubt from their orders.

&quot;Hence, an adjudication is not required in the instant case,&quot; Justice Karnan said in his order from his makeshift court at his home in Rosedale towers, New Town here.

In his order, Justice Karnan imposed sentences of five years each and a fine of Rs one lakh on three counts, under sub-sections (1)(m), (1)(r) and (1)(u) of Section 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act.

Justice Karnan directed that all the three sentences would run concurrently and said that if the fines were not paid, they would &quot;undergo further six months of imprisonment.&quot;

He directed that the fine amount be &quot;paid within a period of one week to the National Commission, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Constitutional body, Khan Market, New Delhi from date of receipt of the order.&quot;

Justice Karnan also said that an order passed by him on April 13 directing the member Judges of the seven-judge bench to pay a fine of Rs 14 crore was in force and directed &quot;the Registrar General attached to the Supreme Court to recover the said amount from the salary of each.&quot;

He also directed Justice Banumathi to pay a compensation of Rs two crore.

The apex court has taken suo motu cognisance of various letters written by Justice Karnan against judges of the Madras high court and the Supreme Court and restrained him from exercising administrative and judicial power from February 8.

Justice Karnan appeared before the Supreme Court on March 31 in connection with the contempt proceeding, becoming the first high court judge to do so in the history of Indian judiciary.

(PTI)

Stating that the eight judges of the apex court have committed caste discrimination, Justice Karnan said they 'shall be punished under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Act, 1989'

Calcutta High Court judge Justice C S Karnan, who is facing contempt charges, today "sentenced" Chief Justice of India J S Khehar and seven other judges of the Supreme Court to five years rigorous imprisonment. In an escalation of his confrontation with the Supreme Court, Justice Karnan whsaid the eight judges have "jointly committed the offences punishable under the SC/ST Atrocities Act of 1989 and amended Act of 2015." He named members of the apex court's seven-judge bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Kurian Joseph. The bench had initiated suo motu(on its own) contempt proceedings against Justice Karnan and restrained him from performing judicial and administrative work. Justice Karnan also added another supreme court judge Justice R Banumathi in the list against whom the order was passed for having restrained his judicial and administrative work along with CJI Khehar. Justice Karnan had on May 4 declined to undergo a mental health checkup as ordered by the Supreme Court, telling a team of doctors he is "absolutely normal" and has a "stable mind". Stating that the eight judges of the apex court have committed caste discrimination, Justice Karnan said they "shall be punished under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Act, 1989." He said that the eight judges "have operated judicial and adminstrative power and harassed a dalit judge besides insulting me at a public institution. The same has been proved beyond all the reasonable doubt from their orders. "Hence, an adjudication is not required in the instant case," Justice Karnan said in his order from his makeshift court at his home in Rosedale towers, New Town here. In his order, Justice Karnan imposed sentences of five years each and a fine of Rs one lakh on three counts, under sub-sections (1)(m), (1)(r) and (1)(u) of Section 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act. Justice Karnan directed that all the three sentences would run concurrently and said that if the fines were not paid, they would "undergo further six months of imprisonment." He directed that the fine amount be "paid within a period of one week to the National Commission, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Constitutional body, Khan Market, New Delhi from date of receipt of the order." Justice Karnan also said that an order passed by him on April 13 directing the member Judges of the seven-judge bench to pay a fine of Rs 14 crore was in force and directed "the Registrar General attached to the Supreme Court to recover the said amount from the salary of each." He also directed Justice Banumathi to pay a compensation of Rs two crore. The apex court has taken suo motu cognisance of various letters written by Justice Karnan against judges of the Madras high court and the Supreme Court and restrained him from exercising administrative and judicial power from February 8. Justice Karnan appeared before the Supreme Court on March 31 in connection with the contempt proceeding, becoming the first high court judge to do so in the history of Indian judiciary. (PTI)

Justice Karnan 'sentences' Chief Justice of India, 7 other SC judges to five years in jail

In a big setback for RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Supreme Court ordered that he will face trial in all the cases related to the multi-crore fodder scam.

The court also ordered that the trial &nbsp;should be completed in nine months.

The Supreme Court allowed a CBI plea opposing dropping of charges against him and set aside the Jharkhand High Court order which stayed trial against him and others after their conviction in one of the cases.

The apex court pulled up the CBI for delay in filing the plea against the Jharkhand high court order.

It also observed that the Jkharkhand High Court should have been consistent in its findings and given different views on different sets of accused in a case.

&nbsp;

<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/KVQvYhcqmBg"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
The supreme court revives the charges against Janta Dal chief and former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in Rs 950 crore fodder scam (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The court also ordered that the trial should be completed in nine months

In a big setback for RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Supreme Court ordered that he will face trial in all the cases related to the multi-crore fodder scam. The court also ordered that the trial should be completed in nine months. The Supreme Court allowed a CBI plea opposing dropping of charges against him and set aside the Jharkhand High Court order which stayed trial against him and others after their conviction in one of the cases. The apex court pulled up the CBI for delay in filing the plea against the Jharkhand high court order. It also observed that the Jkharkhand High Court should have been consistent in its findings and given different views on different sets of accused in a case. The supreme court revives the charges against Janta Dal chief and former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in Rs 950 crore fodder scam (WION) × (WION with inputs from PTI)

Fodder scam: Setback for Lalu as Supreme Court orders fresh trial

The Supreme Court on Monday asked real estate company Unitech to pay the depositors&#39; money within eight weeks while posting the matter for further hearing after summer vacation.

A bench of the apex court headed by Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the matter and pleas filed by Atul Gupta and others for not getting the flats as promised by the builder.

The court while asking the home buyers to accept the principal amount and 14 percent interest on it, for now, assured them that the final computation of the interest will be done when the case comes up for final disposal after vacation.

Earlier on April 24, the top court had warned Unitech, saying that if the company fails to deposit the amount of interest on or before May 8 then it might be forced to take a coercive decision like attaching the property.

A Delhi Court earlier on April 10 granted an interim bail of three months to both promoters - Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra - in the Unitech case.

The court was hearing the alleged fraud case related to real estate major Unitech Ltd promoters in connection with its delayed housing projects in Noida and Gurgaon.

The buyers were not handed over their flats on time following which they knocked the doors of the apex court seeking a direction to the real estate for getting timely possession and compensation.

The court earlier on April 7 extended the police custody of Ajay and Sanjay by three more days.

The Economic Offences Wing sought extension of remand to seize documents from their offices.

Unitech Vistas, a project with 1,265 apartments in Sector 70 of Gurugram, was launched in 2009 and was scheduled be delivered in December 2012.&nbsp;

(ANI)

A Delhi Court earlier on April 10 granted an interim bail of three months to both promoters -- Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra -- in the Unitech case

The Supreme Court on Monday asked real estate company Unitech to pay the depositors' money within eight weeks while posting the matter for further hearing after summer vacation. A bench of the apex court headed by Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the matter and pleas filed by Atul Gupta and others for not getting the flats as promised by the builder. The court while asking the home buyers to accept the principal amount and 14 percent interest on it, for now, assured them that the final computation of the interest will be done when the case comes up for final disposal after vacation. Earlier on April 24, the top court had warned Unitech, saying that if the company fails to deposit the amount of interest on or before May 8 then it might be forced to take a coercive decision like attaching the property. A Delhi Court earlier on April 10 granted an interim bail of three months to both promoters - Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra - in the Unitech case. The court was hearing the alleged fraud case related to real estate major Unitech Ltd promoters in connection with its delayed housing projects in Noida and Gurgaon. The buyers were not handed over their flats on time following which they knocked the doors of the apex court seeking a direction to the real estate for getting timely possession and compensation. The court earlier on April 7 extended the police custody of Ajay and Sanjay by three more days. The Economic Offences Wing sought extension of remand to seize documents from their offices. Unitech Vistas, a project with 1,265 apartments in Sector 70 of Gurugram, was launched in 2009 and was scheduled be delivered in December 2012. (ANI)

Supreme Court asks Unitech to pay depositors' money within 8 weeks

Justice C S Karnan of the Calcutta High Court today declined to undergo a medical examination by a four-member medical team from a government hospital here, saying he is &quot;quite normal and has a stable mind&quot;.

