Online news channel!

Tag: supreme

Names to be deleted ‘automatically’ from EC list after death

On the issue of far away polling stations, Zaidi said that the ECI is going to formulate a programme under which all polling booths will fall in the radius of two kilometres from voters’ residences.

PTI
Info

<!– –>

0
0
0

TOP
<!– /.block –>TOP <!– /.block –>
<</h2>
Kerala CM hails Supreme Court verdict upholding liquor policy <!– /.block –>
<!– /.block –>
<!– /.block –>
Also ReadIndiaGujarat HC extends bail of Naroda-Patiya convict on health groundsIndiaJ&K HC grants bail to separatist leader Masarat AlamIndiaRajnath Singh visits Mufti Sayeed in AIIMSIndiaNo interviews for government jobs from January 1; skill test may continue: DoPTIndia’Awakened’ Hindus can lead world on path of peace: RSS Gen Sec Suresh JoshiIndiaNo Rs 2000 for people violating Kejriwal’s Odd-Even rule in Delhi <!– /.block –>

<!– /#sidebar-second –>3rd anniversary of Nirbhaya’s death: Victim’s parents to launch nation-wide protest if convicts not given death sentence<!– /.block –>Kerala CM hails Supreme Court verdict upholding liquor policy<!– /.block –> <!– /#content_bottom –>
<!– /11440465/DNA_Article_Desktop_970x90_BTF –><!– /.block –><!– /11440465/DNA_Article_Tablet_728x90_BTF –><!– /.block –> <!– /#bottom_bar –>

<!– footer start –>

Partner site: Zee News
©2015 Diligent Media Corporation Ltd.

<!– footer end –>
<!– ExpCom CGP –>

Centre set to allow bull taming sport ‘Jallikattu’ despite Supreme Court ban

The Supreme Court had banned using bulls for Jallikattu events or bullock-cart races across the country and directed governments and Animal Welfare Board of India to take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. The ban on Jallikattu has dampened Pongal festivities in the state, especially in southern districts where it has been a popular event for centuries, and there has been demands for facilitating its conduct.
Javadekar had earlier hinted that the Centre would consider taking steps, including amending laws to allow the sport.

PTI
Info

<!– –>

0
0
0

TOP
<!– /.block –>TOP <!– /.block –>
<</h2>
Russia may be ‘flexible’ on easing of UN sanctions against Taliban: TASS <!– /.block –>
<!– /.block –>
<!– /.block –>
Also ReadIndiaMumbai Police Twitter handle gets over 10,0000 followers after 24 hrs of its launchIndiaMinor raped on train: Accused remanded to 4 days police custody, 2 armymen still at largeIndiaNo regrets: Arvind Kejriwal defends his ‘Modi is a coward and a psycopath’ comment IndiaGoof up in mouthpiece: Congress suspects handiwork of insiders IndiaEngineers’ murder – Those who challenged law & order during my rule doing it again: Lalu Prasad Yadav IndiaEssel and Zee group Chairman Dr. Subhash Chandra gets threatening call, complaint lodged <!– /.block –>

<!– /#sidebar-second –>Leicester City determined to find ‘winning touch’ against Manchester City<!– /.block –>Russia may be ‘flexible’ on easing of UN sanctions against Taliban: TASS<!– /.block –> <!– /#content_bottom –>
<!– /11440465/DNA_Article_Desktop_970x90_BTF –><!– /.block –><!– /11440465/DNA_Article_Tablet_728x90_BTF –><!– /.block –> <!– /#bottom_bar –>

<!– footer start –>

Partner site: Zee News
©2015 Diligent Media Corporation Ltd.

<!– footer end –>
<!– ExpCom CGP –>

Centre suggests morality provisions for lawyers

The Centre has suggested the Supreme Court make a ruling to debar lawyers for the commission of any offence involving moral turpitude as do other professions like medicine, CA and engineering, as the existing law for advocates is silent.The government also said that the Apex court and high courts have power under the Constitution to frame rules with respect to contempt of court by lawyers.Filing a compilation on the consequence of contempt in related professions other than law, the government said that in professions like medicine, architecture, engineering, charted accountancy, company secretary etc, the respective Acts regulate the professions by debarring professionals on the commission of an offence related to moral turpitude.However, in the Advocates Act there is no provision to debar a lawyer who commits any serious offence involving moral turpitude. Even the Bar Council of India and the state bar councils have the power to suspend or disqualify only when the lawyer is found guilty of the offence, the government said.Furthermore the Advocates Act does not have any provision to debar lawyers from the profession for commission of any serious offence like rape, murder or corruption etc.Suggesting that the Supreme Court should interpret the law and rule on the issue, the government said “The Supreme Court of India should interpret section 24 A of the Advocates Act and give it wider meaning, including in its ambit the provision of debarring a professional if he commits an offence of moral turpitude.”Every high court in India under section 34 (1) of Advocates Act and the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution of India has the power to frame rules with respect to the contempt of court committed by the lawyers,” the government also said.On November 26, while hearing a contempt plea against an advocate for contempt of one of the courts in Uttar Pradesh, the Apex court had sought the Attorney General’s assistance. The court also asked him to give detailed legal provisions in regard to other professions dealing with debarring professionals for the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude.The Allahabad High Court had found the lawyer guilty of contempt of court for his ” repeated” misconduct towards a judge more than a decade ago . The lawyer was also restrained from appearing before the concerned trial judge in Etah.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>

