The tug-of-war between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Supreme Court has left India&#39;s Under-19 team and their support staff without any money. Result? Players have gone half-a-month without their entitled allowance of Rs 6,800 (101 USD) per day and have to pay out of their own pockets for their post-match dinner or rely on parents for money.

According to a report in the Indian Express, U-19 coach Rahul Dravid, the players, and support staff have not been paid for a fortnight now. This is because there is no official signatory to release the funds after the apex court removed BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke. The cash withdrawal limit of Rs 24,000 (356 USD) a week after the Centre&#39;s demonetisation policy has only added to the misery of the U-19 team.

After BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Shirke were kicked out, the board is left with joint-secretary Amitabh Choudhary and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhary. But a resolution has to be passed by the board members to make one of them the new signatory to release the funds.

The report says that the Committee of Administrators (COA) has allowed BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to dispense funds for the senior team, currently in Hyderabad for one-off Test against Bangladesh, for their daily allowances but the junior team seems to have been forgotten.

The daily quotes a player on condition of anonymity saying that the team is getting by because the breakfast is complimentary at the posh hotel they have been put up in. One meal is provided by the host state association. But dinner becomes a big problem for them as one sandwich costs over Rs 1500 (22 USD) if they order in-house. This forces the players to go out for supper after a tiring day on the field.

The saddest part is that the players cannot even complain to anyone as there is no authority to complain to. According to the report, the players are now relying on monetary support from their families.

The junior team is currently on their home tour against the Under-19 team of England.

(This report first appeared in DNA)

This is because there is no official signatory to release the funds after the apex court removed BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke

The tug-of-war between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Supreme Court has left India's Under-19 team and their support staff without any money. Result? Players have gone half-a-month without their entitled allowance of Rs 6,800 (101 USD) per day and have to pay out of their own pockets for their post-match dinner or rely on parents for money. According to a report in the Indian Express, U-19 coach Rahul Dravid, the players, and support staff have not been paid for a fortnight now. This is because there is no official signatory to release the funds after the apex court removed BCCI secretary Ajay Shirke. The cash withdrawal limit of Rs 24,000 (356 USD) a week after the Centre's demonetisation policy has only added to the misery of the U-19 team. After BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Shirke were kicked out, the board is left with joint-secretary Amitabh Choudhary and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhary. But a resolution has to be passed by the board members to make one of them the new signatory to release the funds. The report says that the Committee of Administrators (COA) has allowed BCCI CEO Rahul Johri to dispense funds for the senior team, currently in Hyderabad for one-off Test against Bangladesh, for their daily allowances but the junior team seems to have been forgotten. The daily quotes a player on condition of anonymity saying that the team is getting by because the breakfast is complimentary at the posh hotel they have been put up in. One meal is provided by the host state association. But dinner becomes a big problem for them as one sandwich costs over Rs 1500 (22 USD) if they order in-house. This forces the players to go out for supper after a tiring day on the field. The saddest part is that the players cannot even complain to anyone as there is no authority to complain to. According to the report, the players are now relying on monetary support from their families. The junior team is currently on their home tour against the Under-19 team of England. (This report first appeared in DNA)

Cricket: Supreme Court's strict measures against BCCI have left U-19 team without any money for dinner

A Public interest litigation(PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrain swearing-in of AIADMK leader VK Sasikala as Tamil Nadu chief minister.&nbsp;

However, the Madras University Auditorium, which had earlier hosted the swearing-in of late chief minister Jayalalithaa, was being reportedly spruced up for the occasion, while apparently awaiting the court directive. A senior AIADMK source told PTI that&nbsp;all arrangements were in place in the event of the ceremony taking place tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has&nbsp;asked the Karnataka government to wait for one week for the verdict on batch of pleas challenging the acquittal of the late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa in a disproportionate assets case, also involving AIADMK leader V K Sasikala.

A bench headed by Justice P C Ghose asked senior advocate Dushyant Dave to wait for one week after he made a mention before it regarding the delay in pronouncement of the verdict.

Dave said that they have been waiting for the judgement for quite some time and requested the bench to pronounce it soon.&nbsp;The apex court had last year, before the demise of Jayalalithaa, reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the order of her acquittal of the Karnataka High Court.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/who-is-vk-sasikala-12063">Sasikala, a shadow of Jayalalithaa</a> for nearly three decades, is set to become the chief minister of Tamil Nadu as the AIADMK legislature party yesterday elected her as its leader, over a month after she became the party&#39;s powerful General Secretary.

&nbsp;

 
<centre><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p4UrDlvehCc" width="560"></iframe><centre></centre></centre>

(PTI)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The development comes a day after Sasikala was elected as the AIADMK leader and is now set to become the chief minister of Tamil Nadu

A Public interest litigation(PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrain swearing-in of AIADMK leader VK Sasikala as Tamil Nadu chief minister. However, the Madras University Auditorium, which had earlier hosted the swearing-in of late chief minister Jayalalithaa, was being reportedly spruced up for the occasion, while apparently awaiting the court directive. A senior AIADMK source told PTI that all arrangements were in place in the event of the ceremony taking place tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has asked the Karnataka government to wait for one week for the verdict on batch of pleas challenging the acquittal of the late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa in a disproportionate assets case, also involving AIADMK leader V K Sasikala. A bench headed by Justice P C Ghose asked senior advocate Dushyant Dave to wait for one week after he made a mention before it regarding the delay in pronouncement of the verdict. Dave said that they have been waiting for the judgement for quite some time and requested the bench to pronounce it soon. The apex court had last year, before the demise of Jayalalithaa, reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the order of her acquittal of the Karnataka High Court. Sasikala, a shadow of Jayalalithaa for nearly three decades, is set to become the chief minister of Tamil Nadu as the AIADMK legislature party yesterday elected her as its leader, over a month after she became the party's powerful General Secretary. (PTI)

PIL filed in Supreme Court against Sasikala's swearing-in as Tamil Nadu chief minister

The hearing in the December 16 gang-rape case will continue in the Supreme Court today, where the four convicts -- Akshay, Pawan, Vinay Sharma, and Mukesh -- have challenged the Delhi High court order which had sentenced them to the gallows after keeping in view the fact that it was a rarest of the rare case.

The top court on Friday&nbsp;directed the superintendent of&nbsp;Tihar Jail to allow the lawyers of the convicts to meet them and file a detailed affidavit within two weeks related to the circumstances in which the brutal offence was committed by them. The date for rehearing sentencing of the case will be decided on February 6.

The matter is&nbsp;at present being heard by the Apex Court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R&nbsp;Banumathj and Ashok Bhushan. On November 7, the top court&nbsp;amicus curiae in the case, Raju Ramachandran, had asked the apex court to set aside the death penalty awarded to the accused.

In his written submissions, the senior advocate listed six fundamental errors committed by the trial court while awarding death sentences, including not taking the mitigating circumstances of the accused persons into consideration and not hearing them in person on their punishment.

Amicus curiae refers to someone who is not a party to the case but volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.

The top court had on April 4 begun final hearing of the convicts&#39;&nbsp;appeal almost two years after staying their execution. Two of the four death-row convicts had written to Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Deepak Misra, stating that they do not approve of the defence counsel appointed by the court to argue their case before the top court as they had given statements against them to the media in the past.

The trial court had in September 2013 awarded death sentences to the convicts. Six months later, the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts moved the apex court in 2014, which stayed their execution.

Six people, including a juvenile, had brutally assaulted the woman in a moving bus in South Delhi. Later, the accused threw out the victim and her male friend at an isolated spot. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012, triggering nation-wide protests that resulted in giving more teeth to laws related to rape and other forms of sexual harassment.

(ANI)&nbsp;

The date for rehearing sentencing of the case will be decided on February 6

The hearing in the December 16 gang-rape case will continue in the Supreme Court today, where the four convicts -- Akshay, Pawan, Vinay Sharma, and Mukesh -- have challenged the Delhi High court order which had sentenced them to the gallows after keeping in view the fact that it was a rarest of the rare case. The top court on Friday directed the superintendent of Tihar Jail to allow the lawyers of the convicts to meet them and file a detailed affidavit within two weeks related to the circumstances in which the brutal offence was committed by them. The date for rehearing sentencing of the case will be decided on February 6. The matter is at present being heard by the Apex Court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R Banumathj and Ashok Bhushan. On November 7, the top court amicus curiae in the case, Raju Ramachandran, had asked the apex court to set aside the death penalty awarded to the accused. In his written submissions, the senior advocate listed six fundamental errors committed by the trial court while awarding death sentences, including not taking the mitigating circumstances of the accused persons into consideration and not hearing them in person on their punishment. Amicus curiae refers to someone who is not a party to the case but volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The top court had on April 4 begun final hearing of the convicts' appeal almost two years after staying their execution. Two of the four death-row convicts had written to Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice Deepak Misra, stating that they do not approve of the defence counsel appointed by the court to argue their case before the top court as they had given statements against them to the media in the past. The trial court had in September 2013 awarded death sentences to the convicts. Six months later, the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts moved the apex court in 2014, which stayed their execution. Six people, including a juvenile, had brutally assaulted the woman in a moving bus in South Delhi. Later, the accused threw out the victim and her male friend at an isolated spot. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012, triggering nation-wide protests that resulted in giving more teeth to laws related to rape and other forms of sexual harassment. (ANI)

Nirbhaya case: Supreme Court to continue hearing over convicts' plea challenging death sentence

Khanderi, the second Scorpene class submarine that has&nbsp;stealth technology and the ability to&nbsp;attack with torpedoes as well as tube-launched anti-ship missiles while&nbsp;underwater or on the surface, was launched at the Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL).

The state of the art features of this Scorpene class submarine include superior stealth and the ability to launch an attack on the enemy using precision guided weapon. The submarine is designed to operate in all theatres, including the tropics. All means and communications are provided to ensure interoperability with other components of a Naval task force.

Union Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre presided over the function to initiate the launch of Khanderi. The submarine was launched by the Union minister&#39;s wife, Bina Bhamre.&nbsp;Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba was also present on the occasion when the submarine was separated from the pontoon on which it was assembled. 
 
Khanderi&nbsp;can undertake multifarious types of missions typically undertaken by any modern submarine, from anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare to&nbsp;intelligence gathering, mine laying and&nbsp;area surveillance. Khanderi is named after the Island fort of Maratha forces, which played a vital role in ensuring their supremacy at sea in the late 17th century. Khanderi is also the name for Tiger Shark.&nbsp;

Khanderi is the second of the six submarines being built at MDL in collaboration with M/s DCNS of France, as part of Project 75 of Indian Navy. The first one, Kalvari, is completing sea trials and will be commissioned shortly into the Indian Navy.&nbsp;

The Indian Navy&#39;s submarine arm will complete 50 years on December 8 this year.&nbsp;The Submarine Day is celebrated every year to commemorate the birth of the submarine arm with induction of the first submarine, erstwhile INS Kalvari, into the Indian Navy on December 8, 1967.

India joined the exclusive group of submarine constructing nations on February 7, 1992, with the commissioning of the first Indian-built submarine, INS Shalki.

The MDL built this submarine and went on to commission another submarine, INS Shankul, on May 28, 1994. These submarines are still in service today.

&nbsp;(PTI)

Supreme Court has set up a team to look into charges against ex-CBI chief Ranjit Sinha's attempt to influence the coal scam probe

Khanderi, the second Scorpene class submarine that has stealth technology and the ability to attack with torpedoes as well as tube-launched anti-ship missiles while underwater or on the surface, was launched at the Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL). The state of the art features of this Scorpene class submarine include superior stealth and the ability to launch an attack on the enemy using precision guided weapon. The submarine is designed to operate in all theatres, including the tropics. All means and communications are provided to ensure interoperability with other components of a Naval task force. Union Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre presided over the function to initiate the launch of Khanderi. The submarine was launched by the Union minister's wife, Bina Bhamre. Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba was also present on the occasion when the submarine was separated from the pontoon on which it was assembled. Khanderi can undertake multifarious types of missions typically undertaken by any modern submarine, from anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare to intelligence gathering, mine laying and area surveillance. Khanderi is named after the Island fort of Maratha forces, which played a vital role in ensuring their supremacy at sea in the late 17th century. Khanderi is also the name for Tiger Shark. Khanderi is the second of the six submarines being built at MDL in collaboration with M/s DCNS of France, as part of Project 75 of Indian Navy. The first one, Kalvari, is completing sea trials and will be commissioned shortly into the Indian Navy. The Indian Navy's submarine arm will complete 50 years on December 8 this year. The Submarine Day is celebrated every year to commemorate the birth of the submarine arm with induction of the first submarine, erstwhile INS Kalvari, into the Indian Navy on December 8, 1967. India joined the exclusive group of submarine constructing nations on February 7, 1992, with the commissioning of the first Indian-built submarine, INS Shalki. The MDL built this submarine and went on to commission another submarine, INS Shankul, on May 28, 1994. These submarines are still in service today. (PTI)

Coal scam case: India's highest court sets up panel to investigate ex-CBI director

Muslims in the United States who were rounded up and detained in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks took their case before the US Supreme Court.