After refusing to undergo a medical check up, Justice Karnan gave in writing to the doctors, &quot;I declined to avail medical treatment since I am quite normal and have a stable mind. Further my strong view about the Supreme Court order (is that) it amounts to insult and harassment towards the judge (myself),&quot; he said.

Justice Karnan told the doctors that for holding such a medical examination, guardian&#39;s consent is required.&nbsp;

&quot;As my family members are not here, there is no such consent. So any medical test cannot be held&quot;, he said.

He said that his wife and a son are in Chennai while his another son is working in France.

The Supreme Court had on May 1 ordered medical examination of Justice Karnan by a board of doctors, to be set up by a government hospital in Kolkata.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar had also directed the director general of police of West Bengal to form a team of police officers which could assist the medical board in carrying out the medical examination of the HC judge.

A four-member team of doctors along with police had gone to Justice Karnan&#39;s residence in New Town, Kolkata in the morning.

(PTI)

Justice Karnan told the doctors that for holding such a medical examination, guardian's consent is required and that his family was not in Kolkata

Justice C S Karnan of the Calcutta High Court today declined to undergo a medical examination by a four-member medical team from a government hospital here, saying he is "quite normal and has a stable mind". After refusing to undergo a medical check up, Justice Karnan gave in writing to the doctors, "I declined to avail medical treatment since I am quite normal and have a stable mind. Further my strong view about the Supreme Court order (is that) it amounts to insult and harassment towards the judge (myself)," he said. Justice Karnan told the doctors that for holding such a medical examination, guardian's consent is required. "As my family members are not here, there is no such consent. So any medical test cannot be held", he said. He said that his wife and a son are in Chennai while his another son is working in France. The Supreme Court had on May 1 ordered medical examination of Justice Karnan by a board of doctors, to be set up by a government hospital in Kolkata. A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar had also directed the director general of police of West Bengal to form a team of police officers which could assist the medical board in carrying out the medical examination of the HC judge. A four-member team of doctors along with police had gone to Justice Karnan's residence in New Town, Kolkata in the morning. (PTI)

Justice CS Karnan refuses medical examination

The Supreme Court today said the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013 is a &quot;workable piece of legislation&quot; and it was not justifiable to keep its operation pending.

As per the Act, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha will be part of the Lokpal selection panel. At present, there is no Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Naveen Sinha, while referring to an earlier judgement of the apex court, said, &quot;We are holding that it is a workable piece of legislation and it is not justifiable to keep this pending.&quot;

The apex court had on March 28 reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking the appointment of Lokpal in the country.

Earlier, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, had said that even though the Lokpal Bill was passed by Parliament in 2013 and came into effect in 2014, the Lokpal is not being appointed by the government deliberately.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had said the Lokpal cannot be appointed in the current scenario as amendments regarding the definition of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lokpal Act was pending in Parliament.

The apex court had on November 23 last year pulled up the Centre over the delay in appointment of Lokpal, saying it should not allow the law to become a &quot;dead letter&quot;.

In the Lok Sabha, the largest opposition party Congress has only 45 members and lacks the requisite 10 per cent of total 545 seats, giving rise to the requirement to amend the present Lokpal Act.

The plea by NGO Common Cause had sought a direction to the Centre to make the appointment of chairperson and members of Lokpal as per the amended rules framed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

The NGO, in its plea filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, had also sought a direction to the Centre to ensure that the procedure for selecting the chairperson and members of Lokpal must be transparent as envisaged under the Act.

(PTI)

As per the Act, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha will be part of the Lokpal selection panel. At present, there is no Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha

The Supreme Court today said the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013 is a "workable piece of legislation" and it was not justifiable to keep its operation pending. As per the Act, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha will be part of the Lokpal selection panel. At present, there is no Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Naveen Sinha, while referring to an earlier judgement of the apex court, said, "We are holding that it is a workable piece of legislation and it is not justifiable to keep this pending." The apex court had on March 28 reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking the appointment of Lokpal in the country. Earlier, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, had said that even though the Lokpal Bill was passed by Parliament in 2013 and came into effect in 2014, the Lokpal is not being appointed by the government deliberately. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had said the Lokpal cannot be appointed in the current scenario as amendments regarding the definition of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lokpal Act was pending in Parliament. The apex court had on November 23 last year pulled up the Centre over the delay in appointment of Lokpal, saying it should not allow the law to become a "dead letter". In the Lok Sabha, the largest opposition party Congress has only 45 members and lacks the requisite 10 per cent of total 545 seats, giving rise to the requirement to amend the present Lokpal Act. The plea by NGO Common Cause had sought a direction to the Centre to make the appointment of chairperson and members of Lokpal as per the amended rules framed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The NGO, in its plea filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, had also sought a direction to the Centre to ensure that the procedure for selecting the chairperson and members of Lokpal must be transparent as envisaged under the Act. (PTI)

Supreme Court says keeping Lokpal operations pending not justifiable

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday asked the government&nbsp;to consider making law to regulate NGOs as well as the&nbsp;funds given to them, saying that existing guidelines are not sufficient.&nbsp; 
 
Observing that the present guidelines may not be systematic enough, the top court advised&nbsp;the government to give statutory status to the process of registration, accreditation and funding of NGOs.

The top court, which&nbsp;was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), asked&nbsp;the Centre to apprise it within eight weeks whether it intended to continue with the present guidelines or would likely to regulate the NGO through legislation.&nbsp; 
 
Earlier Wednesday, the Council for Advancement of People&#39;s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), told the court it had recommended registration of 159 FIRs against various NGOs for alleged misappropriation or misuse of funds disbursed to them.&nbsp;

CAPART, which disburses funds to voluntary organisations working in rural areas, said it had initially blacklisted 718 NGOs for not following the due process and not submitting their accounting details. 
 
On January 10, the Supreme Court had said public money cannot go unaccounted for and those misappropriating must be prosecuted.

The court reprimanded the government for doling out crores of rupees to lakhs of NGOs, societies and voluntary organisations without being aware of the repercussion of non-auditing.

The bench had also warned that &quot;mere blacklisting&quot; of these organisations would not suffice and civil and criminal action should be initiated by CAPART/other government departments for misappropriating public money received by them from various government departments.

In September 2015, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the apex court that less than 10 per cent of over 30 lakh NGOs functioning across the country had submitted their returns or balance sheets and other financial details. 
 
(WION with inputs from PTI)

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India said the existing guidelines to regulate NGOs were not enough

India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday asked the government to consider making law to regulate NGOs as well as the funds given to them, saying that existing guidelines are not sufficient. Observing that the present guidelines may not be systematic enough, the top court advised the government to give statutory status to the process of registration, accreditation and funding of NGOs. The top court, which was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), asked the Centre to apprise it within eight weeks whether it intended to continue with the present guidelines or would likely to regulate the NGO through legislation. Earlier Wednesday, the Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), told the court it had recommended registration of 159 FIRs against various NGOs for alleged misappropriation or misuse of funds disbursed to them. CAPART, which disburses funds to voluntary organisations working in rural areas, said it had initially blacklisted 718 NGOs for not following the due process and not submitting their accounting details. On January 10, the Supreme Court had said public money cannot go unaccounted for and those misappropriating must be prosecuted. The court reprimanded the government for doling out crores of rupees to lakhs of NGOs, societies and voluntary organisations without being aware of the repercussion of non-auditing. The bench had also warned that "mere blacklisting" of these organisations would not suffice and civil and criminal action should be initiated by CAPART/other government departments for misappropriating public money received by them from various government departments. In September 2015, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the apex court that less than 10 per cent of over 30 lakh NGOs functioning across the country had submitted their returns or balance sheets and other financial details. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's top court asks government to consider making law to regulate NGOs

The Supreme Court reinstated Wednesday the charge of criminal conspiracy against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

The CBI had earlier told the court that the charge of criminal conspiracy had been dropped against the senior BJP leaders, and 19 others, on technical grounds.