NDA wants to honour all who fought for the country: Ravi Shankar Prasad

“The Central government is studying the legal implications and trying to remove the hurdles in the way of holding jallikattu,” he said. The sport, conducted traditionally co-inciding with the harvest festival of Pongal, held in mid-January, has been banned by the Supreme Court last year and there have been demands for steps to lift the ban.

PTI
Info

<!– –>

0
0
0

TOP
<!– /.block –>South Africa v/s England: Steyn gets his mojo back but England hold firm <!– /.block –>
<</h2>
South Africa v/s England: Steyn gets his mojo back but England hold firm <!– /.block –>
<!– /.block –>
<!– /.block –>
Also ReadIndiaReality Check: Don’t expect much from Indo-Pak talks in January, says Sartaj AzizIndiaTamil Nadu elections: PMK says it will give Dy Chief Minister post to BJPIndiaDelhi govt’s odd-even formula to be a failure: Sheila DikshitIndiaNDA wants to honour all who fought for the country: Ravi Shankar PrasadIndiaVypam scam: Dummy candidate among two get 3-yr jail for forgeryIndiaShiv Sena Punjab asks PM Narendra Modi to apologise for going to Pakistan <!– /.block –>

<!– /#sidebar-second –>EPL 2015: Liverpool does a huge favour to Manchester City and Arsenal<!– /.block –> <!– /#content_bottom –>
<!– /11440465/DNA_Article_Desktop_970x90_BTF –><!– /.block –><!– /11440465/DNA_Article_Tablet_728x90_BTF –><!– /.block –> <!– /#bottom_bar –>

<!– footer start –>

Partner site: Zee News
©2015 Diligent Media Corporation Ltd.

<!– footer end –>

Let Jaitley emulate LK Advani on resignation: Congress

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad reminded that when Advani’s name cropped in Jain Hawala case, he stepped down from public posts and even contest 1998 election, till the Supreme Court absolved him.

Prime Minister Modi, senior leaders LK Advani, Arun Jaitley and Venkaiah Naidu at the BJP parliamentary party meeting
B B Yadav
dna
The Congress and the CPI(M) on Tuesday jumped over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comment that finance minister Arun Jaitley will come out of the DDCA (Delhi District Cricket Association) corruption charges with “flying colours” in the same manner as Lal Krishna Advani did in the Hawala case.Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad reminded that when Advani’s name cropped in Jain Hawala case, he stepped down from public posts and even contest 1998 election, till the Supreme Court absolved him. Azad and Congress’s deputy leader in Rajya Sabha Anand Sharma said the Congress had not “manufactured” any allegation against Jaitley but it came from his own BJP colleague cricket-turned MP Kirti Azad first in a Press conference on Sunday and then in the Lok Sabha on Monday. If Kirti Azad was levelling false charges, why no minister nor any BJP MP rose to contradict him in the House, they asked pointing out how seven ministers led by Venkaiah Naidu were on their feet when a Congress member referred to the charges in the Lok Sabha.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Referring to Kirti’s claim in the House that the Modi government has already ordered a CBI probe in October into the DDCA functioning from 2008 and 2013 and everybody knows who was its president during those years, the Congress leaders asked the Prime Minister to make public all details instead of carrying on a hush-hush inquiry to help Jaitley.Showing flexibility from its earlier demand of instituting a joint parliamentary committee (JPC), Congress on Tuesday switched to demanding an impartial time-bound court-monitored probe. The leaders said Jaitley should step down during the inquiry for the sake of own dignity and honour and generate a public confidence into such an investigation. They said a lot has come into public domain against him since the CBI raid on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s office to look for report of a probe ordered by him into the DDCA.Azad and Sharma said the inquiry cannot be free and fair if Jaitley continues as the finance minister, particularly when the Enforcement Directorate and Serious Frauds Investigation Office (SFIO) that will be involved in the probe come under his ministry. Surjewala challenged Jaitley to make public the SFIO report in which he claims to have got a clean chit, pointing out that it probes the corporate bodies and no any individuals and that it did indict the corporates involved in the DDCA corruption.The Congress leaders also claimed that Jaitley had the inkling of all wrongs in DDCA from the beginning as he had opposed, as then leader of Opposition, the then UPA government’s move to bring the sports bodies into the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Surjewala said it were the Congress that wanted to bring all sports bodies under RTI in 2011 when Ajay Maken was the sports minister but it gave up because of no consensus reached. “We did not have the majority in the Rajya Sabha to push for it when then leader of Opposition opposed.”