The US high court reviewed whether the men, who say they were held after the Al-Qaeda attack based solely on their identity as Arab Muslims, had the right to sue top US officials including then-attorney general John Ashcroft and Federal Bureau of Investigation director Robert Mueller, for their allegedly illegal detention.

The men were among 750 Muslims rounded up after the terror attacks, many on grounds that they did not have legal US immigration papers.

They said they were held in small isolation cells for up to 23 hours at a stretch and subjected to mental and physical abuse. They were held in detention for three to eight months.

A lower court had ruled in the men&#39;s favor, and the officials appealed that to the Supreme Court yesterday, arguing that the national security and immigration requirements of the time justified the sweeping arrests.

A ruling on whether the men had a right to sue rests on court precedents involving constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure.

But Justice Stephen Breyer got to the hub of the broader case: whether the atmosphere at the time justified such a broad reaction.

&quot;I can understand after a bomb attack and 3,000 people are killed,&quot; Breyer said. &quot;I can understand that the first reaction of the law enforcement authorities is pick up anybody you might think is connected, and we&#39;ll worry about the rest of it later.&quot;

&quot;Now, eight months?... The answer is pick up anybody who might have a connection, and then just keep them there?&quot; he asked.

The current Barack Obama administration came in on the side of Ashcroft, Mueller and the others being sued.

&quot;This is something that was done as the officials are trying to sort through how to respond to the very difficult situation,&quot; said Justice Department Lawyer Ian Gershengorn.

&quot;Some of the people on the list had ties to terrorism -- may have had ties to terrorism. Some of them may well not have,&quot; he said.

But officials had to take the time to figure that out, and in the meanwhile did not violate any laws, including those on discrimination, he said.

But Rachel Meeropol, arguing for the men who had been detained, said it was an issue of illegal discrimination.

&quot;This court has a historic role to play in ensuring that race and religion do not take the place of legitimate grounds for suspicion and in deterring future Federal officials from creating government policy to do the same,&quot; she said.

&nbsp;

(AFP)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The men want to sue top US officials including the then-attorney general John Ashcroft for their alleged illegal detention

Muslims in the United States who were rounded up and detained in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks took their case before the US Supreme Court. The US high court reviewed whether the men, who say they were held after the Al-Qaeda attack based solely on their identity as Arab Muslims, had the right to sue top US officials including then-attorney general John Ashcroft and Federal Bureau of Investigation director Robert Mueller, for their allegedly illegal detention. The men were among 750 Muslims rounded up after the terror attacks, many on grounds that they did not have legal US immigration papers. They said they were held in small isolation cells for up to 23 hours at a stretch and subjected to mental and physical abuse. They were held in detention for three to eight months. A lower court had ruled in the men's favor, and the officials appealed that to the Supreme Court yesterday, arguing that the national security and immigration requirements of the time justified the sweeping arrests. A ruling on whether the men had a right to sue rests on court precedents involving constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure. But Justice Stephen Breyer got to the hub of the broader case: whether the atmosphere at the time justified such a broad reaction. "I can understand after a bomb attack and 3,000 people are killed," Breyer said. "I can understand that the first reaction of the law enforcement authorities is pick up anybody you might think is connected, and we'll worry about the rest of it later." "Now, eight months?... The answer is pick up anybody who might have a connection, and then just keep them there?" he asked. The current Barack Obama administration came in on the side of Ashcroft, Mueller and the others being sued. "This is something that was done as the officials are trying to sort through how to respond to the very difficult situation," said Justice Department Lawyer Ian Gershengorn. "Some of the people on the list had ties to terrorism -- may have had ties to terrorism. Some of them may well not have," he said. But officials had to take the time to figure that out, and in the meanwhile did not violate any laws, including those on discrimination, he said. But Rachel Meeropol, arguing for the men who had been detained, said it was an issue of illegal discrimination. "This court has a historic role to play in ensuring that race and religion do not take the place of legitimate grounds for suspicion and in deterring future Federal officials from creating government policy to do the same," she said. (AFP)

US Supreme Court hears case on Muslims rounded up after 9/11 attacks

The Madhya Pradesh government has ordered all liquor shops in the state to keep a list of &quot;regular&quot; buyers.

The decision was part of the state&#39;s excise policy for 2017-18 which was approved by the state cabinet Monday, the Indian Express newspaper reported Tuesday.

The Indian Express report added that depending on how often a customer bought alcohol, the government would then decide whether said customer needed de-addiction treatment.

The state&#39;s BJP government added that no new liquor shops would&nbsp;be allowed to come up in the state.

Madhya Pradesh government officials added that they planned&nbsp;to launch an awareness campaign against the drinking of liquor, organise yoga sessions, set up meditation centres, and cancel the driving licences of those caught drunk-driving a third time.&nbsp;

Finance Minister Jayant Malaiya was quoted in the Indian Express report as saying liquor shops would keep a record of regular liquor buyers, but that the lists would not be publicly displayed. Malaiya, however, ruled out the possibility of the state imposing total prohibition, the Indian Express report added.

The Indian Supreme Court had recently ruled that liquor shops within 500 metres of state and national highways were to be shut down across the country. India&#39;s highest court had also ordered that no new liquor vend was to be set up along the highways while those already issued&nbsp;licences&nbsp;were to be shut by April 1, 2017.

The decision to keep track of liquor buyers was first announced by Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan during his Narmada Seva Yatra in December last year.

(WION)

Depending on how often a customer bought alochol, the govt will decided whether he or she needs de-addiction treatment

The Madhya Pradesh government has ordered all liquor shops in the state to keep a list of "regular" buyers. The decision was part of the state's excise policy for 2017-18 which was approved by the state cabinet Monday, the Indian Express newspaper reported Tuesday. The Indian Express report added that depending on how often a customer bought alcohol, the government would then decide whether said customer needed de-addiction treatment. The state's BJP government added that no new liquor shops would be allowed to come up in the state. Madhya Pradesh government officials added that they planned to launch an awareness campaign against the drinking of liquor, organise yoga sessions, set up meditation centres, and cancel the driving licences of those caught drunk-driving a third time. Finance Minister Jayant Malaiya was quoted in the Indian Express report as saying liquor shops would keep a record of regular liquor buyers, but that the lists would not be publicly displayed. Malaiya, however, ruled out the possibility of the state imposing total prohibition, the Indian Express report added. The Indian Supreme Court had recently ruled that liquor shops within 500 metres of state and national highways were to be shut down across the country. India's highest court had also ordered that no new liquor vend was to be set up along the highways while those already issued licences were to be shut by April 1, 2017. The decision to keep track of liquor buyers was first announced by Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan during his Narmada Seva Yatra in December last year. (WION)

India: Madhya Pradesh govt orders liquor shops to keep lists of 'regular' buyers

&quot;Stray dogs have a right to live,&quot; was how India&#39;s top court reacted sharply today when a submission was made that such canines should be completely destroyed across the country.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi observed that though culling of stray dogs was permissible, there has to be a balance and a proper method for this.

When one of the petitioners told the apex court that he wanted to &quot;totally destroy&quot; stray dogs across India, the bench said &quot;nobody can destroy stray dogs in entirety. They also have a right to live&quot;.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand concurred with the observations of apex court and said that stray dogs have a right to live and there has to be a balance.

The apex court has been hearing a batch of petitions on issues relating to orders passed by various civic bodies on culling of stray dogs which have become a menace, especially in Kerala and Mumbai.

During the hearing, the bench said in Kerala, there were issues of human concern but for this all stray dogs cannot be killed.&nbsp;

&quot;A person can die due to dog bite. It is an accident and for that, we cannot say kill all the stray dogs,&quot; it said.

The bench was also informed that a panel headed by former Kerala High Court judge Sri Jagan had received around 400 matters related to dog bites and it was working on it. The panel was set up by the apex court to inquire into incidents in which people and even children killed stray dogs and these acts were supported by several vigilante groups in Kerala.

&quot;The panel has received around 400 applications out of which 24 have been settled. The committee is working on it,&quot; one of the counsel told the bench, which listed the matter for further hearing on March one.

When an advocate told the court that people have died due to dog bites in Kerala and children were unable to go to school due to this menace, the bench said &quot;just because there are some stray dogs in a field or a school, they cannot be killed&quot;.

&quot;They (stray dogs) have to be taken to shelter homes ....If there is no way out, they have to be culled and not killed. But there has to be a method for it,&quot; it said.

To this, one of the petitioners said he would construct shelter homes for dogs in his area in Kerala but the apex court asked him to submit a concrete proposal and prepare a road map.

(PTI)

The top court reacted to the petitioner saying that 'nobody can destroy stray dogs in entirety. They also have a right to live'

"Stray dogs have a right to live," was how India's top court reacted sharply today when a submission was made that such canines should be completely destroyed across the country. A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi observed that though culling of stray dogs was permissible, there has to be a balance and a proper method for this. When one of the petitioners told the apex court that he wanted to "totally destroy" stray dogs across India, the bench said "nobody can destroy stray dogs in entirety. They also have a right to live". Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand concurred with the observations of apex court and said that stray dogs have a right to live and there has to be a balance. The apex court has been hearing a batch of petitions on issues relating to orders passed by various civic bodies on culling of stray dogs which have become a menace, especially in Kerala and Mumbai. During the hearing, the bench said in Kerala, there were issues of human concern but for this all stray dogs cannot be killed. "A person can die due to dog bite. It is an accident and for that, we cannot say kill all the stray dogs," it said. The bench was also informed that a panel headed by former Kerala High Court judge Sri Jagan had received around 400 matters related to dog bites and it was working on it. The panel was set up by the apex court to inquire into incidents in which people and even children killed stray dogs and these acts were supported by several vigilante groups in Kerala. "The panel has received around 400 applications out of which 24 have been settled. The committee is working on it," one of the counsel told the bench, which listed the matter for further hearing on March one. When an advocate told the court that people have died due to dog bites in Kerala and children were unable to go to school due to this menace, the bench said "just because there are some stray dogs in a field or a school, they cannot be killed". "They (stray dogs) have to be taken to shelter homes ....If there is no way out, they have to be culled and not killed. But there has to be a method for it," it said. To this, one of the petitioners said he would construct shelter homes for dogs in his area in Kerala but the apex court asked him to submit a concrete proposal and prepare a road map. (PTI)

India's top court: Stray dogs also have a right to live

The Supreme Court today rejected a plea urging it to pass judgement on bull taming sport Jallikattu before the harvest festival of Pongal on Saturday. 
 
A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi told a group of lawyers, who requested for the verdict, that it is unfair to ask the bench to pass an order. 
 
The apex court, however, said that the draft of judgement has been prepared but it was not possible to deliver it before Saturday when Jallikattu is to be organised. 
 
The court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the federal government&#39;s notification allowing the sport. 
 
The court had earlier questioned the federal government for its January 2016 notification allowing use of bulls in events like Jallikattu, saying that its 2014 verdict banning the use of the animals cannot be &quot;negated&quot;. 
 
Supporting the tradition, the Centre has said that it could ensure that bulls are not tortured or subjected to alcohol before the sport. 
 
Earlier, the apex court had observed that the country cannot &quot;import Roman gladiator-type sport&quot; as it is against the culture of compassion towards animals. 
 
The court in its 2014 judgement had said that bulls could not be used as performing animals, either for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races in the states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country, and had banned their use across the country. 
 
The apex court had also dismissed the review petition against its 2014 verdict. 
 
The apex court had also earlier declared Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 as constitutionally void, being violative or Article 254(1) of the Constitution. 
 
On January 8, last year the Centre had issued a notification lifting ban on Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu with certain restrictions, which was challenged in the apex court by Animal Welfare Board of India, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, a Bangalore-based NGO and others. 
 
On July 26, last year the apex court had said that just because the bull-taming sport of Jallikattu was a centuries-old tradition, it could not be justified. 
 
It had said if the parties were able to convince the court that its earlier judgement was wrong, it might refer the matter to a larger bench. 
 