The Babri Masjid was pulled down on December 6, 1992. &nbsp;

There were two cases being heard in connection with the demolition.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Others who will face criminal conspiracy charges are Vinay Katiyar,Sadhvi Ritambara,Satish Pradhan,Champat Rai Bansal &amp; Late Giriraj Kishore
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/854569793487327232">April 19, 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">
Babri Masjid Case: Now matter will be heard in Lucknow Court, Day to day hearing would continue.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/854563017299697664">April 19, 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 first, being heard in a Lucknow court, was against the thousands of unnamed&nbsp;karsevaks&nbsp;(religous workers) who pulled down the mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

The second, being heard in a Rae Bareilly court, was against the senior BJP leaders and the 19 others.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that the case against Advani, Joshi and Bharti would now be heard by the Lucknow court.&nbsp;

The case would continue to be heard on a daily basis and the trial to be wound up within two years. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The court also ordered that no adjournment was be given under normal circumstances. And that no judge hearing the case would be transferred

(WION)

The case will be heard on a daily basis in a Lucknow court, the trial is to be wound up in two years

The Supreme Court reinstated Wednesday the charge of criminal conspiracy against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti in the Babri Masjid demolition case. The CBI had earlier told the court that the charge of criminal conspiracy had been dropped against the senior BJP leaders, and 19 others, on technical grounds. The Babri Masjid was pulled down on December 6, 1992. There were two cases being heard in connection with the demolition. Others who will face criminal conspiracy charges are Vinay Katiyar,Sadhvi Ritambara,Satish Pradhan,Champat Rai Bansal & Late Giriraj Kishore — ANI (@ANI_news) April 19, 2017 × Babri Masjid Case: Now matter will be heard in Lucknow Court, Day to day hearing would continue. — ANI (@ANI_news) April 19, 2017 × The first, being heard in a Lucknow court, was against the thousands of unnamed karsevaks (religous workers) who pulled down the mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The second, being heard in a Rae Bareilly court, was against the senior BJP leaders and the 19 others. The Supreme Court said Wednesday that the case against Advani, Joshi and Bharti would now be heard by the Lucknow court. The case would continue to be heard on a daily basis and the trial to be wound up within two years. The court also ordered that no adjournment was be given under normal circumstances. And that no judge hearing the case would be transferred (WION)

Babri Masjid demolition: Supreme Court reinstates criminal conspiracy charges against Advani, Joshi & Bharti

To get around the Supreme Court&#39;s liquor ban, Rajasthan will start calling highways passing through populated areas as &quot;urban roads&quot; if they are connected by bypasses.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had ordered the closure of all liquor vends along -- up to a distance of 500 metres -- state and national highways.

The court was trying to curb drunken driving. (India has the highest number of road accident deaths in the world.)&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rajasthan PWD department to denotify State Highways to Urban roads to circumvent SC&#39;s liquor ban order at National and State Highways.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/849107191709806593">April 4, 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 order kicked in on Saturday, April 1.&nbsp;

The court had on Friday refused to take back the order or give state governments more time to implement the order, but it did reduce the distance up to which liquor vends had to shut down from 500 to 220 metres in areas with populations of less than 20,000. &nbsp;

The order also covers pubs, hotels, and restaurants.&nbsp;

Since the order kicked in, thousands of them around the country have been forced to stop serving alcohol.&nbsp;

(WION)

The change will take place in populated areas if the highways are connected by bypasses

To get around the Supreme Court's liquor ban, Rajasthan will start calling highways passing through populated areas as "urban roads" if they are connected by bypasses. The Supreme Court had ordered the closure of all liquor vends along -- up to a distance of 500 metres -- state and national highways. The court was trying to curb drunken driving. (India has the highest number of road accident deaths in the world.) Rajasthan PWD department to denotify State Highways to Urban roads to circumvent SC's liquor ban order at National and State Highways. — ANI (@ANI_news) April 4, 2017 × The order kicked in on Saturday, April 1. The court had on Friday refused to take back the order or give state governments more time to implement the order, but it did reduce the distance up to which liquor vends had to shut down from 500 to 220 metres in areas with populations of less than 20,000. The order also covers pubs, hotels, and restaurants. Since the order kicked in, thousands of them around the country have been forced to stop serving alcohol. (WION)

To get around liquor ban, Rajasthan to call state highways 'urban roads'

India&rsquo;s supreme court on Thursday ordered a ban on all liquor shops on national and state highways across the country.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, and headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur also ordered that all signages indicating the presence of liquor vends will be prohibited on national and state highways.

The bench said the existing licences of liquor shops across the highways will not be renewed after March 31, 2017.

Last week, the top court had expressed its concern over 1.5 lakh fatalities reported every year in road mishaps, saying it may direct closure of liquor vends on national and state highways across the nation, apart from the&nbsp;removal of the signages indicating their location.

While&nbsp;reserving verdict on December 7 on a batch of pleas seeking a direction to amend excise laws to ensure that no liquor is sold alongside highways, the court came down heavily on the Punjab government for seeking relaxation and permitting liquor shops near highways if they are &quot;elevated&quot; ones and the vend are under or near it.

&quot;Look at the number of licences you (Punjab) have given. Because the liquor lobby is so powerful, everyone is happy. The excise department is happy, the excise minister is happy and the state government is also happy that they are making money. If a person dies due to this, you give Rs one or 1.5 lakh. That is it. You should take a stand which is helpful for the society,&quot; the bench had said, news agency PTI reported.

The bench had also expressed unhappiness over alleged inaction by various states in removing liquor shops alongside roads which lead to a spike in fatalities caused by drunken driving.

The bench also lashed out at the Central government for not doing anything concrete for the last 10 years forcing the court to &ldquo;step in&rdquo;.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The bench said the existing licences of liquor shops across highways will not be renewed after March 31, 2017

India’s supreme court on Thursday ordered a ban on all liquor shops on national and state highways across the country. A three-judge bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, and headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur also ordered that all signages indicating the presence of liquor vends will be prohibited on national and state highways. The bench said the existing licences of liquor shops across the highways will not be renewed after March 31, 2017. Last week, the top court had expressed its concern over 1.5 lakh fatalities reported every year in road mishaps, saying it may direct closure of liquor vends on national and state highways across the nation, apart from the removal of the signages indicating their location. While reserving verdict on December 7 on a batch of pleas seeking a direction to amend excise laws to ensure that no liquor is sold alongside highways, the court came down heavily on the Punjab government for seeking relaxation and permitting liquor shops near highways if they are "elevated" ones and the vend are under or near it. "Look at the number of licences you (Punjab) have given. Because the liquor lobby is so powerful, everyone is happy. The excise department is happy, the excise minister is happy and the state government is also happy that they are making money. If a person dies due to this, you give Rs one or 1.5 lakh. That is it. You should take a stand which is helpful for the society," the bench had said, news agency PTI reported. The bench had also expressed unhappiness over alleged inaction by various states in removing liquor shops alongside roads which lead to a spike in fatalities caused by drunken driving. The bench also lashed out at the Central government for not doing anything concrete for the last 10 years forcing the court to “step in”. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's Supreme Court bans liquor shops along national, state highways

Controversial Calcutta High Court judge Justice C S Karnan today appeared before the Supreme Court which granted him four weeks&#39; time to respond to the contempt notice while rejecting the submission that his administrative and judicial powers be restored.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar took note of personal appearance of Justice Karnan, a first in the history of Indian judiciary, and asked him to respond to the allegations levelled against various judges in his several communications.

At the outset, the bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, P C Ghose and Kurian Joseph asked Justice Karnan as to whether he was willing to tender an unconditional apology and withdraw his earlier communications in which he had made allegations against various judges.

As Justice Karnan was not forthright in his response, the bench suggested him to take time and legal assistance in responding to the question.

Justice Karnan in his response, alleged discrimination and &quot;social boycott&quot; by companion judges on various grounds including his caste and said that even the Supreme Court issued the contempt notice and took away his administrative and judicial rights without hearing him.

&quot;I made complaints to the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister. A suo motu contempt proceeding was initiated against me. Before hearing me, my work was withdrawn. My dignity has been hurt in the eyes of general public. I am also holding a Constitutional position. Do I have any respect, or dignity?&quot; Justice Karnan said.

He said police officials had entered his office to serve the warrant and since he is a sitting judge holding a Constitutional office, &quot;the insult is not only to me, but to the entire judiciary&quot;.

To this the bench said that earlier, it had issued notice to Justice Karnan and when he failed to appear before it then only it issued a bailable warrant against him.