Jaitley row: Opposition latches on to Advani parallel

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

Arun Jaitley

Reuters
Opposition on Tuesday claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has signalled to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to quit in the wake of DDCA row by drawing a parallel with LK Advani in the Hawala case, a suggestion BJP rejected outright.”Today I heard Prime Minister saying that Jaitley will come out of this like L K Advani in the Jain Hawala case. I will remind Jaitley that Advani had then resigned and had not come back till he got clean chit from the Supreme Court”, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad told reporters. “So the Prime Minister seems to be telling Jaitley that he should not continue as Finance Minister till he gets cleared”, he said addressing a joint press conference with party leaders Anand Sharma and Randeep Surjewala.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Striking a similar note, CPI-M General Secretary Sitaram Yechury said by drawing a parallel with Advani, the Prime Minister is giving a hint to Arun Jaitley that he should resign, get himself cleared and come back.”I read it as a signal to Jaitley that you also do the same thing”, he said talking separately to reporters. In a strong show of support for Jaitley, Modi today said at BJP parliamentary party meet that he will come through “with flying colours” against charges of corruption levelled against him by the opposition in a same way Advani did in the Hawala case.Senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh also tweeted, “Modi: ‘I am sure Arun Jaitley would come out clean as Advaniji did in Hawala case’. But would Jaitley resign as Advaniji did ? No question!”The BJP was quick to dismiss such claims. “There is no parallel between charges against Advani and Jaitley. CBI had registered a case, launched a criminal investigation and Advani quit as an MP on moral grounds. There is no criminal probe against Jaitley. These are allegations levelled by opposition which are unsupported by evidence.”In fact, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office probe was carried out into these allegations when Congress was in power. It stated that there was no fraud or cheating. Due to political rivalry, Congress is ignoring its government’s inquiry. It has no moral right to level such a charge,” BJP secretary Shrikant Sharma said. BJP leaders noted that the SFIO probe was launched on the complaint of party MP Kirti Azad, who has again targeted Jaitley over the issue after AAP and Congress raked it up. First Congress disrupted Parliament over a case in which its leaders are accused of “grabbing” Rs 5000 cr assets by investing only Rs 50 lakh and now they have resorted to levelling false charges against Jaitley to do it, Sharma said.The AICC briefing saw the Congress leaders utilising to the hilt Kirti Azad’s assertions in the Lok Sabha on the issue yesterday, contending that none of the Ministers of party MPs present contested his charges. “It means all of them were agreeing to what Kirti Azad was saying”, the Leader of the Opposition said adding that the BJP member had also spoken of a CBI inquiry having been ordered into the DDCA. He sought to know from the government whether if such an inquiry has been ordered as Kirti Azad had said, at what stage it is now.The Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha also suggested that Jaitley’s opposition to the earlier UPA government’s plans to bring sports bodies under the RTI appeared to be linked to the DDCA affairs.He said that whether it is the Lalit Modi controversy or some other scandals, the sports bodies are there.Surjewala said that the Congress was ready to provide full cooperation to the government in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha if the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister bring a bill to bring sports bodies under RTI to address the issue of transparency. Seeking to drive home its demand for Jaitley’s resignation, Azad also noted that the Supreme Court in a judgement in January 2011 had held that office bearers of cricket associations are also public servants and all within the prevention of corruption act.

Animal Welfare Board wants annual Buffalo race in Karnataka to be cancelled

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The inspection reports explained the apparent violations of the specific conditions set by the Karnataka High Court under which it allowed Kambala, the letter said.

Buffalo Race also known as ‘Kambala’ event. Image Courtesy: Flickr.com

The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has written to Karnataka Chief Secretary and Deputy Commissioners of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts, asking them to take immediate steps to stop the ‘Kambala’ (annual Buffalo race in muddy fields) events in the current season.Acting on a complaint from People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India, AWBI said that the Supreme Court judgement of May 7, 2014, banning all bull races in the country was still in force. AWBI had inspected three Kambala events in 2014-15, resulting in filing of 65 non-cognisable offence complaints and one First Information Report at a local police station. The inspection reports explained the apparent violations of the specific conditions set by the Karnataka High Court under which it allowed Kambala, the letter said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”Kambala events are inherently cruel and are no different from bull races and jallikattu, which are banned by the Supreme Court in the entire country,” it said.However, district administrations of Udupi and DK have decided to allow the events under strict supervision of police and revenue officials with video recording to detect ill treatment of animals, like it was done last year.Kambala season in the coastal region begins in November and lasts till March. Five events have already been held this year starting with Surya Chandra Kambala at Bangadi in DK on November 21.