The Supreme Court had on January 21, last year refused to re-examine its 2014 judgement banning use of bulls for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races across the country. 
 
The apex court had also stayed the January 8 notification of Centre.

(PTI)

The court said it wasn't possible to decide the fate of Jallikattu before Saturday, the day when the harvest festival starts in South India

The Supreme Court today rejected a plea urging it to pass judgement on bull taming sport Jallikattu before the harvest festival of Pongal on Saturday. A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi told a group of lawyers, who requested for the verdict, that it is unfair to ask the bench to pass an order. The apex court, however, said that the draft of judgement has been prepared but it was not possible to deliver it before Saturday when Jallikattu is to be organised. The court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the federal government's notification allowing the sport. The court had earlier questioned the federal government for its January 2016 notification allowing use of bulls in events like Jallikattu, saying that its 2014 verdict banning the use of the animals cannot be "negated". Supporting the tradition, the Centre has said that it could ensure that bulls are not tortured or subjected to alcohol before the sport. Earlier, the apex court had observed that the country cannot "import Roman gladiator-type sport" as it is against the culture of compassion towards animals. The court in its 2014 judgement had said that bulls could not be used as performing animals, either for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races in the states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country, and had banned their use across the country. The apex court had also dismissed the review petition against its 2014 verdict. The apex court had also earlier declared Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 as constitutionally void, being violative or Article 254(1) of the Constitution. On January 8, last year the Centre had issued a notification lifting ban on Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu with certain restrictions, which was challenged in the apex court by Animal Welfare Board of India, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, a Bangalore-based NGO and others. On July 26, last year the apex court had said that just because the bull-taming sport of Jallikattu was a centuries-old tradition, it could not be justified. It had said if the parties were able to convince the court that its earlier judgement was wrong, it might refer the matter to a larger bench. The Supreme Court had on January 21, last year refused to re-examine its 2014 judgement banning use of bulls for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races across the country. The apex court had also stayed the January 8 notification of Centre. (PTI)

India's highest court rejects passing judgment on bull-taming sport

Rattled after the Supreme Court removed both BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke, the Board&#39;s senior vice-president Gokaraju Ganga Raju made it clear that his association, Andhra CA, would implement the Lodha reforms with immediate effect.

&quot;There is no confusion as Supreme Court has passed its verdict. As the president of Andhra Cricket Association we would implement Lodha reforms in totality with immediate effect. If it means that we have to go into cooling off period, so be it. Indian cricket should move forward,&quot; Ganga Raju told news agency PTI.

When he was asked why&nbsp;Andhra CA did not adhere to the Lodha reforms earlier, Ganga Raju said: &quot;It was because everyone was together. But now when the verdict is out there is no question of defiance. We have been in BCCI long enough to know how to run administration.

&quot;Andhra has 19 cricket grounds owned by association and a second international stadium is coming up. We would do a good job,&quot; he concluded.

Earlier on Monday, in a blow for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Supreme Court removed Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke from the post of BCCI President and Secretary respectively.

The court gave the decision while hearing perjury charges levelled against Thakur by amicus curiae Gopal Subramaniam.

Issuing a contempt notice to Thakur, the top court said that the committee of the administrator will look after the affairs of BCCI. &quot;Senior-most Vice President of BCCI will act as President and Joint Secretary will act as Secretary,&quot; the Supreme Court said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="650" src="https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1duiZNwSOAC0l8gaE5p0tCja3eMaFL52MjVGpI8lRpbs&amp;font=Default&amp;lang=en&amp;timenav_position=top&amp;initial_zoom=2&amp;height=650" width="100%"></iframe>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The apex court also requested senior advocate Fali Nariman and Gopal Subramaniam to assist in nominating persons of impeccable integrity as members of the committee of administrators.

The court further added that all office bearers of BCCI and state associations must give an undertaking to abide by recommendations of Lodha Committee. &quot;All office bearers of BCCI and state associations who refuse to abide by recommendations of Lodha panel shall demit office forthwith,&quot; court said.

On December 15, the top court had observed that prima facie Thakur appeared to have committed matter of perjury in relation to demanding an intervention via a letter from the International Cricket Council (ICC) in order to sidestep the implementation of the Lodha committee recommendations.

The apex court, which was hearing the Lodha panel&#39;s third status report which asked for the removal of the top brass of the BCCI, also asked the Amicus Curiae whether Thakur committed perjury or not in the case.

In reply, the Amicus Curiae revealed that the BCCI chief, in his affidavit submitted to the top court, had said that he sought Shashank Manohar&#39;s opinion as the BCCI chairman, which was denied by the latter saying that it was asked in the ICC meeting.

On October 1, the board had accepted many of the &quot;significant recommendations&quot; of the Lodha Committee, but excluded the important ones which have been a bone of contention between the cricket body and the Lodha Panel.

&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI and DNA)

Supreme Court today removed Anurag Thakur from post of BCCI president and Ajay Shirke from the secretary's post

Rattled after the Supreme Court removed both BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke, the Board's senior vice-president Gokaraju Ganga Raju made it clear that his association, Andhra CA, would implement the Lodha reforms with immediate effect. "There is no confusion as Supreme Court has passed its verdict. As the president of Andhra Cricket Association we would implement Lodha reforms in totality with immediate effect. If it means that we have to go into cooling off period, so be it. Indian cricket should move forward," Ganga Raju told news agency PTI. When he was asked why Andhra CA did not adhere to the Lodha reforms earlier, Ganga Raju said: "It was because everyone was together. But now when the verdict is out there is no question of defiance. We have been in BCCI long enough to know how to run administration. "Andhra has 19 cricket grounds owned by association and a second international stadium is coming up. We would do a good job," he concluded. Earlier on Monday, in a blow for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the Supreme Court removed Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke from the post of BCCI President and Secretary respectively. The court gave the decision while hearing perjury charges levelled against Thakur by amicus curiae Gopal Subramaniam. Issuing a contempt notice to Thakur, the top court said that the committee of the administrator will look after the affairs of BCCI. "Senior-most Vice President of BCCI will act as President and Joint Secretary will act as Secretary," the Supreme Court said. × The apex court also requested senior advocate Fali Nariman and Gopal Subramaniam to assist in nominating persons of impeccable integrity as members of the committee of administrators. The court further added that all office bearers of BCCI and state associations must give an undertaking to abide by recommendations of Lodha Committee. "All office bearers of BCCI and state associations who refuse to abide by recommendations of Lodha panel shall demit office forthwith," court said. On December 15, the top court had observed that prima facie Thakur appeared to have committed matter of perjury in relation to demanding an intervention via a letter from the International Cricket Council (ICC) in order to sidestep the implementation of the Lodha committee recommendations. The apex court, which was hearing the Lodha panel's third status report which asked for the removal of the top brass of the BCCI, also asked the Amicus Curiae whether Thakur committed perjury or not in the case. In reply, the Amicus Curiae revealed that the BCCI chief, in his affidavit submitted to the top court, had said that he sought Shashank Manohar's opinion as the BCCI chairman, which was denied by the latter saying that it was asked in the ICC meeting. On October 1, the board had accepted many of the "significant recommendations" of the Lodha Committee, but excluded the important ones which have been a bone of contention between the cricket body and the Lodha Panel. (With inputs from PTI and DNA)

India: Will implement Lodha Reforms right away, says BCCI senior vice president

The Supreme Court said on Monday that no politician may seek votes in the name of caste, creed, or religion.

&quot;Any appeal for votes on ground of religion amounts to corrupt practices under electoral laws,&quot; it said.

The court was hearing an application filed by social activist Teesta Setalvad asking it to reconsider its 1995 judgement in which the court said Hindutva is &quot;a way of life and not a religion&quot;.&nbsp;

In her application, Setalvad had said religion and politics should not be mixed and asked that the court pass a directive saying so. &nbsp;

The seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur, said the court would not get into the larger debate of what Hindutva is or what its meaning is -- the dictionary defines it &quot;as an ideology seeking to establish the hegemony of Hindus and the Hindu way of life&quot; -- and nor would it reconsider the 1995 judgement.

The court instead took up a separate plea filed in 1990 asking whether the seeking of votes in the name of religion amounts to a corrupt practice, under the Representation of the People Act, and warrants disqualification.

The court also said elections were a secular exercise.&nbsp;

&quot;Election is a secular exercise and thereby its way and its process should be followed also. Function of an elected representative should be secular,&quot; it said.&nbsp;

The court added that &quot;relationship between man and God is an individual choice and state is forbidden to such an activity,&quot;

It may be recalled that the Bombay high court had set aside the election of Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi in the mid-1990s. The matter was then moved to the Supreme Court which overturned the high court order in 1995 saying Hindutva is a way of life.

Since then the issue has been raised numerous times in the top court including in 2002 when the court referred the matter to a seven-judge bench for clarity.

(With inputs from DNA and ANI)

'Any appeal for votes on ground of religion amounts to corrupt practices under electoral laws,' the court said

The Supreme Court said on Monday that no politician may seek votes in the name of caste, creed, or religion. "Any appeal for votes on ground of religion amounts to corrupt practices under electoral laws," it said. The court was hearing an application filed by social activist Teesta Setalvad asking it to reconsider its 1995 judgement in which the court said Hindutva is "a way of life and not a religion". In her application, Setalvad had said religion and politics should not be mixed and asked that the court pass a directive saying so. The seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur, said the court would not get into the larger debate of what Hindutva is or what its meaning is -- the dictionary defines it "as an ideology seeking to establish the hegemony of Hindus and the Hindu way of life" -- and nor would it reconsider the 1995 judgement. The court instead took up a separate plea filed in 1990 asking whether the seeking of votes in the name of religion amounts to a corrupt practice, under the Representation of the People Act, and warrants disqualification. The court also said elections were a secular exercise. "Election is a secular exercise and thereby its way and its process should be followed also. Function of an elected representative should be secular," it said. The court added that "relationship between man and God is an individual choice and state is forbidden to such an activity," It may be recalled that the Bombay high court had set aside the election of Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi in the mid-1990s. The matter was then moved to the Supreme Court which overturned the high court order in 1995 saying Hindutva is a way of life. Since then the issue has been raised numerous times in the top court including in 2002 when the court referred the matter to a seven-judge bench for clarity. (With inputs from DNA and ANI)

India: No politician can seek votes in the name of caste, creed or religion, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will today hear a petition filed by advocate Harvinder Choudhry seeking a ban on jokes against the Sikh community.

Choudhary had earlier contended that such jokes portray the Sikh community in a&nbsp;negative light and wants such websites, which disseminate such `insensitive` jokes, to be prosecuted under laws that carry a prison term of six months to five years.

The petitioner argued that such jokes on many social network websites portray Sikhs as &#39;unintelligent&#39;, &#39;foolish&#39; and &#39;na&iuml;ve&#39;, making them an easy target of ridicule and racial abuse.

Choudhary, herself belonging to a Sikh family, said that she too had been a target of ridicule and abuse because of such jokes.

The apex court has asked an expert panel headed by former apex court judge HS Bedi to submit draft guidelines so that appropriate orders can be passed to prevent circulation of Sardar jokes on websites.

In July, a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud gave six weeks time for the panel to hold discussions and submit the guidelines.

The bench passed the order after hearing the counsel for various parties including the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) which said that the community is being bullied by such jokes.

(ANI)&nbsp;

Petitioner Choudhary wants websites with such jokes to be prosecuted under laws that carry a prison term of six months to five years

The Supreme Court will today hear a petition filed by advocate Harvinder Choudhry seeking a ban on jokes against the Sikh community. Choudhary had earlier contended that such jokes portray the Sikh community in a negative light and wants such websites, which disseminate such `insensitive` jokes, to be prosecuted under laws that carry a prison term of six months to five years. The petitioner argued that such jokes on many social network websites portray Sikhs as 'unintelligent', 'foolish' and 'naïve', making them an easy target of ridicule and racial abuse. Choudhary, herself belonging to a Sikh family, said that she too had been a target of ridicule and abuse because of such jokes. The apex court has asked an expert panel headed by former apex court judge HS Bedi to submit draft guidelines so that appropriate orders can be passed to prevent circulation of Sardar jokes on websites. In July, a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud gave six weeks time for the panel to hold discussions and submit the guidelines. The bench passed the order after hearing the counsel for various parties including the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) which said that the community is being bullied by such jokes. (ANI)

SC to hear plea seeking ban on jokes aginst the Sikh Community

More than three weeks after the demise of former AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa, the Madras High Court on Thursday raised questions over the death of the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and asked why her body can&#39;t be exhumed.