&quot;When we had issued notice to you, it was served. You did not enter appearance. It is a normal procedure. You did not appear that&#39;s why bailable warrant was issued. We are not saying you are an accused. Despite being a judge and understanding all the consequences, you did not appear,&quot; the bench told Justice Karnan.

(PTI)

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar rejected the submission that his administrative and judicial powers be restored

Controversial Calcutta High Court judge Justice C S Karnan today appeared before the Supreme Court which granted him four weeks' time to respond to the contempt notice while rejecting the submission that his administrative and judicial powers be restored. A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar took note of personal appearance of Justice Karnan, a first in the history of Indian judiciary, and asked him to respond to the allegations levelled against various judges in his several communications. At the outset, the bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, P C Ghose and Kurian Joseph asked Justice Karnan as to whether he was willing to tender an unconditional apology and withdraw his earlier communications in which he had made allegations against various judges. As Justice Karnan was not forthright in his response, the bench suggested him to take time and legal assistance in responding to the question. Justice Karnan in his response, alleged discrimination and "social boycott" by companion judges on various grounds including his caste and said that even the Supreme Court issued the contempt notice and took away his administrative and judicial rights without hearing him. "I made complaints to the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister. A suo motu contempt proceeding was initiated against me. Before hearing me, my work was withdrawn. My dignity has been hurt in the eyes of general public. I am also holding a Constitutional position. Do I have any respect, or dignity?" Justice Karnan said. He said police officials had entered his office to serve the warrant and since he is a sitting judge holding a Constitutional office, "the insult is not only to me, but to the entire judiciary". To this the bench said that earlier, it had issued notice to Justice Karnan and when he failed to appear before it then only it issued a bailable warrant against him. "When we had issued notice to you, it was served. You did not enter appearance. It is a normal procedure. You did not appear that's why bailable warrant was issued. We are not saying you are an accused. Despite being a judge and understanding all the consequences, you did not appear," the bench told Justice Karnan. (PTI)

India's top court gives 4 weeks to Justice CS Karnan to respond to contempt notice

Supreme Court today dismissed the plea of auto manufacturers and&nbsp;banned&nbsp;the sale and registration of vehicles with BS-III emission norms. The apex court&#39;s move means only cars with BS-IV emission norms can be sold in the country.

The Supreme Court said the health of the people is more important than the&nbsp;commercial interest of automobile companies.

The move is likely to affect the&nbsp;sale of&nbsp;upto&nbsp;8.5 lakh vehicles in India. Supreme Court&#39;s directive comes into effect from April 1.&nbsp;

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta prohibited registration of any vehicles which do not meet the Bharat Stage-IV emission norm standards from April 1.

Difference&nbsp;between BS-III and BS-IV, VI 
BS-III 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Introduced in 13 Indian cities in April 2005 for all vehicles (except two-wheelers)<a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/backgrounders.aspx?relid=65197"> link</a> 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Entire country covered by April 2010. 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Cars using petrol could give out regulated pollutants at rate of 2.65 g/km driven according to BS-III norms.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.siamindia.com/technical-regulation.aspx?mpgid=31&amp;pgidtrail=33">(link)</a> 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BS-III petrol is allowed to have up to 150 parts per million (ppm) sulphur and BS-III diesel is allowed to have 350 ppm sulphur.&nbsp;

BS-IV and VI 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BS-IV norms introduced in 13 cities in April 2010, BS-V standards skipped, straight to BS VI. 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In BS-IV, Cars using petrol will give out regulated pollutants at rate of 1.18 g/km and in BS VI cars will give them out at rate of 1.16 g/km driven.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.siamindia.com/technical-regulation.aspx?mpgid=31&amp;pgidtrail=33">(link)</a> 
&middot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BS-IV petrol and diesel both have 50 parts per million sulphur, BS-VI has 10 ppm sulphur.&nbsp;

(WION)

The court's move means only cars with BS-IV emission norms can be sold by auto manufacturers in India

Supreme Court today dismissed the plea of auto manufacturers and banned the sale and registration of vehicles with BS-III emission norms. The apex court's move means only cars with BS-IV emission norms can be sold in the country. The Supreme Court said the health of the people is more important than the commercial interest of automobile companies. The move is likely to affect the sale of upto 8.5 lakh vehicles in India. Supreme Court's directive comes into effect from April 1. A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta prohibited registration of any vehicles which do not meet the Bharat Stage-IV emission norm standards from April 1. Difference between BS-III and BS-IV, VI BS-III · Introduced in 13 Indian cities in April 2005 for all vehicles (except two-wheelers) link · Entire country covered by April 2010. · Cars using petrol could give out regulated pollutants at rate of 2.65 g/km driven according to BS-III norms. (link) · BS-III petrol is allowed to have up to 150 parts per million (ppm) sulphur and BS-III diesel is allowed to have 350 ppm sulphur. BS-IV and VI · BS-IV norms introduced in 13 cities in April 2010, BS-V standards skipped, straight to BS VI. · In BS-IV, Cars using petrol will give out regulated pollutants at rate of 1.18 g/km and in BS VI cars will give them out at rate of 1.16 g/km driven. (link) · BS-IV petrol and diesel both have 50 parts per million sulphur, BS-VI has 10 ppm sulphur. (WION)

Supreme Court bans sale of BS-III emission norm vehicles from April 1

The special National Investigation Agency(NIA) court has convicted Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel in the 2007 Ajmer Dargah blast case.

Both Devendra Gupta and&nbsp;Bhavesh Patel have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the special NIA court.

On March 8, the NIA court had acquitted <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ajmer-blast-case-nia-court-finds-three-hindu-radicals-guilty-but-acquits-swami-aseemanand-13177">RSS leader Swami Aseemanand and six others in the Ajmer blast case</a>.

The case refers to an explosion which had taken place inside&nbsp;the famous Sufi shrine of Khawaja Moinuddin Chisti on October 11, 2007. The blast killed three people and injured several others.

The magistrate also imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on Devendra Patel and Rs 5,000 on&nbsp;Bhavesh Gupta.

The case was handed over to&nbsp;ATS Rajasthan and was later transferred to NIA which re-registered the case on April 6, 2011.

There were as many as 149 witnesses and 451 documents were examined and the NIA filed three supplementary chargesheets in the case.

Watch

&nbsp;

<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/7jcSyxbbiAk"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the special NIA court (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

(WION with agency inputs)

Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the special NIA court

The special National Investigation Agency(NIA) court has convicted Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel in the 2007 Ajmer Dargah blast case. Both Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the special NIA court. On March 8, the NIA court had acquitted RSS leader Swami Aseemanand and six others in the Ajmer blast case. The case refers to an explosion which had taken place inside the famous Sufi shrine of Khawaja Moinuddin Chisti on October 11, 2007. The blast killed three people and injured several others. The magistrate also imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on Devendra Patel and Rs 5,000 on Bhavesh Gupta. The case was handed over to ATS Rajasthan and was later transferred to NIA which re-registered the case on April 6, 2011. There were as many as 149 witnesses and 451 documents were examined and the NIA filed three supplementary chargesheets in the case. Watch Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the special NIA court (WION) × (WION with agency inputs)

2007 Ajmer Dargah blast case: Two convicted, sentenced to life imprisonment

The Supreme Court has issued notices to Centre and the poll panel on a plea seeking scrapping of pension and other benefits being given to MPs.

The apex court has sought reply a reply within four weeks.

An ex-MP gets 20,000 per month as pension, the BJP government has been mulling increasing the pension of ex-MPs for the past three years.

Supreme Court also issued notices to secretary general of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on Parliamentarians&#39; pension after retirement.

(WION)

&nbsp;

Supreme Court has issued notices to Centre and the poll panel on a plea seeking scrapping pension and other benefits to MPs.

The Supreme Court has issued notices to Centre and the poll panel on a plea seeking scrapping of pension and other benefits being given to MPs. The apex court has sought reply a reply within four weeks. An ex-MP gets 20,000 per month as pension, the BJP government has been mulling increasing the pension of ex-MPs for the past three years. Supreme Court also issued notices to secretary general of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on Parliamentarians' pension after retirement. (WION)

SC notice to Centre, poll panel over pension to ex-MPs

The Supreme case has adjourned the Babri Masjid demolition case which involved examining&nbsp;the conspiracy charges against BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli M Joshi, Uma Bharti and others.