Juvenile Justice Bill shouldn’t be passed, says Ram Jethmalani

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

“I don’t know if it will be passed, but according to me it shouldn’t be passed,” Jaithmalani told reporters.

Former law minister Ram Jethmalani

File Photo
Former law minister Ram Jethmalani, on Tuesday, said that there is no need to amend the Juvenile Justice Bill, adding that it was totally ‘unnecessary’ to change it just because of one incident.”I don’t know if it will be passed, but according to me it shouldn’t be passed,” Jaithmalani told reporters.”The Juvenile Justice Bill is completely fine and there is no need to amend it just because of one incident. It is totally unnecessary,” he added.The BJP had earlier assured disappointed Nirbhaya’s parents that the Juvenile Justice Bill would be passed in the Parliament, on Tuesday.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Meanwhile, Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien said the Bill should be passed in the Parliament without any further delay after having a healthy discussion.The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on also stuck to their guns in opposing the Juvenile Justice Bill, saying ‘lowering the age of juveniles is not in the interest of justice’.With the Supreme Court is showing its inability to prohibit the release of the juvenile in the Nirbhaya gangrape case in the absence of laws, telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had said, on Monday, the ruling dispensation at the Centre is keen to pass the Juvenile Justice Bill and was also ready to bring supplementary agenda on it in the Parliament.The apex court had dismissed the petition of Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal against the release of the juvenile offender in the December 16 gang rape case, saying ‘there has to be a clear legislative sanction’ in this regard.Rejecting the DCW’s petition, the apex court earlier said that under existing law detention cannot go beyond three years.

BJP assures Nirbhaya’s parents over Juvenile Justice Bill

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

“We have been assured that Juvenile Justice Bill will be passed in Rajya Sabha today. He (juvenile) would not have been released if this bill had passed six months ago. Be it delayed, but we want this bill to be passed in Parliament,” Nirbhaya’s mother said.

Nirbhaya’s mother Asha Devi

ANI
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Tuesday assured disappointed Nirbhaya’s parents that the Juvenile Justice Bill would be on Tuesday passed in the Parliament.”We have been assured that Juvenile Justice Bill will be passed in Rajya Sabha today. He (juvenile) would not have been released if this bill had passed six months ago. Be it delayed, but we want this bill to be passed in Parliament,” Nirbhaya’s mother said.After meeting Nirbhaya’s parents Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi asserted that there should not be any delay in the passing of this bill. “We salute the initiative that has been taken by Nirbhaya’s parents. We had listed the Juvenile Justice Bill 12 times in the Monsoon Session but unfortunately, the Parliamentary proceedings could not take place and eventually the bill was not passed,” Naqvi told media after meeting Nirbhaya’s parents.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”So far, we have listed this bill for five times in the ongoing Winter Session. We are confident that this bill would be passed by the Rajya Sabha today. We believe that there should not be any delay to bring a stringent law,” he added.With the Supreme Court showing its inability to prohibit the release of the juvenile in the Nirbhaya gangrape case in the absence of laws, telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had on Monday said the ruling dispensation at the Centre is keen to pass the Juvenile Justice Bill and was also ready to bring supplementary agenda on it in the Parliament.The apex court had dismissed the petition of Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal against the release of the juvenile offender in the December 16 gang rape case, saying ‘there has to be a clear legislative sanction’ in this regard. Rejecting the DCW’s petition, the apex court earlier said that under existing law detention cannot go beyond three years.

Nirbhaya’s parents meet Ghulam Nabi Azad, seek passage of Juvenile Justice Bill in Rajya Sabha

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

On a day the Supreme Court rejected a plea against the release of juvenile offender in the December 16 gangrape case, the government said the amendments to Juvenile Justice Act that will allow children between 16-18 years to be tried as adults in heinous crime cases will come up before Rajya Sabha on Tuesday.

Nirbhaya’s parents participated in a candlelight march at Jantar Mantar in the national capital along with hundreds of youths and activists.