&quot;Media has raised a lot of doubts, personally I also have doubts in Jayalalithaa&#39;s death,&quot; said Justice Vaidyanathan who was hearing a petition.

<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>A PIL had been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a commission comprising retired Supreme Court judges to look into &#39;questionable incidents&#39; around Jayalalithaa&#39;s death</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=A PIL had been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a commission comprising retired Supreme Court judges to look into 'questionable incidents' around Jayalalithaa's death" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;When she was admitted in hospital, it was said that she was on&nbsp;proper diet. At least after her death now, truth should be revealed,&quot; Vaidyanathan said.

The judge also went on to say that the court could order the exhumation and post-mortem of Jayalalithaa&rsquo;s body, reported The News Minute.

A PIL had been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a commission comprising retired Supreme Court judges to look into &ldquo;questionable incidents&rdquo;, including her sudden hospitalisation, reported recovery, and the cardiac arrest resulting in her death, around Jayalalithaa&#39;s death.

Petitioner PA Joseph, a city resident, listed the sequence of events since Jayalalithaa&rsquo;s admission to Apollo Hospital here on September 22 and claimed that the &ldquo;secrecy&rdquo; preceding her death gave rise to &ldquo;grave doubts&rdquo; in the minds of the people.

The public interest litigation, which listed 12 respondents, including the Apollo Hospitals chairman, is likely to be taken up for hearing by the vacation bench of the court on December 29.

The petitioner pleaded that the commission must peruse all the records, reports and documents that are in possession of the government as well as the hospital and look into &ldquo;several questionable incidents&rdquo;, including her sudden hospitalisation, reported recovery and the subsequent cardiac arrest resulting in her death on December 5.

(This report first appeared in DNA)

'Media has raised a lot of doubts, personally I also have doubts in Jayalalithaa's death,' said Justice Vaidyanathan

More than three weeks after the demise of former AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa, the Madras High Court on Thursday raised questions over the death of the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and asked why her body can't be exhumed. "Media has raised a lot of doubts, personally I also have doubts in Jayalalithaa's death," said Justice Vaidyanathan who was hearing a petition. A PIL had been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a commission comprising retired Supreme Court judges to look into 'questionable incidents' around Jayalalithaa's death × "When she was admitted in hospital, it was said that she was on proper diet. At least after her death now, truth should be revealed," Vaidyanathan said. The judge also went on to say that the court could order the exhumation and post-mortem of Jayalalithaa’s body, reported The News Minute. A PIL had been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a commission comprising retired Supreme Court judges to look into “questionable incidents”, including her sudden hospitalisation, reported recovery, and the cardiac arrest resulting in her death, around Jayalalithaa's death. Petitioner PA Joseph, a city resident, listed the sequence of events since Jayalalithaa’s admission to Apollo Hospital here on September 22 and claimed that the “secrecy” preceding her death gave rise to “grave doubts” in the minds of the people. The public interest litigation, which listed 12 respondents, including the Apollo Hospitals chairman, is likely to be taken up for hearing by the vacation bench of the court on December 29. The petitioner pleaded that the commission must peruse all the records, reports and documents that are in possession of the government as well as the hospital and look into “several questionable incidents”, including her sudden hospitalisation, reported recovery and the subsequent cardiac arrest resulting in her death on December 5. (This report first appeared in DNA)

Why can't her body be exhumed? Madras HC raises questions over Jayalalithaa's death

India&#39;s highest court chastised the federal government for ineffective implementation of its demonetisation policy.

The Supreme Court asked the government how the rich were getting caught with large amounts of money while the ordinary people were struggling to get even Rs 24,000.

&ldquo;People are not getting even ?24,000 per week. Then how come some people have got&nbsp;lakhs&nbsp;of new currency? It seems that there are two kinds of people, one who have plenty of new notes and others who have nothing,&rdquo; the Chief Justice of India TS&nbsp;Thakur asked AG Rohatgi, the Attorney General for India.

The apex court said the banks should not deny minimum weekly withdrawal of Rs 24,000 per week per account and asked to reduce the citizens&#39; inconvenience due to demonetisation.

The apex court on December 9 also asked the government if the decision made by it was constitutional.

Ever since the Narendra Modi administration announced the replacement of old currency notes on November 8, people have been allowed to withdraw not more than Rs 24,000 per week.

Rohatgi alleged that some bank managers were involved in illegal activities but the government was acting against the culprits. He assured that the government was working around-the-clock to smoothen the creases and blamed corrupt bank managers for putting a spanner in the works.

(WION with inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court asked why ordinary citizens were struggling to get money from banks while it was the opposite for the rich

India's highest court chastised the federal government for ineffective implementation of its demonetisation policy. The Supreme Court asked the government how the rich were getting caught with large amounts of money while the ordinary people were struggling to get even Rs 24,000. “People are not getting even ?24,000 per week. Then how come some people have got lakhs of new currency? It seems that there are two kinds of people, one who have plenty of new notes and others who have nothing,” the Chief Justice of India TS Thakur asked AG Rohatgi, the Attorney General for India. The apex court said the banks should not deny minimum weekly withdrawal of Rs 24,000 per week per account and asked to reduce the citizens' inconvenience due to demonetisation. The apex court on December 9 also asked the government if the decision made by it was constitutional. Ever since the Narendra Modi administration announced the replacement of old currency notes on November 8, people have been allowed to withdraw not more than Rs 24,000 per week. Rohatgi alleged that some bank managers were involved in illegal activities but the government was acting against the culprits. He assured that the government was working around-the-clock to smoothen the creases and blamed corrupt bank managers for putting a spanner in the works. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Top court raps Indian govt for demonetisation, remonetisation chaos

More than two weeks after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled Indian government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court against the practice of triple talaq, that allows Muslim men to divorce their wives with the utterance of word &#39;talaq&#39; (divorce), Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday said the government could not allow lives of Muslim women to be destroyed.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;It is the responsibility of the government, and the people of the country, to give justice to Muslim women under the (India) Constitution,&quot; Indian daily DNA quoted him as saying. Modi was addressing a rally in Mahoba, a district in the impoverished Bundelkhand region of northern Uttar Pradesh state.

&nbsp;

&quot;The debate should be between Muslims who want reforms and those who do not want reforms.&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Modi also requested the people not to politicise the issue. &nbsp;&quot;I request (the) people who participate in TV debates not to make women rights into Muslim-Hindu issue. Women&#39;s right is a development issue. Let&rsquo;s take proper measures to give equal rights to women as well.&quot;

&nbsp;

Earlier in its affidavit filed on October 7, India&#39;s ministry of law and justice had referred to the constitutional principles such as 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.

&nbsp;

The law panel&#39;s move was significant as the Supreme Court had recently said it would prefer a wider debate, in public as well as in court, before taking a decision on the constitutional validity of &#39;triple talaq&#39;, which many complain is abused by Muslim men to arbitrarily divorce their wives.

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from DNA)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Indian Prime Minister asked people to not to 'politicise and turn a women's rights issue it into a Hindu-Muslim issue'

More than two weeks after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled Indian government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court against the practice of triple talaq, that allows Muslim men to divorce their wives with the utterance of word 'talaq' (divorce), Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday said the government could not allow lives of Muslim women to be destroyed. "It is the responsibility of the government, and the people of the country, to give justice to Muslim women under the (India) Constitution," Indian daily DNA quoted him as saying. Modi was addressing a rally in Mahoba, a district in the impoverished Bundelkhand region of northern Uttar Pradesh state. "The debate should be between Muslims who want reforms and those who do not want reforms." Modi also requested the people not to politicise the issue. "I request (the) people who participate in TV debates not to make women rights into Muslim-Hindu issue. Women's right is a development issue. Let’s take proper measures to give equal rights to women as well." Earlier in its affidavit filed on October 7, India's ministry of law and justice had referred to the constitutional principles such as 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. The law panel's move was significant as the Supreme Court had recently said it would prefer a wider debate, in public as well as in court, before taking a decision on the constitutional validity of 'triple talaq', which many complain is abused by Muslim men to arbitrarily divorce their wives. (WION with inputs from DNA)

Triple talaq destroying lives of Muslim women, says Indian PM Narendra Modi?

The Supreme Court &nbsp;will hear all matters pertaining to demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes today (December 2).

The pleas will include the transfer petition filed by the Centre seeking stay on all the pending pleas against demonetisation, ANI reported.&nbsp;

The Centre had submitted an affidavit last week, telling the SC that the move is a step to unearth an illegal parallel economy.&nbsp;

&quot;Earlier, we constituted SIT to curb black money, amended Benami Act. The people might have to face some inconveniences. Re-calibration of ATMs is in full swing. Crores of fake currency notes have became useless. Funding of terror groups has been stopped,&quot; said the affidavit.

Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi told ANI&nbsp;that the Centre has&nbsp;filed a report in which it has told the court for the initiation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and addressing &nbsp;other issues that could be affected because of demonetisation.&nbsp;

General Rohatgi had earlier filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on all pending pleas against demonetisation.

The SC had earlier refused to put a stay on hearings in various High Courts and lower courts on the demonetisation process.&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from ANI)

Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi said Centre had filed a report starting from the initiation of SIT and all other issues caused by the move

The Supreme Court will hear all matters pertaining to demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes today (December 2). The pleas will include the transfer petition filed by the Centre seeking stay on all the pending pleas against demonetisation, ANI reported. The Centre had submitted an affidavit last week, telling the SC that the move is a step to unearth an illegal parallel economy. "Earlier, we constituted SIT to curb black money, amended Benami Act. The people might have to face some inconveniences. Re-calibration of ATMs is in full swing. Crores of fake currency notes have became useless. Funding of terror groups has been stopped," said the affidavit. Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi told ANI that the Centre has filed a report in which it has told the court for the initiation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and addressing other issues that could be affected because of demonetisation. General Rohatgi had earlier filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on all pending pleas against demonetisation. The SC had earlier refused to put a stay on hearings in various High Courts and lower courts on the demonetisation process. (WION with inputs from ANI)

Indian Supreme Court to hear all pleas on demonetisation today

The Supreme Court said Friday that it would hear on December 2 a batch of petitions challenging the demonetisation of 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee notes.&nbsp;

The court said it will examine both the constitutional validity of the move, and the inconvenience caused to the people.&nbsp;

&quot;We will examine both aspects (inconvenience and constitutional validity) of the matter. Come on Friday at 2 pm,&quot; said a bench comprising&nbsp;Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had on November 8 announced that 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee notes would cease to be legal tender. He said the move was aimed at doing away with black money -- it was one of his poll promises -- and money used to fund terror. But it also took 86% of the currency in circulation then&nbsp;out of the economy.&nbsp;

As much as 90% of all transactions in India are conducted with cash, and people have been severely inconvenienced by the sudden demonetisation.&nbsp;

A number of petitions have been filed in courts around the country asking that the decision be rolled back, and the government recently moved the Supreme Court asking that all the petitions be transferred either to it or to a high court.&nbsp;

On Friday, the Supreme Court asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the government, to file additional affidavits, if any, explaining the &quot;schemes and steps&quot; taken by the government to ease the situation that has arisen following the demonetisation of the two notes.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the court should start hearing the matter from Tuesday itself.

Rohatgi, however, opposed the contention, saying it would be better to let all the petitioners come to the Supreme Court on December 2, when the court can decide whether it or one of the high courts will hear the petitions. &nbsp;

(WION with inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

The court said it will examine both the constitutional validity of the move and the inconvenience caused to the people

The Supreme Court said Friday that it would hear on December 2 a batch of petitions challenging the demonetisation of 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee notes. The court said it will examine both the constitutional validity of the move, and the inconvenience caused to the people. "We will examine both aspects (inconvenience and constitutional validity) of the matter. Come on Friday at 2 pm," said a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had on November 8 announced that 500-rupee and 1,000-rupee notes would cease to be legal tender. He said the move was aimed at doing away with black money -- it was one of his poll promises -- and money used to fund terror. But it also took 86% of the currency in circulation then out of the economy. As much as 90% of all transactions in India are conducted with cash, and people have been severely inconvenienced by the sudden demonetisation. A number of petitions have been filed in courts around the country asking that the decision be rolled back, and the government recently moved the Supreme Court asking that all the petitions be transferred either to it or to a high court. On Friday, the Supreme Court asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the government, to file additional affidavits, if any, explaining the "schemes and steps" taken by the government to ease the situation that has arisen following the demonetisation of the two notes. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the court should start hearing the matter from Tuesday itself. Rohatgi, however, opposed the contention, saying it would be better to let all the petitioners come to the Supreme Court on December 2, when the court can decide whether it or one of the high courts will hear the petitions. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Demonetisation: Supreme Court to hear petitions challenging move on December 2

The Supreme Court of India on Friday banned the sale of firecrackers until further notice&nbsp;in Delhi and National Capital Region amid rising air pollution in the region.