The apex court will take up the matter tomorrow.

India&#39;s top court had earlier refused to accept dropping of charges against senior BJP leader LK Advani and others in the Babri Masjid demolition case and had raised concern over delay in trial and favoured a joint trial of the accused.

There are two cases in the Babri demolition - one is against LK Advani and others who were on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj on December 6, 1992 when the demolition happened and the second case is against thousands of &quot;karsevaks&quot; (volunteers) who were in and around the structure. &nbsp;

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had challenged the May 21, 2010 verdict of the High Court which upheld a special CBI court verdict.

The special CBI court had ordered dropping of charges against Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi.&nbsp;

The Babri Masjid was demolished allegedly by a group of karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in India&#39;s northern city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It was allegedly demolished at the behest of top Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, several cases have been lodged since then against various people including political outfits and BJP, VHP leaders.&nbsp;

Yesterday, India&#39;s apex court asked&nbsp;BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy to settle the Ayodhya issue through negotiations which would be agreed upon by all petitioners and respondents. The Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar also offered to mediate the Ayodhya dispute.

The Supreme Court said if negotiations break down then it will intervene and appoint a mediator for a peaceful resolution. India&#39;s highest court added the Ayodhya dispute is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it is best that it is settled amicably.

Supreme Court asked Swamy to consult the parties and inform it about the decision on March 31.

(WION with inputs from agencies)

India's top court had earlier refused to accept dropping of charges against LK Advani and others in the Babri Masjid demolition case

The Supreme case has adjourned the Babri Masjid demolition case which involved examining the conspiracy charges against BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli M Joshi, Uma Bharti and others. The apex court will take up the matter tomorrow. India's top court had earlier refused to accept dropping of charges against senior BJP leader LK Advani and others in the Babri Masjid demolition case and had raised concern over delay in trial and favoured a joint trial of the accused. There are two cases in the Babri demolition - one is against LK Advani and others who were on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj on December 6, 1992 when the demolition happened and the second case is against thousands of "karsevaks" (volunteers) who were in and around the structure. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had challenged the May 21, 2010 verdict of the High Court which upheld a special CBI court verdict. The special CBI court had ordered dropping of charges against Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi. The Babri Masjid was demolished allegedly by a group of karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in India's northern city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It was allegedly demolished at the behest of top Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, several cases have been lodged since then against various people including political outfits and BJP, VHP leaders. Yesterday, India's apex court asked BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy to settle the Ayodhya issue through negotiations which would be agreed upon by all petitioners and respondents. The Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar also offered to mediate the Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court said if negotiations break down then it will intervene and appoint a mediator for a peaceful resolution. India's highest court added the Ayodhya dispute is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it is best that it is settled amicably. Supreme Court asked Swamy to consult the parties and inform it about the decision on March 31. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Babri Masjid demolition case: Supreme Court adjourns case till tomorrow

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the Centre, asking it to file a reply within two weeks on the PIL filed by a person named Sharad Mishra, claiming that people are not being allowed to deposit their old currency notes till March 31 as promised by the ruling dispensation.

The apex court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar also issued notice to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and sought a response on the same within two weeks.

The apex court asked the petitioner to show the documents whether he had visited the banks to deposit the old currency notes or not. Stating that this matter had nothing to do with demonetisation, the Supreme Court asked the petitioner to file a fresh application against the concerned bank.

&quot;Then we would likely to hear the matter again on April 11 and try to settle it,&quot; the apex court said.

The Centre had in its last hearing submitted before the apex court that instead of filing any reply they will argue the matter directly.

The apex court had earlier on March 6 issued notice to the government and RBI on the plea alleging that people are not being allowed to deposit demonetised currency notes till March 31 as promised.

The central bank had on December 31 designated its five offices - Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, and Nagpur -to exchange defunct currency notes post 50-day demonetisation period that ended on December 30.

(ANI)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Prime Minister Modi had originally said that would be the last deadline

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the Centre, asking it to file a reply within two weeks on the PIL filed by a person named Sharad Mishra, claiming that people are not being allowed to deposit their old currency notes till March 31 as promised by the ruling dispensation. The apex court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar also issued notice to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and sought a response on the same within two weeks. The apex court asked the petitioner to show the documents whether he had visited the banks to deposit the old currency notes or not. Stating that this matter had nothing to do with demonetisation, the Supreme Court asked the petitioner to file a fresh application against the concerned bank. "Then we would likely to hear the matter again on April 11 and try to settle it," the apex court said. The Centre had in its last hearing submitted before the apex court that instead of filing any reply they will argue the matter directly. The apex court had earlier on March 6 issued notice to the government and RBI on the plea alleging that people are not being allowed to deposit demonetised currency notes till March 31 as promised. The central bank had on December 31 designated its five offices - Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, and Nagpur -to exchange defunct currency notes post 50-day demonetisation period that ended on December 30. (ANI)

Why can't people deposit old notes till March 31? Supreme Court asks govt, RBI

Muslim organisations, including Babri Masjid Action Committee were today sceptical about the Supreme Court&#39;s suggestion for talks to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, saying attempts at out-of-court settlement in the past have been unsuccessful.

&quot;We are ready with Chief Justice (of India) mediating... we trust him. We are also ready we if he nominates a team for hearing the matter. But out of court settlement is not possible. If SC passes an order in this regard, we will look into it,&quot; said Zafaryab Jilani, Convenor of the Committee which is a party to the case.

His comments came against the backdrop of the apex court earlier in the day asking parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus on Ayodhya issue, which has been dragging on for decades.

&quot;It is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it&#39;s best that it is settled amicably,&quot; the SC observed.

Jilani said that going by his experience of last three decades, he feels that the matter cannot be settled outside the court and referred to unsuccessful negotiation attempts made during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Chandrashekhar and P V Narasimha Rao.

<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>In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed,&#39; said Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee</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=In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed,' said Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;Let them hear us, we are prepared. But we are not ready for out of court settlement,&quot; Jilani said.

&quot;In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed.

&quot;Later in 1990, Prime Minister Chandrashekhar, UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bhairon Singh Shekhawat talked but no results came. PM Narasimha Rao also constituted a committee and attempts of talks were made through Congress leader Subodh Kant Sahai but in 1992 the mosque was demolished,&quot; he said.

He said after the demolition, the then Muslim Personal Law Board President Rabe Hasan Nadvi had sought a written proposal from Shankaracharya of Kanchi in which he said Muslims should leave claim on three mosques, which was not acceptable.

The Secretary General of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Wali Rahmani, said, &quot;We have trust in the Chief Justice and if he is there we are ready for talks.&quot;

&quot;Talks were held earlier also but it can be initiated again. But talks should not be long,&quot; he added.

Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB alleged that the attempts in the past to resolve the issue were foiled by political parties.

&quot;Negotiation have been made in the past a number of times between the two parties. But each time, political parties foiled our attempts...(So), we are of the view that let the Supreme Court decide once and for all,&quot; Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB said.

Rashid, however, said the Board respects the gesture of the CJI and the sentiments of Hindus.

&quot;If the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose,&quot; Chief Justice J S Khehar, who headed the SC bench, said today.

The Allahabad High Court, had in its verdict on September 30, 2010, directed three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The verdict was challenged in the apex court.&nbsp;

The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, welcomed the Supreme Court&#39;s observations.

Talks are the only way out, he said.

&quot;I understand that many rounds of talks have already been held but no concrete solution has come up. Nevertheless, dialogue continues to be the only way out and I welcome the SC observations from that perspective,&quot; he said.