PTI
Parents of the December 16 gangrape victim on Monday met Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, seeking the passage of the Juvenile Justice Bill which will allow children between 16-18 years to be tried as adults in heinous crime cases.”We have been assured that the bill will be passed tomorrow and we believe that. Now, it is not the right time to talk about him (the juvenile convict of the gangrape case) as he is a free man and there is no law to hold him back. Our fight is not only for us but for all women and girls,” the victim’s father Badri Singh Pandey told reporters after meeting the Congress leader at the latter’s residence.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>On a day the Supreme Court rejected a plea against the release of juvenile offender in the December 16 gangrape case, the government said the amendments to Juvenile Justice Act that will allow children between 16-18 years to be tried as adults in heinous crime cases will come up before Rajya Sabha on Tuesday.However, Congress had earlier in the day termed this move as “brazen mischief” by the government, alleging it was to “defame the opposition” and divert attention from DDCA issue.”Let them not do this mischief. This is a total brazen mischief on the part of the government… This is only to divert the attention of the opposition from raising other issues, about DDCA,” Azad said, adding that the Congress will support the Juvenile Justice Bill in the Upper House.Before meeting Azad, Nirbhaya’s parents participated in a candlelight march at Jantar Mantar in the national capital along with hundreds of youths and activists. Amid protests, the juvenile convict in the case was sent to an NGO in Delhi yesterday.The victim’s mother Asha Devi said notwithstanding the release of the juvenile convict yesterday, she and her husband will continue their fight to ensure death penalty for the rest of the convicts who are currently lodged in Tihar jail.

DCW chief Swati Maliwal appeals to MPs to pass Juvenile Amendment Bill

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The apex court earlier on Monday dismissed the petition of DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal against the release of the juvenile offender in the gang rape case, saying ‘there has to be a clear legislative sanction’ in this regard.

DCW Chief Swati Maliwal
File Photo
PTI
After the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea by the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) against the release of the juvenile offender in the December 16 gang-rape case, DCW chief Swati Maliwal urged the Rajya Sabha MPs to unitedly pass the juvenile law.”Yesterday, I had met Hamid Ansari ji and he had assured me that he will produce it. I am very happy that tomorrow it will be produced. I appeal to all the MPs to unite to pass this bill, otherwise it will be a tight slap to all the Nirbhaya’s of the nation,” Maliwal told ANI.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”I just got to know that within a minute, three laws were passed in the Rajya Sabha. I want to know why this Juvenile Justice Act Amendment bill was not passed in the last three years and how much more time will the Rajya Sabha take to pass this bill? How many more Nirbhaya’s will be created in this nation, after which the Rajya Sabha will pass the bill?” she added.The apex court earlier on Monday dismissed the petition of DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal against the release of the juvenile offender in the gang rape case, saying ‘there has to be a clear legislative sanction’ in this regard.Disappointed with Supreme Court’s decision, Nirbhaya’s parents on Monday said that the women of this country will never get justice. Rejecting the DCW’s petition, the apex court earlier said that under existing law detention cannot go beyond three years.The parents of the victim protested in the national capital on Sunday. Hundreds of sympathisers joined them at Rajpath near India Gate to show solidarity. The victim’s mother had said that she wanted justice for her daughter and said steps should have been taken long before to not set him free. Six persons, including the juvenile, had assaulted and raped Nirbhaya in a moving bus in south Delhi on December 16, 2012.The victim succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital. Four of the accused were awarded death penalty by the trial court which was later confirmed by the Delhi High Court. Their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. Another accused, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in 2013.

Nirbhaya Case: Centre says Juvenile Justice Amendment Law is ‘high priority’

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

‘On behalf of the Central Government, we were specifically asked as to what our stand is. Keeping in mind the interest of the society and the issue of juvenile himself, we submitted that we are in favour of purposive interpretation of the law in such a fashion that it could be adopted to ensure that the society is not endangered also to assure the safety of the juvenile,’ she added.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who appeared for the Centre in the hearing of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) plea, on Monday said that Juvenile Justice Amendment Law is a high priority item for the ruling dispensation at the Centre. ‘The arguments put by the petitioner, DCW, were that the law should be interpreted in a fashion which should be in favour of society to say this that until the reform process is completed, till then the juvenile should not walk free in society because it is a danger to society as well as a danger to the juvenile himself,’ Anand told ANI.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>’On behalf of the Central Government, we were specifically asked as to what our stand is. Keeping in mind the interest of the society and the issue of juvenile himself, we submitted that we are in favour of purposive interpretation of the law in such a fashion that it could be adopted to ensure that the society is not endangered also to assure the safety of the juvenile,’ she added.Anand further asserted that on behalf of the Central Government they urged that the Juvenile Justice Amendment Law is before the Rajya Sabha and the attempt was to go through it as quickly as possible. It is a high priority item for the government. It is extremely important that this act should go through as quickly as possible.The apex court earlier on Monday dismissed the petition of DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal against the release of the juvenile offender in the December 16 gang rape case, saying ‘there has to be a clear legislative sanction’ in this regard. Disappointed with Supreme Court’s decision, Nirbhaya’s parents on Monday said that the women of this country will never get justice.Rejecting the DCW’s petition, the apex court earlier said that under existing law detention cannot go beyond three years. The parents of the victim protested in the national capital yesterday. Hundreds of sympathisers joined them at Rajpath near India Gate to show solidarity. The victim’s mother had said that she wanted justice for her daughter and said steps should have been taken long before to not set him free. Six persons, including the juvenile, had assaulted and raped Nirbhaya in a moving bus in south Delhi on December 16, 2012. The victim succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital. Four of the accused were awarded death penalty by the trial court which was later confirmed by the Delhi High Court. Their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. Another accused, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in 2013.