The apex court has asked the Central Pollution Control Board to file a reply within three months regarding harmful effects of fire crackers .A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Tirath Singh Thakur passed this verdict.

Environmentalists have been seeking the court&#39;s&nbsp;intervention in passing orders for ban on sale of firecrackers due to an alarming&nbsp;increase in the pollution levels&nbsp;in the national capital.

In the wake of rising air pollution in the national capital earlier Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung also decided to ban use of firecrackers, except at religion functions.

(WION with inputs from ANI)

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court asked the Central Pollution Control Board to file a reply within three months regarding harmful effects of fire crackers

The Supreme Court of India on Friday banned the sale of firecrackers until further notice in Delhi and National Capital Region amid rising air pollution in the region. The apex court has asked the Central Pollution Control Board to file a reply within three months regarding harmful effects of fire crackers .A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Tirath Singh Thakur passed this verdict. Environmentalists have been seeking the court's intervention in passing orders for ban on sale of firecrackers due to an alarming increase in the pollution levels in the national capital. In the wake of rising air pollution in the national capital earlier Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung also decided to ban use of firecrackers, except at religion functions. (WION with inputs from ANI)

India: Supreme Court bans firecrackers in Delhi for now

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court, refused to restrain high courts across the country from taking up cases relating to demonetisation, delivering yet another setback to the government.

The government had approached the top court for a stay on the proceedings of the high courts proceedings in demonetisation cases on the ground that the situation was &quot;much better,&quot; PTI reported.&nbsp;

This failed to cut any ice with the top court which refused to stay the ongoing proceedings before the high courts on the grounds that people may get &quot;immediate relief&quot; from them.

&quot;We don&#39;t want to stay it,&quot; a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said. &quot;There are various issues. People may get immediate relief from the high courts.&quot;

The Centre had claimed that the scheme was a &quot;success&quot; since over Rs six lakh crores had already been deposited and about Rs 10 lakh crore was expected to come to the exchequer till December end.&nbsp;

The government&#39;s top law officer, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, also submitted to the apex court that queues in banks, ATMs, post offices had shortened remarkably and, if required, the time limit of depositing and exchanging the Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 old notes could be extended beyond December 30. He also said people had alternatives by way of digital money.

Rohatgi also told the court that demonetising high denomination currency notes of Rs 1000 and Rs 500 was a &quot;move to remove 70 years of slush money&quot; since they constituted 80 to 85 per cent of the legal tender.&nbsp;

&quot;If it takes another 20-30 days to remove it, I do not think its a big deal,&quot; he told the bench. &quot;It is a success till now.&quot;&nbsp;

&quot;The money will be used in the economy and the lending rates will come down,&quot; the attorney general added.&nbsp;

But the bench was not impressed. It observed that people were seriously affected and doors of courts cannot be shut in a situation which &quot;may lead to riots&quot;.

The setback to the government came in quick succession to the Supreme Court&#39;s November 18 ruling in which it had refused to stop high courts from admitting petitions challenging the government&#39;s notification of November 8 to demonetise the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes.&nbsp;

The bench only issued notices and sought the response of those who had approached high courts on the Centre&#39;s plea seeking transfer of the cases to the apex court or any one of the high courts, PTI reported.

Some of the issues which have come up before high courts included removing the weekly limit of Rs 24,000 on withdrawals, challenging the use of old currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 at public utility centres like hospitals and petrol pumps and asking for direction to ensure sufficient cash in ATMs.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The court told the government the doors of the court cannot be shut in a situation where people were seriously affected

India's top court, the Supreme Court, refused to restrain high courts across the country from taking up cases relating to demonetisation, delivering yet another setback to the government. The government had approached the top court for a stay on the proceedings of the high courts proceedings in demonetisation cases on the ground that the situation was "much better," PTI reported. This failed to cut any ice with the top court which refused to stay the ongoing proceedings before the high courts on the grounds that people may get "immediate relief" from them. "We don't want to stay it," a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said. "There are various issues. People may get immediate relief from the high courts." The Centre had claimed that the scheme was a "success" since over Rs six lakh crores had already been deposited and about Rs 10 lakh crore was expected to come to the exchequer till December end. The government's top law officer, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, also submitted to the apex court that queues in banks, ATMs, post offices had shortened remarkably and, if required, the time limit of depositing and exchanging the Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 old notes could be extended beyond December 30. He also said people had alternatives by way of digital money. Rohatgi also told the court that demonetising high denomination currency notes of Rs 1000 and Rs 500 was a "move to remove 70 years of slush money" since they constituted 80 to 85 per cent of the legal tender. "If it takes another 20-30 days to remove it, I do not think its a big deal," he told the bench. "It is a success till now." "The money will be used in the economy and the lending rates will come down," the attorney general added. But the bench was not impressed. It observed that people were seriously affected and doors of courts cannot be shut in a situation which "may lead to riots". The setback to the government came in quick succession to the Supreme Court's November 18 ruling in which it had refused to stop high courts from admitting petitions challenging the government's notification of November 8 to demonetise the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes. The bench only issued notices and sought the response of those who had approached high courts on the Centre's plea seeking transfer of the cases to the apex court or any one of the high courts, PTI reported. Some of the issues which have come up before high courts included removing the weekly limit of Rs 24,000 on withdrawals, challenging the use of old currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 at public utility centres like hospitals and petrol pumps and asking for direction to ensure sufficient cash in ATMs. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's top court refuses to restrain high courts from taking up demonetisation cases

The Lodha panel has submitted a status report to India&#39;s Supreme Court recommending the removal&nbsp;of all Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) office bearers from their posts for failing to implement its recommendations.

The panel recommended that GK Pillai, former Union Home Secretary be appointed as an observer to oversee the administration of the cricket board. The committee also wanted the top court&#39;s nod to empower the observer to appoint secretarial staff, assistance and fix remuneration.

The BCCI-Lodha tussle has been going on for a long time with the cricket board of the country reluctant to implement most of the recommendations of the Supreme Court-appointed panel.

(WION with inputs from DNA)

The BCCI has failed in implementing the Lodha panel's reforms aimed at cleansing the sport in the country and making things streamlined

The Lodha panel has submitted a status report to India's Supreme Court recommending the removal of all Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) office bearers from their posts for failing to implement its recommendations. The panel recommended that GK Pillai, former Union Home Secretary be appointed as an observer to oversee the administration of the cricket board. The committee also wanted the top court's nod to empower the observer to appoint secretarial staff, assistance and fix remuneration. The BCCI-Lodha tussle has been going on for a long time with the cricket board of the country reluctant to implement most of the recommendations of the Supreme Court-appointed panel. (WION with inputs from DNA)

India: Lodha panel recommends removal of cricket board's top officials

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted a plea seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the alleged suicide of senior Indian official B K Bansal, but warned against politicising the &quot;sensitive&quot; case in which the officer had come under the scanner of the central investigating agency, CBI, for allegedly accepting a bribe.

&quot;Don&#39;t politicise the case. It&#39;s a sensitive matter,&quot; a bench comprising Justices J S Khehar and Arun Misra told the senior counsel who had appeared in the matter.

Bansal, a former director general of corporate affairs, was facing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in a corruption case.&nbsp;He and his son allegedly committed suicide at their East Delhi residence on September 27.

Two months before Bansal&#39;s death, his wife and daughter were also found hanging from ceiling fans at their residence.

Former bureaucrat E A S Sarma filed the plea with the apex court seeking the setting up of an SIT&nbsp;to probe the incident admitting which notices&nbsp;were served to the central government and the CBI.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Sarma, said that an SIT probe was needed in the matter as there were serious allegations of torture against CBI officials.

He also sought the prosecution of those allegedly involved in the allaged suicide of Bansal and his family.

Separate suicide notes, ostensibly from Bansal&#39;s wife and daughter,&nbsp;were also recovered, saying that the &quot;CBI raid&quot; caused them &quot;great humiliation&quot;, and they did not want to live after that.

No one was held responsible for their death in these &quot;suicide notes&quot;.

Bansal, an additional secretary-rank officer in the ministry of corporate affairs, was arrested by CBI on July 16 for allegedly accepting a&nbsp;bribe from a prominent pharmaceutical company.

CBI had carried out searches at eight locations in connection with the case during which the agency had claimed to have made cash recoveries. He was later arrested, but released on bail.&nbsp; 
 
(WION with inputs from PTI)

BK Bansal's wife and daughter also left separate suicide notes, saying the "CBI raid" caused them "great humiliation"

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted a plea seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the alleged suicide of senior Indian official B K Bansal, but warned against politicising the "sensitive" case in which the officer had come under the scanner of the central investigating agency, CBI, for allegedly accepting a bribe. "Don't politicise the case. It's a sensitive matter," a bench comprising Justices J S Khehar and Arun Misra told the senior counsel who had appeared in the matter. Bansal, a former director general of corporate affairs, was facing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in a corruption case. He and his son allegedly committed suicide at their East Delhi residence on September 27. Two months before Bansal's death, his wife and daughter were also found hanging from ceiling fans at their residence. Former bureaucrat E A S Sarma filed the plea with the apex court seeking the setting up of an SIT to probe the incident admitting which notices were served to the central government and the CBI. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Sarma, said that an SIT probe was needed in the matter as there were serious allegations of torture against CBI officials. He also sought the prosecution of those allegedly involved in the allaged suicide of Bansal and his family. Separate suicide notes, ostensibly from Bansal's wife and daughter, were also recovered, saying that the "CBI raid" caused them "great humiliation", and they did not want to live after that. No one was held responsible for their death in these "suicide notes". Bansal, an additional secretary-rank officer in the ministry of corporate affairs, was arrested by CBI on July 16 for allegedly accepting a bribe from a prominent pharmaceutical company. CBI had carried out searches at eight locations in connection with the case during which the agency had claimed to have made cash recoveries. He was later arrested, but released on bail. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India bureaucrat suicide: Top court considers special probe team, warns against politicising issue

The presumption of culpability against an accused in a dowry death case under the Evidence Act would be &quot;activated&quot; only when there is a proof that a deceased woman had been subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a major verdict, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy has said if prosecution fails to prove by coherent evidence that an accused charged in a dowry death case has harassed the woman to demand dowry, the person cannot be held guilty by taking refuge of presumption under the Act.

&quot;The presumption (under section 113B of the Evidence Act) as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith,&quot; it said, while acquitting some in-laws of a woman who was found hanging in her matrimonial house in 1996.

The provision to secure convictions in dowry death cases was inserted in the Evidence Act, which provides that instead of presumption of innocence, the accused would be presumed prima facie guilty in such homicides if a woman dies within seven years of marriage and there is proof of cruelty.

The petitioners, who were initially acquitted by the trial court, had approached the apex court against their conviction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court under sections 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 304-B (dowry death) of the IPC.

The husband of the deceased woman had committed suicide in June 1998 when the case was pending before the trial court.

(PTI)

The Supreme Court said the prosecution had to provide 'coherent evidence' that an accused had harassed the woman for dowry

The presumption of culpability against an accused in a dowry death case under the Evidence Act would be "activated" only when there is a proof that a deceased woman had been subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, the Supreme Court has ruled. In a major verdict, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy has said if prosecution fails to prove by coherent evidence that an accused charged in a dowry death case has harassed the woman to demand dowry, the person cannot be held guilty by taking refuge of presumption under the Act. "The presumption (under section 113B of the Evidence Act) as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death," the bench said. "Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith," it said, while acquitting some in-laws of a woman who was found hanging in her matrimonial house in 1996. The provision to secure convictions in dowry death cases was inserted in the Evidence Act, which provides that instead of presumption of innocence, the accused would be presumed prima facie guilty in such homicides if a woman dies within seven years of marriage and there is proof of cruelty. The petitioners, who were initially acquitted by the trial court, had approached the apex court against their conviction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court under sections 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 304-B (dowry death) of the IPC. The husband of the deceased woman had committed suicide in June 1998 when the case was pending before the trial court. (PTI)

Dowry deaths: No convictions without proof, India's top court rules

Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of India&#39;s Delhi, today demanded a Supreme Court-monitored probe into the demonetisation scheme, terming it as a &quot;fraud&quot; aimed at benefiting a &quot;particular political party&quot;, a veiled reference to BJP.