(PTI)

They say it has been tried before, and has failed

Muslim organisations, including Babri Masjid Action Committee were today sceptical about the Supreme Court's suggestion for talks to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, saying attempts at out-of-court settlement in the past have been unsuccessful. "We are ready with Chief Justice (of India) mediating... we trust him. We are also ready we if he nominates a team for hearing the matter. But out of court settlement is not possible. If SC passes an order in this regard, we will look into it," said Zafaryab Jilani, Convenor of the Committee which is a party to the case. His comments came against the backdrop of the apex court earlier in the day asking parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus on Ayodhya issue, which has been dragging on for decades. "It is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it's best that it is settled amicably," the SC observed. Jilani said that going by his experience of last three decades, he feels that the matter cannot be settled outside the court and referred to unsuccessful negotiation attempts made during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Chandrashekhar and P V Narasimha Rao. In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed,' said Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee × "Let them hear us, we are prepared. But we are not ready for out of court settlement," Jilani said. "In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed. "Later in 1990, Prime Minister Chandrashekhar, UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bhairon Singh Shekhawat talked but no results came. PM Narasimha Rao also constituted a committee and attempts of talks were made through Congress leader Subodh Kant Sahai but in 1992 the mosque was demolished," he said. He said after the demolition, the then Muslim Personal Law Board President Rabe Hasan Nadvi had sought a written proposal from Shankaracharya of Kanchi in which he said Muslims should leave claim on three mosques, which was not acceptable. The Secretary General of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Wali Rahmani, said, "We have trust in the Chief Justice and if he is there we are ready for talks." "Talks were held earlier also but it can be initiated again. But talks should not be long," he added. Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB alleged that the attempts in the past to resolve the issue were foiled by political parties. "Negotiation have been made in the past a number of times between the two parties. But each time, political parties foiled our attempts...(So), we are of the view that let the Supreme Court decide once and for all," Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB said. Rashid, however, said the Board respects the gesture of the CJI and the sentiments of Hindus. "If the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose," Chief Justice J S Khehar, who headed the SC bench, said today. The Allahabad High Court, had in its verdict on September 30, 2010, directed three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The verdict was challenged in the apex court. The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, welcomed the Supreme Court's observations. Talks are the only way out, he said. "I understand that many rounds of talks have already been held but no concrete solution has come up. Nevertheless, dialogue continues to be the only way out and I welcome the SC observations from that perspective," he said. (PTI)

Babri dispute: Muslims sceptical of out-of-court settlement

India&rsquo;s Supreme Court on Monday refused to give more time to Uphaar theatre owner Gopal Ansal, who has been sentenced to one-year imprisonment for a fire in the south Delhi theatre that killed 59 people.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Uphaar cinema fire case: Supreme Court refuses to give more time to Gopal Ansal to surrender. He will have to undergo rest of the jail term <a href="https://t.co/9xljO8TUIJ">pic.twitter.com/9xljO8TUIJ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/843697984818749440">March 20, 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;

The top court had ordered him to surrender by March 20.

The apex court told senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani, who appeared for Ansal, to ask the real estate baron to undergo the rest of his jail term.

Ansal had filed an application in Supreme Court seeking to extend the time to surrender for serving the one-year jail term.

At least 59 people died after a fire broke out in Uphaar cinema on June 13, 1997, during the screening of JP Dutta&#39;s film Border.

(WION)

The top court had ordered him to surrender by March 20

India’s Supreme Court on Monday refused to give more time to Uphaar theatre owner Gopal Ansal, who has been sentenced to one-year imprisonment for a fire in the south Delhi theatre that killed 59 people. Uphaar cinema fire case: Supreme Court refuses to give more time to Gopal Ansal to surrender. He will have to undergo rest of the jail term pic.twitter.com/9xljO8TUIJ — ANI (@ANI_news) March 20, 2017 × The top court had ordered him to surrender by March 20. The apex court told senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani, who appeared for Ansal, to ask the real estate baron to undergo the rest of his jail term. Ansal had filed an application in Supreme Court seeking to extend the time to surrender for serving the one-year jail term. At least 59 people died after a fire broke out in Uphaar cinema on June 13, 1997, during the screening of JP Dutta's film Border. (WION)

Uphaar cinema tragedy: Supreme Court asks Gopal Ansal to surrender

Manohar Parrikar has been sworn-in as the next chief minister of Goa, taking the oath of office in his native language Konkani.

The swearing-in ceremony took place amid protests outside Raj Bhavan.&nbsp;

The event was attended by several BJP leaders, including Amit Shah and Laxmikant Parsekar.

This comes hours after India&#39;s Supreme Court ordered a floor test in Goa after the Congress <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/india-congress-slams-bjp-for-backdoor-entry-in-goa-manipur-13344" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">moved a petition in the apex court challenging the BJP&#39;s bid for&nbsp;government formation</a> in the state.

Supreme Court said the floor test will be held on March 16 as&nbsp;it&nbsp;refused to stay the swearing-in of Manohar Parrikar as the chief minister of the state which is due to take place today evening.&nbsp;

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari hit back at the Congress saying, &quot;Congress was not able to choose a leader due to their internal tussle and they are blaming us for it.&quot;

&quot;There was no horse-trading in Goa. We had a discussion with non-BJP MLAs and they had some conditions, their support was unanimous,&quot; the minister added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Our fight is against BJP&#39;s ideology, what they did in Manipur &amp; Goa is exactly the ideology we are fighting against: Rahul Gandhi <a href="https://t.co/vqoR1EiF31">pic.twitter.com/vqoR1EiF31</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/841549660657405952">March 14, 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>

During the hearing, India&#39;s highest court&nbsp;asked the Congress why it did not approach the governor of Goa over government formation after the Congress moved a petition challenging the appointment of BJP-led Manohar Parrikar as Goa chief minister.

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Khehar observed that numbers should determine single largest party in Goa.

The Congress petition had alleged that established constitutional practices were being violated by the BJP during their bid to&nbsp;form the government in Goa. The Congress also alleged that the BJP was involved in horse-trading to conjure up the numbers in the Goa House.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash">#WATCH</a>: Rahul Gandhi says, &quot;We are in opposition,you have ups &amp; downs, we had a little down in UP, its fine we accept that&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElectionResults?src=hash">#ElectionResults</a> <a href="https://t.co/6kj43gXzA1">pic.twitter.com/6kj43gXzA1</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/841551879070924800">March 14, 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">
Manohar Parrikar is CM of Goa for two days, if BJP can&#39;t show majority they won&#39;t be allowed to form a government:Abhishek Manu Singhvi <a href="https://t.co/YDhUbygZTA">pic.twitter.com/YDhUbygZTA</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/841547084637458432">March 14, 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>

India&#39;s highest court asked the Congress if it had the numbers to form the government in Goa.

The BJP needs the support of 21 MLAs in the 40-member House to prove its majority, the party believes it has the support of 22 MLAs which includes the MGP and Independents.

The Congress, which won 17 seats,&nbsp;had on Saturday&nbsp;emerged as the single largest party in the Goa Assembly polls, which threw up a hung verdict as the BJP won 13 seats.

However, Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party(MGP) which had 3 seats in the Goa assembly on Sunday&nbsp;passed a resolution extending support to the BJP, if it formed&nbsp;the&nbsp;government under the leadership of Manohar Parrikar. 
 
The BJP hopes to cobble up the numbers by convincing other parties and Independents to join the coalition&nbsp;and keep the Congress out of power in the coastal state of India.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Manohar Parrikar has said he&#39;d comment after he is sworn-in as the chief minister.

But India&#39;s finance minister Arun Jaitley, who also received the added portfolio of the defence ministry after Parrikar resigned to become the Goa CM, slammed the Congress for hindering the BJP from forming the government.

In a Facebook post, Jaitley said: &quot;The Congress Party complains a bit too much. It accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of &#39;stealing&#39; the mandate. It unsuccessfully petitioned before the Supreme Court. It attempted to raise issues at Lok Sabha. What are the facts?&quot;

Jaitley also attributed BJP&#39;s decision to forging post-poll alliances as part of democracy, saying: &quot;Obviously in a Hung Assembly (sic) post-poll alliances will be formed.&quot; &nbsp;

(WION)

This comes after India's top court greenlit his appointment. However, Parrikar has to prove majority on the floor of the House