Nirbhaya case | Black day for women of country: Maliwal on Supreme Court plea dismissal

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

“It is a black day for women in history of the country. I also believe that the Rajya Sabha has cheated the country by keeping the law pending which could have facilitated stronger punishment for juveniles in heinous crimes,” the chief of Delhi Commission for Women told reporters outside the Supreme Court.

DCW chief Swati Maliwal on Monday termed it a “black day” for women after the Supreme Court dismissed her last-minute plea against the release of juvenile convict in December 16 gangrape case and said the country has been “cheated” as a proposed law which could have allowed stronger punishment to him remains pending in Rajya Sabha.”It is a black day for women in history of the country. I also believe that the Rajya Sabha has cheated the country by keeping the law pending which could have facilitated stronger punishment for juveniles in heinous crimes,” the chief of Delhi Commission for Women told reporters outside the Supreme Court.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>She was referring to the bill to amend the Juvenile Justice Act which remains stuck in the Rajya Sabha. The proposed amendment bill seeks stringent punishment for children aged 16-18 years involved in heinous crimes.”The judges told me that they share our concerns but there is no provision to subvert the existing law. I think the time for candle marches is over and women should pick up mashaals (torches) instead to demand for justice,” Maliwal added.Hours before the juvenile was to be freed from an observation home on completion of his three year term at Majnu Ka Tila, Maliwal had moved the Supreme Court on the intervening night of Saturday and Sunday in a last-ditch effort to try and stall the release.In its post midnight order, the Supreme Court had declined to stop the release of the juvenile offender and posted the matter before a vacation bench to be heard on Monday.Amid continued protest by the victim’s parents, the juvenile convict was yesterday released and sent to an NGO at an undisclosed destination with police no longer guarding him.The Supreme Court today dismissed Maliwal’s plea saying “there has to be a clear legislative sanction” in this regard.The vacation bench comprising justices A K Goel and U U Lalit’s bench also did not agree with the submission that the juvenile offender can be subjected to the reformation process for a further period of two years under the juvenile law.

How many Nirbhayas needed for laws to change: Victim’s parents

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The victim’s mother Asha Devi said her fight against the system would continue.

PTI
With the Supreme Court rejecting the plea against release of the juvenile convict, the parents of the December 16 gangrape victim today said the courts have failed them and asked how many Nirbhayas would it take for the laws to change.The victim’s mother Asha Devi said her fight against the system would continue.”We were not very hopeful that the Supreme Court will give a favourable verdict but I want to ask how many Nirbhayas are needed for the laws to change in the country,” the victim’s father Badri Singh Pandey told reporters.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”The court is not bothered about the concerns of the public….This fight is not just about Nirbhaya but for every girl who is unsafe in a country which has such laws,” he added.The victim’s mother said she would fight till the law is changed.”I will not be defeated, the SC decision can’t stop me, I have to fight a long battle, I will fight till the bill is passed and law is changed.”The court is saying that the law does not permit further punishment for the juvenile but why is the case against other convicts still pending. Why have they not been hanged yet?,” she said.The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea of DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal against the release of the juvenile offender, saying “there has to be a clear legislative sanction” in this.

Nirbhaya case: Supreme Court to hear DCW plea against juvenile release today

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The vacation bench, comprising Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit, will take up the plea. The matter was referred to the vacation bench by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur. The convict, who is now 20 years old, was reportedly shifted from a correctional centre to an NGO on Sunday.

Supreme Court to decide on release on juvenile
File Photo

A vacation bench of the Supreme Court will on Monday hear a petition filed by the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) against the release of the juvenile offender in the December 16 gang-rape case.The vacation bench, comprising Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit, will take up the plea. The matter was referred to the vacation bench by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur. The convict, who is now 20 years old, was reportedly shifted from a correctional centre to an NGO on Sunday.Meanwhile, parents of the victim protested in the national capital on Sunday against the juvenile convict’s release. Hundreds of sympathisers joined them at Rajpath near India Gate to show solidarity. The victim’s mother said she wanted justice for her daughter and said steps should have been taken long before to not set him free.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Six persons, including the juvenile, had assaulted and raped Nirbhaya in a moving bus in south Delhi on December 16, 2012.The victim succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital. Four of the accused were awarded death penalty by the trial court which was later confirmed by the Delhi High Court. Their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. Another accused, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in 2013.