Kejriwal tabled a resolution in the Delhi Assembly in this regard during its one-day emergency session. The resolution, which will be discussed in the AAP-dominated House, also urges Indian President Pranab Mukherjee to direct the Centre to withdraw the measure.

The emergency session, convened to deliberate on the issues arising out of ban on Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes, began on a stormy note and had to be adjourned for 15 minutes soon after Kejriwal tabled the resolution, amid sloganeering against Prime Minister Narendra Modi by AAP MLAs.

Participating in the discussion, AAP&#39;s Okhla MLA Amanatulalh Khan said that Modi will not understand the pain being faced by families due to demonetisation as &quot;he does not have a wife or children&quot;.

Protesting Khan&#39;s remark, Leader of the Opposition Vijender Gupta made certain personal allegations relating to Kejriwal, enraging the AAP MLAs, some of whom came into the well of the House forcing an adjournment.

Earlier, the members also observed a two-minute silence to pay homage to those who lost lives while standing in queues outsides banks and ATMs to withdraw money. Gupta and BJP MLA Jagdish Pradhan walked out protesting against it.

&quot;Resolves to urge upon the President of India to direct the Government of India to withdraw at once the draconian demonetisation scheme and to take necessary steps to institute a high-level probe to be monitored by Supreme Court of India to look into the allegations that the scheme is a fraud on the nation and that it has been launched to benefit a particular political party through its agents in black money market,&quot; the resolution moved by Kejriwal said.

(PTI)

The Indian government last Tuesday announced the withdrawal of higher denomination notes from circulation

Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of India's Delhi, today demanded a Supreme Court-monitored probe into the demonetisation scheme, terming it as a "fraud" aimed at benefiting a "particular political party", a veiled reference to BJP. Kejriwal tabled a resolution in the Delhi Assembly in this regard during its one-day emergency session. The resolution, which will be discussed in the AAP-dominated House, also urges Indian President Pranab Mukherjee to direct the Centre to withdraw the measure. The emergency session, convened to deliberate on the issues arising out of ban on Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes, began on a stormy note and had to be adjourned for 15 minutes soon after Kejriwal tabled the resolution, amid sloganeering against Prime Minister Narendra Modi by AAP MLAs. Participating in the discussion, AAP's Okhla MLA Amanatulalh Khan said that Modi will not understand the pain being faced by families due to demonetisation as "he does not have a wife or children". Protesting Khan's remark, Leader of the Opposition Vijender Gupta made certain personal allegations relating to Kejriwal, enraging the AAP MLAs, some of whom came into the well of the House forcing an adjournment. Earlier, the members also observed a two-minute silence to pay homage to those who lost lives while standing in queues outsides banks and ATMs to withdraw money. Gupta and BJP MLA Jagdish Pradhan walked out protesting against it. "Resolves to urge upon the President of India to direct the Government of India to withdraw at once the draconian demonetisation scheme and to take necessary steps to institute a high-level probe to be monitored by Supreme Court of India to look into the allegations that the scheme is a fraud on the nation and that it has been launched to benefit a particular political party through its agents in black money market," the resolution moved by Kejriwal said. (PTI)

India: Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal demands Supreme Court probe into demonetisation

The Indian Supreme Court today froze Board of Control for Cricket in India&#39;s (BCCI) financial transactions with state cricket associations until it abides by the recommendations of the Lodha panel.&nbsp;

The top court directed the Lodha panel, which was constituted by the SC to review the functioning of BCCI,&nbsp;to appoint independent auditors to investigate all BCCI accounts.&nbsp;

The court also asked BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke to pledge via an affidavit before Justice R M Lodha&#39;s panel and the Supreme Court by December 3, regarding the time they will need to implement the recommended reforms.&nbsp;

The bench was headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur and comprised of Justices D Y Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao.&nbsp;

Justice D Y Chandrachud pronounced the verdict and asked the Lodha panel to set the upper limit of high-value contracts of BCCI to be scanned by the auditors.&nbsp;

The bench ordered a copy of the judgment to be given to International Cricket Council (ICC) chairman Shashank Manohar.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The cricket body's financial transaction with state cricket associations is suspended until it abides by Lodha panel's recommendations

The Indian Supreme Court today froze Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) financial transactions with state cricket associations until it abides by the recommendations of the Lodha panel. The top court directed the Lodha panel, which was constituted by the SC to review the functioning of BCCI, to appoint independent auditors to investigate all BCCI accounts. The court also asked BCCI president Anurag Thakur and secretary Ajay Shirke to pledge via an affidavit before Justice R M Lodha's panel and the Supreme Court by December 3, regarding the time they will need to implement the recommended reforms. The bench was headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur and comprised of Justices D Y Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao. Justice D Y Chandrachud pronounced the verdict and asked the Lodha panel to set the upper limit of high-value contracts of BCCI to be scanned by the auditors. The bench ordered a copy of the judgment to be given to International Cricket Council (ICC) chairman Shashank Manohar. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India: Top court restricts BCCI's financial powers

By Prabhati Nayak Mishra&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Is seeking vote in the name of religion a &quot;corrupt&quot; practice? Or will an appeal by a priest or a cleric to voters of his own community to support a candidate come under the ambit of corrupt practice under the election law?

&nbsp;

These are the questions raised by the Indian Supreme Court which began hearings to revisit its 1995 judgment on &#39;Hindutva&#39;. The apex court was looking at the misuse of religion by religious leaders during campaigning. Religious leaders who have campaigned in the past include the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid and Indian spiritual guru Baba Ramdev.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The court raised a slew of queries on Tuesday before interpreting the provision (Section 123) of the Representation of People Act (RPA) pertaining to &quot;corrupt practice.&quot;

&nbsp;

&quot;Can a person belonging to one community seek votes from members of his community for a candidate belonging to another community? Like a Hindu candidate may use a Muslim religious leader to solicit votes of his community for Hindu candidates by hinting that they would invite &quot;divine displeasure&quot; if they do not vote for a particular candidate,&quot; the bench headed by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur, posed queries without mentioning any names.

&nbsp;

&quot;Even a Muslim candidate may use a Hindu supporter to garner votes of the Hindu community by playing the religious card. Will a candidate be held liable for corrupt practice if he uses the inflammatory speeches of a religious leader to further his own electoral practices?&quot; the bench asked while agreeing to examine the provisions of the electoral law.

&nbsp;

The seven-judge bench comprised Justices Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, Adarsh Kumar Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao. They are hearing two election petitions on the issue by Abhiram Singh and Narayan Singh.

&nbsp;

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, who began the day-long hearing, sought relief for his client, BJP leader and petitioner Abhiram Singh, citing that all others in a similar situation have already got relief from the apex court.

&nbsp;

Referring to 10 such appeals in which the election of candidates were restored, Datar submitted that the Bombay High Court had set aside his election in 1991, as it was alleged that other BJP leaders in their speeches had referred to religion to garner votes for him.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In the famous 1995 verdict, known as &quot;Hindutva judgment&quot;, a three-judge bench, headed by the then chief justice J S Verma had held that Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life for people in the sub-continent and &quot;is a state of mind.&quot;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" hindutva="" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In the famous 1995 verdict, known as " judgment="">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Datar said that, in 1990, two such speeches were made, one by late Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray and the other by the late Pramod Mahajan in which reference to &#39;Hindutva&#39; was made to garner votes for Shiv Sena and BJP candidates.

&nbsp;

Citing other cases like the relief secured by former chief minister of western state of Maharashtra, Manohar Joshi, Datar said that his client&#39;s election to the Maharashtra Assembly in 1990 was set aside in 1991 by the Bombay High Court.

&nbsp;

In the famous 1995 verdict, known as &quot;Hindutva judgment&quot;, a three-judge bench, headed by the then chief justice J S Verma had held that Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life for people in the sub-continent and &quot;is a state of mind.&quot;

&nbsp;

On February 2, 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice RM Lodha, posted the issue for consideration by the seven-judge Bench, along with a reference of seven judges of an appeal already made as early as in August 2002, pending adjudication.

&nbsp;

The judgment was a turning point in elections in Maharashtra after the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, when Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi had promised to turn Maharashtra into &quot;India&#39;s first Hindu State.&quot;

&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court nullified Joshi&#39;s election as by seeking vote in the name of religion, he violated the constitutional commitment to secularism. However, Justice Verma had overturned the high court verdict holding that a candidate would not be guilty of a corrupt practice if he/she appealed to persons to vote, or not to vote, on grounds of religion as long as it was not his/her religion.

&nbsp;

(This story first appeared on DNA)&nbsp;

Indian Supreme Court raised the question as it began hearings to revisit its 1995 judgment on 'Hindutva'

By Prabhati Nayak Mishra Is seeking vote in the name of religion a "corrupt" practice? Or will an appeal by a priest or a cleric to voters of his own community to support a candidate come under the ambit of corrupt practice under the election law? These are the questions raised by the Indian Supreme Court which began hearings to revisit its 1995 judgment on 'Hindutva'. The apex court was looking at the misuse of religion by religious leaders during campaigning. Religious leaders who have campaigned in the past include the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid and Indian spiritual guru Baba Ramdev. The court raised a slew of queries on Tuesday before interpreting the provision (Section 123) of the Representation of People Act (RPA) pertaining to "corrupt practice." "Can a person belonging to one community seek votes from members of his community for a candidate belonging to another community? Like a Hindu candidate may use a Muslim religious leader to solicit votes of his community for Hindu candidates by hinting that they would invite "divine displeasure" if they do not vote for a particular candidate," the bench headed by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur, posed queries without mentioning any names. "Even a Muslim candidate may use a Hindu supporter to garner votes of the Hindu community by playing the religious card. Will a candidate be held liable for corrupt practice if he uses the inflammatory speeches of a religious leader to further his own electoral practices?" the bench asked while agreeing to examine the provisions of the electoral law. The seven-judge bench comprised Justices Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, Adarsh Kumar Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao. They are hearing two election petitions on the issue by Abhiram Singh and Narayan Singh. Senior advocate Arvind Datar, who began the day-long hearing, sought relief for his client, BJP leader and petitioner Abhiram Singh, citing that all others in a similar situation have already got relief from the apex court. Referring to 10 such appeals in which the election of candidates were restored, Datar submitted that the Bombay High Court had set aside his election in 1991, as it was alleged that other BJP leaders in their speeches had referred to religion to garner votes for him. In the famous 1995 verdict, known as "Hindutva judgment", a three-judge bench, headed by the then chief justice J S Verma had held that Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life for people in the sub-continent and "is a state of mind." × Datar said that, in 1990, two such speeches were made, one by late Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray and the other by the late Pramod Mahajan in which reference to 'Hindutva' was made to garner votes for Shiv Sena and BJP candidates. Citing other cases like the relief secured by former chief minister of western state of Maharashtra, Manohar Joshi, Datar said that his client's election to the Maharashtra Assembly in 1990 was set aside in 1991 by the Bombay High Court. In the famous 1995 verdict, known as "Hindutva judgment", a three-judge bench, headed by the then chief justice J S Verma had held that Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life for people in the sub-continent and "is a state of mind." On February 2, 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice RM Lodha, posted the issue for consideration by the seven-judge Bench, along with a reference of seven judges of an appeal already made as early as in August 2002, pending adjudication. The judgment was a turning point in elections in Maharashtra after the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, when Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi had promised to turn Maharashtra into "India's first Hindu State." The Bombay High Court nullified Joshi's election as by seeking vote in the name of religion, he violated the constitutional commitment to secularism. However, Justice Verma had overturned the high court verdict holding that a candidate would not be guilty of a corrupt practice if he/she appealed to persons to vote, or not to vote, on grounds of religion as long as it was not his/her religion. (This story first appeared on DNA)

Is seeking vote in the name of religion a 'corrupt' practice, asks India's top court

India&#39;s top court today decided to reserve its order to pass direction over Justice Lodha committee plea alleging that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is violating the apex court order and committee directions regarding the BCCI reforms.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The president of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Anurag Thakur, however, filed an affidavit and told India&#39;s top court that he had not asked the International Cricket Council (ICC) CEO, Shashank Manohar, to state that the appointment of Justice R M Lodha committee would &quot;tantamount to government interference&quot; in the functioning of BCCI, Indian news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the affidavit, Thakur said:&nbsp;&quot;I am filing this affidavit pursuant to the order dated October 7, passed by this court on whether I had asked the CEO of the ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha Committee was tantamount to government interference in the working of the BCCI.&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;At the outset, it is denied that any such request was put forth by me to the CEO of the ICC,&quot; Thakur said in his affidavit, according to PTI.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

He told the apex court that he said he took part in a recent ICC meeting where he had pointed out to the ICC chief that he, as the then BCCI president, had taken a view that Justice Lodha panel recommendation on appointment of a CAG nominee in the apex council would amount to governmental interference and may invoke action of suspension of the Board from the ICC.