Manohar Parrikar has been sworn-in as the next chief minister of Goa, taking the oath of office in his native language Konkani. The swearing-in ceremony took place amid protests outside Raj Bhavan. The event was attended by several BJP leaders, including Amit Shah and Laxmikant Parsekar. This comes hours after India's Supreme Court ordered a floor test in Goa after the Congress moved a petition in the apex court challenging the BJP's bid for government formation in the state. Supreme Court said the floor test will be held on March 16 as it refused to stay the swearing-in of Manohar Parrikar as the chief minister of the state which is due to take place today evening. Union Minister Nitin Gadkari hit back at the Congress saying, "Congress was not able to choose a leader due to their internal tussle and they are blaming us for it." "There was no horse-trading in Goa. We had a discussion with non-BJP MLAs and they had some conditions, their support was unanimous," the minister added. Our fight is against BJP's ideology, what they did in Manipur & Goa is exactly the ideology we are fighting against: Rahul Gandhi pic.twitter.com/vqoR1EiF31 — ANI (@ANI_news) March 14, 2017 × During the hearing, India's highest court asked the Congress why it did not approach the governor of Goa over government formation after the Congress moved a petition challenging the appointment of BJP-led Manohar Parrikar as Goa chief minister. The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Khehar observed that numbers should determine single largest party in Goa. The Congress petition had alleged that established constitutional practices were being violated by the BJP during their bid to form the government in Goa. The Congress also alleged that the BJP was involved in horse-trading to conjure up the numbers in the Goa House. #WATCH: Rahul Gandhi says, "We are in opposition,you have ups & downs, we had a little down in UP, its fine we accept that" #ElectionResults pic.twitter.com/6kj43gXzA1 — ANI (@ANI_news) March 14, 2017 × Manohar Parrikar is CM of Goa for two days, if BJP can't show majority they won't be allowed to form a government:Abhishek Manu Singhvi pic.twitter.com/YDhUbygZTA — ANI (@ANI_news) March 14, 2017 × India's highest court asked the Congress if it had the numbers to form the government in Goa. The BJP needs the support of 21 MLAs in the 40-member House to prove its majority, the party believes it has the support of 22 MLAs which includes the MGP and Independents. The Congress, which won 17 seats, had on Saturday emerged as the single largest party in the Goa Assembly polls, which threw up a hung verdict as the BJP won 13 seats. However, Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party(MGP) which had 3 seats in the Goa assembly on Sunday passed a resolution extending support to the BJP, if it formed the government under the leadership of Manohar Parrikar. The BJP hopes to cobble up the numbers by convincing other parties and Independents to join the coalition and keep the Congress out of power in the coastal state of India. Meanwhile, Manohar Parrikar has said he'd comment after he is sworn-in as the chief minister. But India's finance minister Arun Jaitley, who also received the added portfolio of the defence ministry after Parrikar resigned to become the Goa CM, slammed the Congress for hindering the BJP from forming the government. In a Facebook post, Jaitley said: "The Congress Party complains a bit too much. It accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of 'stealing' the mandate. It unsuccessfully petitioned before the Supreme Court. It attempted to raise issues at Lok Sabha. What are the facts?" Jaitley also attributed BJP's decision to forging post-poll alliances as part of democracy, saying: "Obviously in a Hung Assembly (sic) post-poll alliances will be formed." (WION)

Manohar Parrikar takes oath as Goa chief minister

India&#39;s top court said on Monday that it won&#39;t accept dropping of charges against senior BJP leader LK Advani and others in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

Supreme Court also expressed concern over the delay in trial and favoured a joint trial of the accused.

The court was hearing a petition opposing dropping of criminal conspiracy charges in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

There are two cases in the Babri demolition -&nbsp;one is against LK Advani and others who were on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj on December 6, 1992 when the demolition happened and the second case is against thousands of &quot;karsevaks&quot; (volunteers) who were in and around the structure. &nbsp;

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had&nbsp;challenged the May 21, 2010 verdict of the High Court which upheld a special CBI court verdict.

The special CBI court had ordered dropping of charges against Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi.&nbsp;

The Babri Masjid was demolished allegedly by a group of karsevaks&nbsp;on December 6, 1992 in&nbsp;India&#39;s northern city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It was&nbsp;allegedly demolished at the behest of top&nbsp;Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, several cases have been&nbsp;lodged since then against various people including political outfits and BJP, VHP leaders.&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from agencies)

India's top court also expressed concern over the delay in trial and favoured a joint trial of the accused

India's top court said on Monday that it won't accept dropping of charges against senior BJP leader LK Advani and others in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Supreme Court also expressed concern over the delay in trial and favoured a joint trial of the accused. The court was hearing a petition opposing dropping of criminal conspiracy charges in the Babri Masjid demolition case. There are two cases in the Babri demolition - one is against LK Advani and others who were on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj on December 6, 1992 when the demolition happened and the second case is against thousands of "karsevaks" (volunteers) who were in and around the structure. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had challenged the May 21, 2010 verdict of the High Court which upheld a special CBI court verdict. The special CBI court had ordered dropping of charges against Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi. The Babri Masjid was demolished allegedly by a group of karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in India's northern city of Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It was allegedly demolished at the behest of top Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, several cases have been lodged since then against various people including political outfits and BJP, VHP leaders. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Won't accept dropping of charges against Advani, others in Babri demolition: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give AIADMK chief VK Sasikala any more time to surrender, after her lawyer said she needed it because she was unwell.&nbsp;

&quot;You know the meaning of the word immediately?&quot; a judge snapped at her lawyer.&nbsp;

Sasikala, her sister-in-law, and her nephew were found guilty yesterday in a disproportionate assets case dating back to 1996. (Former Tamil Nadu chief minister the late J Jayalalithaa was also an accused in the case.) The quartet were accused of having amassed a fortune worth more than Rs 60 crore.&nbsp;

The court had on Tuesday said Sasikala was to surrender immediately.

She did not.&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>: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VKSasikala?src=hash">#VKSasikala</a> visits Jayalalithaa&#39;s memorial at Chennai&#39;s Marina Beach before heading to Bengaluru, pays floral tribute <a href="https://t.co/1t8C150GKf">pic.twitter.com/1t8C150GKf</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/831754741365477376">February 15, 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>

Instead, after her conviction, at a meeting with the AIADMK MLAs she was holed up with at the Golden Bay resort in Chennai, she first expelled caretaker chief minister O Panneerselvam from the party and then had her loyalist Edappadi K Palanisamy elected leader of the AIADMK legislature party.&nbsp;

Sasikala and Panneerselvam had been fighting to become chief minister of Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;Now, with her conviction, Sasikala cannot hold public office for six years.&nbsp;

Which leaves the question of who will become chief minister wide open.&nbsp;

Panneerselvam, who had taken over as chief minister after the death of Jayalalithaa, had resigned from the post some time ago. He then did a sudden U-turn, saying he had been &quot;forced&quot; to resign.

On Tuesday, Panneerselvam met with the Tamil Nadu governor.

He was preceded by Palanisamy.&nbsp;

The governor will now have to take a call on whom he will invite to form the government.&nbsp;

So far, Pannerselvam has the public support of only 11 MLAs but his camp says he has the tacit support of at least 11 more. If he can get the support of these additional 11 MLAs, Palanisamy will have trouble mustering the majority he needs to form the government.&nbsp;

Stopover at Jaya&#39;s memorial

There was even more drama on Wednesday.

After the Supreme Court said for a second time that Sasikala was to surrender immediately, she finally left Jayalalithaa&#39;s erstwhile Poes Garden residence. But instead of making her way directly to the authorities to surrender herself, she first made a stopover at Jayalalithaa&#39;s memorial on Marina beach where, news reports said, she made &quot;a might vow&quot;. &nbsp;(It is not yet completely clear what that vow might be.)&nbsp;

Sasikala has to surrender in Bengaluru, to which she is making her way by road.&nbsp;

And finally, on Wednesday morning, she also inducted her nephews TTV Dinakaran and S Venkatesh into the party. Both of them had been expelled from the party by Jayalalithaa.&nbsp;

Dinakaran, who was expelled in 2011, has been made deputy general secretary of the AIADMK, thereby ensuring Sasikala will have control of the party from jail.&nbsp;

(WION)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

She first makes a stopover at the Jaya memorial, then heads to Bengaluru -- where she has to surrender -- by road