Juvenile convict in Dec 16 gangrape case walks free; Nirbhaya’s parents protest, get detained

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The freedom for the 20 year-old convict came as parents of the gangrape victim continued their protest for the second day today along with activists protesting against his release and demanding death for him.

Mother of Dec 16 gangrape victim, Asha Devi being detained by police for protesting at India Gate in New Delhi on Sunday

PTI
The juvenile convict in the December 16 gangrape was on Sunday released and sent to an NGO at an undisclosed destination with police no longer guarding him, amid continued protest by the victim’s parents.The freedom for the 20 year-old convict came as parents of the gangrape victim continued their protest for the second day today along with activists protesting against his release and demanding death for him.”We have left him with an NGO,” police sources said. Government sources said when asked two days back whether he would like to go home in Badaun in Uttar Pradesh or to an NGO, he opted for the latter citing security concerns.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Delhi Police on Sunday detained the family members and protestors of Nirbhaya who were protesting against the release of the juvenile convict in the December 16 gang rape case at Rajpath. Nirbahaya’s parents while protesting had asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi as to when justice would be delivered to them. “We demand that the juvenile should not be released. I met the Prime Minister last year but I didn’t get any answer. Today I want to meet the Prime Minister again and I want to ask him when would I get the justice”, Nirbhaya’s mother told the media here. The release became possible notwithstanding the Delhi Commission for Women’s late night effort to stall it failed after the Supreme Court post-midnight held a sitting and refused to stay it. In its order, the Supreme Court declined to stop the release of the juvenile offender and posted the matter before a vacation bench that will hear the matter tomorrow. Swati Maliwal, chairperson of the DCW which had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court had also declined to stay his release, hoped that since the matter has become sub judice, the government and Delhi Police will not release the juvenile offender.”We are helpless as far as the release is concerned. Our government, whether Centre or state, they only listen to you when you protest and get lathicharged, else they don’t care,” said the victim’s father Badri Singh Pandey.Asha Devi, the victim’s mother said, “All knew that he will be released, so adequate steps should have been taken in the past three years.” The Special Leave Petition filed by DCW against the order of the Delhi High Court refusing to restrain the release of the convict, was referred by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur to the vacation bench.Lawyers associated with the case, including senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar and Devdutt Kamath, had rushed to Justice Goel’s residence at around 1.30 AM after Maliwal was told by the Registrar that the matter has been assigned to the vacation bench.The grounds which has been taken in the appeal against the High Court order says that no mental assessment of the state of mind of the juvenile offender has been taken into account for his release.Kamath said that there are intelligence reports that even during his stay in the provision home, the convict was unremorseful of his action and he has been further radicalised. So at this stage, it cannot be said that he is not a threat to the society.The SLP has also stated that though the High Court was of the view that there was a need for mental assessment of the convict, there was no direction that before his release the authorities should go for a health and mental assessment of the offender.The convict, who is now 20 years old and was known to be the most brutal of the attackers, was yesterday taken to an undisclosed location from a correction home in North Delhi amid concerns that there was a threat to his life.Delhi government has said it had submitted a rehabilitation plan for the juvenile convict. The government said that as per the plan, a one-time financial grant of Rs 10,000 will be given to the youth and a sewing machine will be arranged for him so that he can rent a tailor shop.The convict along with five others had gangraped and murdered the 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on December 16, 2012, an incident that shook the nation and led to protests in the country.He was sentenced to three years in a reform home ‘Place of Safety’ in north Delhi’s Magazine Road by Juvenile Justice Board, a punishment which drew criticism from several quarters saying it was not adequate and was disproportionate in view of the heinous crime he had committed. There were also demands that he be tried in an adult court.

IITians are not Indians, says Markandey Katju

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

“Please don’t have any illusions, I also don’t have any illusions about you. You are not Indians. I don’t regard you as Indians.”

Markandey Katju

zeenews.com
Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju calls IITians non-Indians while addressing the students of Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay.He visited the Institution on Friday to speak on various issues. He said that the students of IIT do not have genuine love for the country and they are utterly selfish with no patriotism or idealism left among them.Later he took to twitter where he posted “Most of you IIT students have no genuine love for the country. You are utterly selfish, with no patriotism or idealism.”Katju further said, “Please don’t have any illusions, I also don’t have any illusions about you. You are not Indians. I don’t regard you as Indians.”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>He even said that he doesn’t expect anything from IIT students.”India should not have any hopes from you because eventually you will serve America or Germany,” he added.In his Facebook post, Katju mentioned that IIT students are utterly selfish.
He wrote, “All you want is to migrate to America (and most of you manage to do that), usually by first going for an M.Tech degree there (for which you get a scholarship), and then settling down there and enjoying comfortable life — and to hell with India.”Not only that, he even went on to the tax sector where he said, “Your education in IIT is largely subsidized by the Indian taxpayer. But after we Indians pay for your education, you are taken away by America who benefit form your knowledge, which was imparted by us.He lashed at IITians and further mentioned, “And after settling down in America, you will become NRIs — supercilious know-alls, who will give lectures to Indians about what is good for them and what is not.”