&nbsp;

It&#39;s pertinent to mention that Lodha Committee is a Supreme Court-appointed panel that was formed after the national cricket governing body got embroiled in controversy over alleged siphoning of funds. The panel was formed to overhaul the functioning of BCCI.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;I, therefore, requested him that he being the ICC chairman, can a letter be issued clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President,&quot; the affidavit said. &quot;Manohar explained to me at the meeting that when the stand was taken by him, the matter was pending before this court and had not been decided.&quot;

&nbsp;

The affidavit also mentioned that BCCI had later rejected BCCI&#39;s contention that the appointment of CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India ) nominee in the council would amount to governmental interference, PTI reported. &nbsp;The apex court had held that the ICC would appreciate that the appointment would bring transparency in the finances of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

&nbsp;

According to ICC regulations, national boards must not have government interference in its administrative body. A transgression in this regard could lead to de-recognition of member boards, Indian news agency ANI reported today.

&nbsp;

Earlier during the hearing, SC&nbsp;had dismissed BCCI&#39;s response to the status report filed by the Lodha committee following the board&#39;s failure to meet an important deadline with respect to the implementation of a Memorandum of Associations (MoA), as necessitated by the timelines framed by the Lodha committee, according to ANI.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Justice TS Thakur had criticised the BCCI for transferring Rs 400 crore overnight to its state associations, which was against the Lodha panel&#39;s recommendations.

&nbsp;

Insisting that the national cricket board should have maintained transparency, the &nbsp;court had said: &nbsp;&quot;You can&#39;t transfer Rs 400 crore overnight.&quot; BCCI, on the other hand, had refuted allegations of non-compliance with Lodha panel&#39;s recommendations.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The SC-appointed panel, Lodha Committee, last week, accused the BCCI of defying the apex court`s orders and stalling its proposed reforms. It also recommended the ouster of the entire top brass of the cash-rich cricket body.

&nbsp;

The recommendations, which have still not been accepted by the 30-member BCCI committee, include one-state one-vote, age limit of 70 years, cooling-off period of three years which included the tenure of the administrators, continue with the five-selectors and keeping to retaining the powers of the president and secretary as per the earlier constitution of the board.Defending its action, the BCCI said, &quot;a meeting comprising all members took place, and several recommendations of the Lodha Committee were rejected by voting&quot;.

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from PTI, ANI)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Supreme Court reserved its order to pass direction over Justice Lodha committee plea alleging that BCCI is violating the apex court order

India's top court today decided to reserve its order to pass direction over Justice Lodha committee plea alleging that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is violating the apex court order and committee directions regarding the BCCI reforms. The president of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Anurag Thakur, however, filed an affidavit and told India's top court that he had not asked the International Cricket Council (ICC) CEO, Shashank Manohar, to state that the appointment of Justice R M Lodha committee would "tantamount to government interference" in the functioning of BCCI, Indian news agency PTI reported. In the affidavit, Thakur said: "I am filing this affidavit pursuant to the order dated October 7, passed by this court on whether I had asked the CEO of the ICC to state that the appointment of Justice Lodha Committee was tantamount to government interference in the working of the BCCI." "At the outset, it is denied that any such request was put forth by me to the CEO of the ICC," Thakur said in his affidavit, according to PTI. He told the apex court that he said he took part in a recent ICC meeting where he had pointed out to the ICC chief that he, as the then BCCI president, had taken a view that Justice Lodha panel recommendation on appointment of a CAG nominee in the apex council would amount to governmental interference and may invoke action of suspension of the Board from the ICC. It's pertinent to mention that Lodha Committee is a Supreme Court-appointed panel that was formed after the national cricket governing body got embroiled in controversy over alleged siphoning of funds. The panel was formed to overhaul the functioning of BCCI. "I, therefore, requested him that he being the ICC chairman, can a letter be issued clarifying the position which he had taken as BCCI President," the affidavit said. "Manohar explained to me at the meeting that when the stand was taken by him, the matter was pending before this court and had not been decided." The affidavit also mentioned that BCCI had later rejected BCCI's contention that the appointment of CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India ) nominee in the council would amount to governmental interference, PTI reported. The apex court had held that the ICC would appreciate that the appointment would bring transparency in the finances of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). According to ICC regulations, national boards must not have government interference in its administrative body. A transgression in this regard could lead to de-recognition of member boards, Indian news agency ANI reported today. Earlier during the hearing, SC had dismissed BCCI's response to the status report filed by the Lodha committee following the board's failure to meet an important deadline with respect to the implementation of a Memorandum of Associations (MoA), as necessitated by the timelines framed by the Lodha committee, according to ANI. Justice TS Thakur had criticised the BCCI for transferring Rs 400 crore overnight to its state associations, which was against the Lodha panel's recommendations. Insisting that the national cricket board should have maintained transparency, the court had said: "You can't transfer Rs 400 crore overnight." BCCI, on the other hand, had refuted allegations of non-compliance with Lodha panel's recommendations. The SC-appointed panel, Lodha Committee, last week, accused the BCCI of defying the apex court`s orders and stalling its proposed reforms. It also recommended the ouster of the entire top brass of the cash-rich cricket body. The recommendations, which have still not been accepted by the 30-member BCCI committee, include one-state one-vote, age limit of 70 years, cooling-off period of three years which included the tenure of the administrators, continue with the five-selectors and keeping to retaining the powers of the president and secretary as per the earlier constitution of the board.Defending its action, the BCCI said, "a meeting comprising all members took place, and several recommendations of the Lodha Committee were rejected by voting". (WION with inputs from PTI, ANI)

BCCI-Lodha Committee standoff: India's top court reserves order

India&#39;s apex court on Wednesday&nbsp;allowed Massimiliano Latorre &mdash;&nbsp;one of the two Italian&nbsp;marines&nbsp;facing murder trial &mdash;&nbsp;to stay in his homeland till the international arbitral tribunal decides the jurisdictional issue between the two countries, said Indian channels.

Latorre, along with fellow marine Salvatore Girone, is accused of killing two Indian fishermen they mistook for pirates in 2012.

The court ruled all the conditions that were imposed on Girone would also be applicable to Latorre.

Latorre returned to Italy after suffering a stroke in 2014 and has since stayed there. In 2016 April, the court had allowed Latorre to further delay his return.

In May 2016 the court also allowed Girone to return to Italy.

The dispute has strained relations between India and Italy and its European Union partners.

In an effort to end four years of legal wrangling, both countries have moved their dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

Italy argues that the case should not be heard in India because the incident occurred in international waters. India has said it remains confident the tribunal will decide in its favour.

(Reuters)

Massimiliano Latorre, along with fellow marine Salvatore Girone, is accused of killing two Indian fishermen they mistook for pirates in 2012

India's apex court on Wednesday allowed Massimiliano Latorre — one of the two Italian marines facing murder trial — to stay in his homeland till the international arbitral tribunal decides the jurisdictional issue between the two countries, said Indian channels. Latorre, along with fellow marine Salvatore Girone, is accused of killing two Indian fishermen they mistook for pirates in 2012. The court ruled all the conditions that were imposed on Girone would also be applicable to Latorre. Latorre returned to Italy after suffering a stroke in 2014 and has since stayed there. In 2016 April, the court had allowed Latorre to further delay his return. In May 2016 the court also allowed Girone to return to Italy. The dispute has strained relations between India and Italy and its European Union partners. In an effort to end four years of legal wrangling, both countries have moved their dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Italy argues that the case should not be heard in India because the incident occurred in international waters. India has said it remains confident the tribunal will decide in its favour. (Reuters)

India's top court allows Italian marine to stay in Italy

Mahasweta Devi&rsquo;s Draupadi continues to rile the establishment. At least in the north&nbsp;Indian state of Haryana.&nbsp;The registrar of the&nbsp;Central University of Haryana in Mahendragarh sought an&nbsp;explanation on Septemeber 22&nbsp;from the organisers of a commemorative event celebrating Devi&#39;s life. 
 
The university&#39;s department of English and Foreign Languages had organised a dramatic performance of Devi&rsquo;s famous short story&nbsp;Draupadi&nbsp;on Sunday,&nbsp;September 21 to which a group of people objected. The vice chancellor, Prof M P Singh, has constituted a committee to look into the matter. 
 
Mahasweta Devi, one of the most celebrated contemporary Indian writers, passed away in July this year. The literary world came out with a profusion of messages expressing its loss and many events across universities have been organised to celebrate her life. 
 
&nbsp;

<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It has been alleged that the performance was deliberately timed to undermine the deaths of 18 soldiers in the recent terrorist attack in Uri sector of northern&nbsp;Jammu &amp; Kashmir state.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It has been alleged that the performance was deliberately timed to undermine the deaths of 18 soldiers in the recent terrorist attack in Uri sector of northern?Jammu &amp; Kashmir state.?" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

 
 
In his condolence message, Indian&nbsp;President&nbsp;Pranab Mukherjee, had noted:&nbsp;&ldquo;She was a powerful voice against all forms of oppression and injustice. Her writings reflected the life of downtrodden and her voice was seen as the collective conscience of society reflecting its yearning for justice and equality.&rdquo; &nbsp;Ironically, the President of India is a Visitor of&nbsp;Central University of Haryana. 
 
A group of people had objected to the &lsquo;Epilogue&rsquo; wherein the issue of custodial rapes and sexual harassment by police and army personnel was raised. Perceiving the play as an affront to the dignity of soldiers, the student wings of India&#39;s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and along with&nbsp;Indian National Lok Dal have decided to carry out state-wide protests in Haryana. It has been alleged that the performance was deliberately timed to undermine the deaths of 18 soldiers in the recent terrorist attack in Uri sector of northern&nbsp;Jammu &amp; Kashmir state.&nbsp; 
 
In her reply to the registrar,&nbsp;Snehsata of Department of English and Foreign Languages denies the charges of deliberate maligning and quotes Supreme Court of India&rsquo;s observations regarding custodial atrocities. She also alleges that she&rsquo;s being singled out for &ldquo;being a woman who has raised the issues of women.&rdquo;&nbsp; 
 
(WION)

The varsity hosted a dramatic performance of Devi?s famous short story?Draupadi?to which a group of people objected

Mahasweta Devi’s Draupadi continues to rile the establishment. At least in the north Indian state of Haryana. The registrar of the Central University of Haryana in Mahendragarh sought an explanation on Septemeber 22 from the organisers of a commemorative event celebrating Devi's life. The university's department of English and Foreign Languages had organised a dramatic performance of Devi’s famous short story Draupadi on Sunday, September 21 to which a group of people objected. The vice chancellor, Prof M P Singh, has constituted a committee to look into the matter. Mahasweta Devi, one of the most celebrated contemporary Indian writers, passed away in July this year. The literary world came out with a profusion of messages expressing its loss and many events across universities have been organised to celebrate her life. It has been alleged that the performance was deliberately timed to undermine the deaths of 18 soldiers in the recent terrorist attack in Uri sector of northern Jammu & Kashmir state. In his condolence message, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee, had noted: “She was a powerful voice against all forms of oppression and injustice. Her writings reflected the life of downtrodden and her voice was seen as the collective conscience of society reflecting its yearning for justice and equality.” Ironically, the President of India is a Visitor of Central University of Haryana. A group of people had objected to the ‘Epilogue’ wherein the issue of custodial rapes and sexual harassment by police and army personnel was raised. Perceiving the play as an affront to the dignity of soldiers, the student wings of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and along with Indian National Lok Dal have decided to carry out state-wide protests in Haryana. It has been alleged that the performance was deliberately timed to undermine the deaths of 18 soldiers in the recent terrorist attack in Uri sector of northern Jammu & Kashmir state. In her reply to the registrar, Snehsata of Department of English and Foreign Languages denies the charges of deliberate maligning and quotes Supreme Court of India’s observations regarding custodial atrocities. She also alleges that she’s being singled out for “being a woman who has raised the issues of women.” (WION)

India: Play based on Mahasweta Devi's Draupadi lands organisers in trouble in Central University of Haryana

India&#39;s Supreme Court today, while hearing the Mumbai dance bars case, allowed dance bars having a valid licence to continue business even without CCTV cameras. 
 