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give AIADMK chief VK Sasikala any more time to surrender, after her lawyer said she needed it because she was unwell. "You know the meaning of the word immediately?" a judge snapped at her lawyer. Sasikala, her sister-in-law, and her nephew were found guilty yesterday in a disproportionate assets case dating back to 1996. (Former Tamil Nadu chief minister the late J Jayalalithaa was also an accused in the case.) The quartet were accused of having amassed a fortune worth more than Rs 60 crore. The court had on Tuesday said Sasikala was to surrender immediately. She did not. #WATCH: #VKSasikala visits Jayalalithaa's memorial at Chennai's Marina Beach before heading to Bengaluru, pays floral tribute pic.twitter.com/1t8C150GKf — ANI (@ANI_news) February 15, 2017 × Instead, after her conviction, at a meeting with the AIADMK MLAs she was holed up with at the Golden Bay resort in Chennai, she first expelled caretaker chief minister O Panneerselvam from the party and then had her loyalist Edappadi K Palanisamy elected leader of the AIADMK legislature party. Sasikala and Panneerselvam had been fighting to become chief minister of Tamil Nadu. Now, with her conviction, Sasikala cannot hold public office for six years. Which leaves the question of who will become chief minister wide open. Panneerselvam, who had taken over as chief minister after the death of Jayalalithaa, had resigned from the post some time ago. He then did a sudden U-turn, saying he had been "forced" to resign. On Tuesday, Panneerselvam met with the Tamil Nadu governor. He was preceded by Palanisamy. The governor will now have to take a call on whom he will invite to form the government. So far, Pannerselvam has the public support of only 11 MLAs but his camp says he has the tacit support of at least 11 more. If he can get the support of these additional 11 MLAs, Palanisamy will have trouble mustering the majority he needs to form the government. Stopover at Jaya's memorial There was even more drama on Wednesday. After the Supreme Court said for a second time that Sasikala was to surrender immediately, she finally left Jayalalithaa's erstwhile Poes Garden residence. But instead of making her way directly to the authorities to surrender herself, she first made a stopover at Jayalalithaa's memorial on Marina beach where, news reports said, she made "a might vow". (It is not yet completely clear what that vow might be.) Sasikala has to surrender in Bengaluru, to which she is making her way by road. And finally, on Wednesday morning, she also inducted her nephews TTV Dinakaran and S Venkatesh into the party. Both of them had been expelled from the party by Jayalalithaa. Dinakaran, who was expelled in 2011, has been made deputy general secretary of the AIADMK, thereby ensuring Sasikala will have control of the party from jail. (WION)

Supreme Court tells Sasikala to surrender immediately, a second time

India&#39;s highest court has&nbsp;clarified that the audience need not stand when the national anthem is being played as a part of the storyline of a film, newsreel or documentary.

A bench of justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi of the Supreme Court of India made this clear after one of the petitioners said that the apex court should clarify if people are expected to stand when the national anthem is played in a film, newsreel or documentary.

&quot;It is clarified that when the national anthem is played as part of the storyline of a film, newsreel or a documentary the audience need not stand,&quot; the bench said.

The bench, which said the issue raised by petitioners needs to be debated, has fixed the matter for further hearing on April 18.

The apex court had on November 30 last year ordered cinema halls across the nation to mandatorily play the national anthem before screening of a movie and the audience must stand and show respect.

This order had come on the public interest&nbsp;litigation(PIL) filed by one Shyam Narayan Chouksey seeking directions that national anthem should be played in cinema halls across the country before a film begins and proper norms and protocol be fixed regarding its playing and singing at official functions and programmes where those holding constitutional office are present.

The apex court, while passing a slew of directions, had also observed that &quot;time has come when citizens must realise they live in a nation and are duty-bound to show respect to national anthem which is a symbol of constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality&quot;.

It had said that &quot;love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag&quot;.

The court had barred printing of the anthem or part of it on any object and displaying it in such a manner at places which may be &quot;disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect&quot;. It had also barred playing or displaying an &quot;abridged version&quot; of the anthem.

Various other petitioners have also approached the apex court, which has tagged them with and the bench has tagged with the main petition. &nbsp;

(PTI)

India's highest court had earlier ordered cinema halls to mandatorily play the national anthem before screening of a movie

India's highest court has clarified that the audience need not stand when the national anthem is being played as a part of the storyline of a film, newsreel or documentary. A bench of justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi of the Supreme Court of India made this clear after one of the petitioners said that the apex court should clarify if people are expected to stand when the national anthem is played in a film, newsreel or documentary. "It is clarified that when the national anthem is played as part of the storyline of a film, newsreel or a documentary the audience need not stand," the bench said. The bench, which said the issue raised by petitioners needs to be debated, has fixed the matter for further hearing on April 18. The apex court had on November 30 last year ordered cinema halls across the nation to mandatorily play the national anthem before screening of a movie and the audience must stand and show respect. This order had come on the public interest litigation(PIL) filed by one Shyam Narayan Chouksey seeking directions that national anthem should be played in cinema halls across the country before a film begins and proper norms and protocol be fixed regarding its playing and singing at official functions and programmes where those holding constitutional office are present. The apex court, while passing a slew of directions, had also observed that "time has come when citizens must realise they live in a nation and are duty-bound to show respect to national anthem which is a symbol of constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality". It had said that "love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag". The court had barred printing of the anthem or part of it on any object and displaying it in such a manner at places which may be "disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect". It had also barred playing or displaying an "abridged version" of the anthem. Various other petitioners have also approached the apex court, which has tagged them with and the bench has tagged with the main petition. (PTI)

No need to stand when national anthem played at cinemas: Supreme Court

India&#39;s highest court said it would treat the matter of &#39;triple talaq&#39; as a human rights case.

Several legal schools of Islam around the world view &#39;triple talaq&#39; as a legitimate way for a man to divorce his wife by uttering the word &#39;talaq&#39; (repudiation or simply divorce) thrice.

The system has come under attack from several women&#39;s groups who perceive the law to be outdated, though the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has remained steadfast about the validity of the divorce procedure.

India&#39;s Supreme Court on Tuesday said: &quot;It&#39;s (triple talaq) a matter of human rights, so we would deal with it properly.&quot;

The court also said it would dispose of all petitions related to &#39;triple talaq&#39; and give a verdict about it on May 11.

The &#39;triple talaq&#39; case was first brought to the courts of India when Shayara Banu filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to amend the current Muslim law.

Besides questioning the practice, she also wants the court to outlaw polygamy and &#39;nikah halal&#39;.

Under &#39;nikah halal&#39;, a woman must consummate another marriage in order to get back to her first husband if she wants to.

The legitimacy of &#39;triple talaq&#39; has also been attacked by the federal government and one of the high courts in India in the past

The federal government has called the &#39;triple talaq&#39; system as gender discrimination. The right-leaning Bharatiya Janata Party-led government has repeatedly called for a uniform civil code in the country.

At present, Muslims in India are governed by the tenets laid down by a personal law board.

Last December, Allahabad high court in India had ruled the divorce procedure to be &quot;unconstitutional&quot; and that it violated the rights of Muslim women.

But the Muslim Law Board has stoutly opposed any changes to the current divorce system, arguing that Sharia laws cannot be modified or altered by any authority.

(WION with inputs from ANI)

India's Supreme Court also said it would give its verdict on the case on May 11

India's highest court said it would treat the matter of 'triple talaq' as a human rights case. Several legal schools of Islam around the world view 'triple talaq' as a legitimate way for a man to divorce his wife by uttering the word 'talaq' (repudiation or simply divorce) thrice. The system has come under attack from several women's groups who perceive the law to be outdated, though the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has remained steadfast about the validity of the divorce procedure. India's Supreme Court on Tuesday said: "It's (triple talaq) a matter of human rights, so we would deal with it properly." The court also said it would dispose of all petitions related to 'triple talaq' and give a verdict about it on May 11. The 'triple talaq' case was first brought to the courts of India when Shayara Banu filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to amend the current Muslim law. Besides questioning the practice, she also wants the court to outlaw polygamy and 'nikah halal'. Under 'nikah halal', a woman must consummate another marriage in order to get back to her first husband if she wants to. The legitimacy of 'triple talaq' has also been attacked by the federal government and one of the high courts in India in the past The federal government has called the 'triple talaq' system as gender discrimination. The right-leaning Bharatiya Janata Party-led government has repeatedly called for a uniform civil code in the country. At present, Muslims in India are governed by the tenets laid down by a personal law board. Last December, Allahabad high court in India had ruled the divorce procedure to be "unconstitutional" and that it violated the rights of Muslim women. But the Muslim Law Board has stoutly opposed any changes to the current divorce system, arguing that Sharia laws cannot be modified or altered by any authority. (WION with inputs from ANI)

India's top court to view 'triple talaq' case as human rights issue

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