The court observed that installing CCTV cameras would mean violation of privacy of patrons visiting these bars. 
 
Bar owners in the coastal city of India had challenged the strict laws imposed by the state government&nbsp;on the functioning of bars. 
 
The Maharashtra government had imposed these rules in a bid to ensure safety of the women working in the dance bars.&nbsp; 
 
On August 30, the apex court had asked the state government to make a new law for grant of a dance bar license and had asked the government to reply within six months. 
 
The Dance Bar Regulation Bill forbids serving alcohol in an area where a performance takes place and heavy penalties are imposed on violation of rules. It also mandates that such establishments must be closed by 11:30 pm. 
 
Dance bar owners felt that the restrictions imposed are unreasonable, some of which include: maintaining a distance of 1 km from religious or educational buildings and closing bars before 11:30 pm. 
 
They say maintaining the distance is impossible in a big city, where space is a constraint and closing the bar early is discriminatory as commercial bars are not forced to do the same.&nbsp; 
 
The government&#39;s counsel,&nbsp;Shekhar Nafade,&nbsp;defended the restrictions stating that the government had the right to make laws which protect its citizens. 
 
(WION with inputs from ANI)

Bar owners in Mumbai had challenged the strict laws imposed by the state government?on the functioning of bars

India's Supreme Court today, while hearing the Mumbai dance bars case, allowed dance bars having a valid licence to continue business even without CCTV cameras. The court observed that installing CCTV cameras would mean violation of privacy of patrons visiting these bars. Bar owners in the coastal city of India had challenged the strict laws imposed by the state government on the functioning of bars. The Maharashtra government had imposed these rules in a bid to ensure safety of the women working in the dance bars. On August 30, the apex court had asked the state government to make a new law for grant of a dance bar license and had asked the government to reply within six months. The Dance Bar Regulation Bill forbids serving alcohol in an area where a performance takes place and heavy penalties are imposed on violation of rules. It also mandates that such establishments must be closed by 11:30 pm. Dance bar owners felt that the restrictions imposed are unreasonable, some of which include: maintaining a distance of 1 km from religious or educational buildings and closing bars before 11:30 pm. They say maintaining the distance is impossible in a big city, where space is a constraint and closing the bar early is discriminatory as commercial bars are not forced to do the same. The government's counsel, Shekhar Nafade, defended the restrictions stating that the government had the right to make laws which protect its citizens. (WION with inputs from ANI)

India's Supreme Court allows dance bars to function without CCTV cameras

A day after an Indian high court transferred the Bulandshahr mother-daughter gang rape case to federal police for investigation after hearing a petition, the minor victim today moved Supreme Court demanding that FIRs be registered against Uttar Pradesh cabinet minister Azam Khan and the erring police officials. 
 
The other demands of the minor victim include the transfer of this case to New Delhi, a court-monitored probe, security and rehabilitation. 
 
Earlier this month, the Samajwadi Party (SP) leader in northern state kicked up a controversy with his insensitive remarks suggesting that this incident of gang rape could be a political conspiracy against the ruling government.&nbsp; 
 
Khan received a flurry of criticism for his comments from the opposition parties, women&#39;s groups as well as the victim&#39;s family members. 
 
The Allahabad High Court, while ordering the inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observed it was &quot;not satisfied&quot; with the police investigation so far. The High Court, which had taken suo motu cognizance of the July 29 incident, also said it intended to &quot;monitor the investigation into the case&quot;. 
 
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DB Bhosale and justice Yashwant Varma passed the order a day after the state government submitted a status report on the investigation into the incident in a sealed cover. 
 
The incident had taken place when six members of a Noida-based family were travelling to Shahjahanpur in western Uttar Pradesh. 
 
At the National Highway passing through Bulandshahr, their car was stopped by criminals, who dragged the 13-year-old girl and her mother out and raped them in a field nearby. 
 
(ANI) 
&nbsp;

Khan raked widespread controversy as he suggested that the gangrape incident could be 'political controversy'

A day after an Indian high court transferred the Bulandshahr mother-daughter gang rape case to federal police for investigation after hearing a petition, the minor victim today moved Supreme Court demanding that FIRs be registered against Uttar Pradesh cabinet minister Azam Khan and the erring police officials. The other demands of the minor victim include the transfer of this case to New Delhi, a court-monitored probe, security and rehabilitation. Earlier this month, the Samajwadi Party (SP) leader in northern state kicked up a controversy with his insensitive remarks suggesting that this incident of gang rape could be a political conspiracy against the ruling government. Khan received a flurry of criticism for his comments from the opposition parties, women's groups as well as the victim's family members. The Allahabad High Court, while ordering the inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observed it was "not satisfied" with the police investigation so far. The High Court, which had taken suo motu cognizance of the July 29 incident, also said it intended to "monitor the investigation into the case". A division bench comprising Chief Justice DB Bhosale and justice Yashwant Varma passed the order a day after the state government submitted a status report on the investigation into the incident in a sealed cover. The incident had taken place when six members of a Noida-based family were travelling to Shahjahanpur in western Uttar Pradesh. At the National Highway passing through Bulandshahr, their car was stopped by criminals, who dragged the 13-year-old girl and her mother out and raped them in a field nearby. (ANI)

Bulandshahr gang rape minor victim moves India's top court, seeks FIR against state minister Azam Khan

India&#39;s top court today lifted a ban on the registration of new high-end diesel vehicles in the national capital, New Delhi after carmakers said they had been left stranded with thousands of unsold sport utility vehicles (SUVs). 
 
Car manufacturers would, however, have to pay a one per cent green tax to compensate for polluting the city&#39;s air, the Supreme Court said in its ruling which would impact vehicles with engine capacity of two litres or more, typical of SUVs, jeeps and other luxury cars. 
 
&quot;Deposit of one per cent levy alone shall entitle manufacturers or dealers and purchasers to have the car registered in Delhi,&quot; a bench headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur ruled.&nbsp;The court also said that it would decide at a later date on whether to impose the green tax on diesel vehicles with smaller engines. 
 
India&#39;s courts have been pushing authorities to act over the filthy air in Delhi, which has been rated as one of the world&#39;s most polluted cities in surveys. 
 
Last December, the Supreme Court temporarily banned the sale of large diesel cars in an attempt to clean up the capital&#39;s toxic air.&nbsp;More than 23 per cent of the cars on Delhi roads run on diesel, according to the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment think tank. 
 
Friday&#39;s verdict came after an appeal by auto giant Mercedes-Benz and an association of auto-makers who said the ban was impacting their sales adversely. 
 
Shares of Mahindra and Mahindra and Maruti Suzuki India ended the day higher following the latest ruling. 
 
It may also be recalled that India&#39;s environment court last month ordered all diesel vehicles older than 10 years be deregistered in the national capital.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>India&#39;s courts have been pushing authorities to act over the filthy air in Delhi, which has been rated as one of the world&#39;s most polluted cities in surveys.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
The national green tribunal (NGT) directed Delhi&#39;s regional transport office to cancel registrations immediately, after police complained of struggling to force the affected cars off the roads. 
 
Delhi&#39;s dangerous smog levels have been ranked &nbsp;as among the worst &nbsp;globally by the World Health Organization (WHO).&nbsp; 
 
The Delhi government has announced a string of measures including driving restrictions in January and in April that took around a million cars off the roads for two weeks. &nbsp;But with nearly 10 million vehicles on Delhi&#39;s roads, campaigners say much more needs to be done. 
 
A WHO study of 3,000 cities released in May placed Delhi in 11th position based on annual average concentration of PM2.5 particles.&nbsp;These particles, less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter, are linked to higher rates of chronic bronchitis, lung cancer and heart disease as they settle deep in the lungs and can pass into the bloodstream. 
 
 
(AFP)&nbsp;

'Deposit of 1% levy alone shall entitle manufacturers or dealers and purchasers to have the car registered in Delhi,' the bench said

India's top court today lifted a ban on the registration of new high-end diesel vehicles in the national capital, New Delhi after carmakers said they had been left stranded with thousands of unsold sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Car manufacturers would, however, have to pay a one per cent green tax to compensate for polluting the city's air, the Supreme Court said in its ruling which would impact vehicles with engine capacity of two litres or more, typical of SUVs, jeeps and other luxury cars. "Deposit of one per cent levy alone shall entitle manufacturers or dealers and purchasers to have the car registered in Delhi," a bench headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur ruled. The court also said that it would decide at a later date on whether to impose the green tax on diesel vehicles with smaller engines. India's courts have been pushing authorities to act over the filthy air in Delhi, which has been rated as one of the world's most polluted cities in surveys. Last December, the Supreme Court temporarily banned the sale of large diesel cars in an attempt to clean up the capital's toxic air. More than 23 per cent of the cars on Delhi roads run on diesel, according to the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment think tank. Friday's verdict came after an appeal by auto giant Mercedes-Benz and an association of auto-makers who said the ban was impacting their sales adversely. Shares of Mahindra and Mahindra and Maruti Suzuki India ended the day higher following the latest ruling. It may also be recalled that India's environment court last month ordered all diesel vehicles older than 10 years be deregistered in the national capital. India's courts have been pushing authorities to act over the filthy air in Delhi, which has been rated as one of the world's most polluted cities in surveys. The national green tribunal (NGT) directed Delhi's regional transport office to cancel registrations immediately, after police complained of struggling to force the affected cars off the roads. Delhi's dangerous smog levels have been ranked as among the worst globally by the World Health Organization (WHO). The Delhi government has announced a string of measures including driving restrictions in January and in April that took around a million cars off the roads for two weeks. But with nearly 10 million vehicles on Delhi's roads, campaigners say much more needs to be done. A WHO study of 3,000 cities released in May placed Delhi in 11th position based on annual average concentration of PM2.5 particles. These particles, less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter, are linked to higher rates of chronic bronchitis, lung cancer and heart disease as they settle deep in the lungs and can pass into the bloodstream. (AFP)

Top court grants reprieve to new, large diesel vehicles in India's national capital, but with 'green tax'

The Supreme Court of India today held that former chief ministers are not entitled for government accommodation for lifetime. 
 
A bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave, which pronounced its verdict on a 2004 plea, said that any such government accommodation should be vacated within two to three months.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;They don&#39;t have the right to occupy government accommodation for lifetime,&quot; the bench also comprising Justices U U Lalit and L Nageswara Rao said. 
 
The judgment came on a plea filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, based out of northern India Uttar Pradesh (UP) state, which had sought a direction against allotment of government bungalows to ex chief ministers and other &#39;non-eligible&#39; organisations.&nbsp; 
 
The NGO had alleged that despite the direction of Allahabad High Court, the UP government had framed ex-Chief Minister&#39;s Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 (non-statutory) for allotting bungalows to successive ex-chief ministers. 
 
The NGO had also contended that the rules framed in 1997 for allotment of government bungalows to ex-chief ministers were unconstitutional and illegal, and those occupying them were allegedly unauthorised occupants under the purview of the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.&nbsp; 
 
The petitioner also said that retention of government accommodation by chief ministers after demitting office was against the Provisions of UP Ministers (Salaries/allowances and other facilities) Act. The judgment on the plea was reserved on November 27, 2014. 
 
(PTI)

The judgment came on a plea filed by an NGO which had sought a direction against allotment of government bungalows to ex chief ministers

The Supreme Court of India today held that former chief ministers are not entitled for government accommodation for lifetime. A bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave, which pronounced its verdict on a 2004 plea, said that any such government accommodation should be vacated within two to three months. "They don't have the right to occupy government accommodation for lifetime," the bench also comprising Justices U U Lalit and L Nageswara Rao said. The judgment came on a plea filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, based out of northern India Uttar Pradesh (UP) state, which had sought a direction against allotment of government bungalows to ex chief ministers and other 'non-eligible' organisations. The NGO had alleged that despite the direction of Allahabad High Court, the UP government had framed ex-Chief Minister's Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 (non-statutory) for allotting bungalows to successive ex-chief ministers. The NGO had also contended that the rules framed in 1997 for allotment of government bungalows to ex-chief ministers were unconstitutional and illegal, and those occupying them were allegedly unauthorised occupants under the purview of the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner also said that retention of government accommodation by chief ministers after demitting office was against the Provisions of UP Ministers (Salaries/allowances and other facilities) Act. The judgment on the plea was reserved on November 27, 2014. (PTI)

No lifetime government accommodation for former chief ministers: India's top court

supreme-court

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

supreme court