Nirbhaya case: DCW chief Maliwal writes to Juvenile Justice Board asking them not release convict

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

Maliwal has written to the Juvenile Justice Board asking them not to release the convict.

DCW chief Swati Maliwal

DCW chief Swati Maliwal hoped that the juvenile offender in the December 16 gangrape case will not walk free today as scheduled as her plea against his release will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow.In a dramatic post-midnight move, the Delhi Commission for Women had approached the Supreme Court to stay release of the juvenile convict, who is now 20 years old and was known to be the most brutal of the attackers.”How many more Nirbhayas will we create before we change the system. Nirbhayas rapist should not be released under any circumstances today,” Maliwal tweeted. “SC accepted r petition. Matter listed on Monday as Item No 3. Case subjudice now. Nirbhaya rapist should not be released until case heard,” she said in another tweet.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Maliwal has written to the Juvenile Justice Board asking them not to release the convict.A vacation bench comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit in their order pronounced at 2 AM, posted the matter for hearing on Monday.Related Read: Nirbhaya case: Everyone in India is against release of the convict, says DCW Chief Swati MaliwalThe Special Leave Petition filed by DCW against the order of the Delhi High Court, which refused to restrain the release of the convict, was referred by the Chief Justice of India TS Thakur before the vacation bench.After the order by the court, DCW chairperson and the lawyers of the women’s panel hoped that since the matter has become sub judice, the government and Delhi Police will not release the juvenile offender on Sunday as scheduled.On Saturday, the juvenile was moved out of Delhi even as distraught parents of the victim strongly kept on opposing his release. The parents were briefly detained by the police after they held a protest against the convict’s release.Sources said that the convict was taken to an undisclosed location from a correction home in North Delhi amid concerns that there was threat to his life. They said the juvenile has been kept under observation of an NGO under protection of Delhi Police.When contacted, the father of the victim said that they had gathered for a peaceful demonstration near the correction home in Majnu Ka Tila against the release of the juvenile convict but the police detained them.The convict is likely to walk free from the undisclosed location today, in adherence to the existing legal provision, the sources added. Delhi government has said it had submitted a rehabilitation plan for the juvenile convict.

Nirbhaya case: AAP, DCW playing shameful politics on juvenile’s release, says Congress

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

Expressing grief over the release of the juvenile, Congress leader Sharmistha Mukherjee said that it is really sad that the main accused will be released just because of his age.

Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit

Condemning the release of the juvenile involved in the December 16 gang rape case, the Congress on Sunday alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) is doing shameful politics over the issue. “The DCW and Delhi government is doing politics in this matter. If they had a stand against the release they would have done it long back. It is very shameful that the Chief Minister and DCW chief is doing politics over this,” Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit told ANI in Delhi. Expressing grief over the release of the juvenile, Congress leader Sharmistha Mukherjee said that it is really sad that the main accused will be released just because of his age.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Related Read: Nirbhaya case: Everyone in India is against release of the convict, says DCW Chief Swati Maliwal She also said that despite Arvind Kejriwal making many public statements on lowering the age of juvenile to 15, when discussed in the House they (AAP) opposed it. “One thing I would like to point out which probably many people doesn”t know Kejriwal ji is continuously saying that juvenile age should be lowered to 15, he has made many public statement, but when this issue was discussed in house their MPs opposed it. So it really shows the hypocrisy of the AAP government. DCW stand was late, even if the law is amended unfortunately this boy is released now,” she added. The Supreme Court has decided to hear the plea of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) against the release of the juvenile in the December 16 gang rape case on Monday, ruling out that there will be no stay on his release. DCW chief Swati Maliwal reached the Supreme Court last night after DCW decided to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the apex court to stall the release of the convict. “I strongly feel that the Supreme Court has seen merit and that is why the Supreme Court was open at 2 o” clock in the night. This petition of Delhi Commission of Women against release of the juvenile and rapist in Nirbhaya”s case has been accepted, and it has been listed as item number three on Monday. I am hopeful because the kind of matter we have, the Supreme Court will take cognizance and will rule in our favour,” DCW chief Swati Maliwal told ANI.The convict, who is now 20 years old and was known to be the most brutal of the attackers, has been taken to an undisclosed location from a correction home in North Delhi amid concerns that there was a threat to his life. He is scheduled to be released today. Earlier, the parents of the gang rape victim, along students and activists were detained by the police as they staged a protest against the release of the juvenile convict. The police action was condemned by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. In December 2012, the teenager was part of the six member gang that lured a 23-year-old trainee physiotherapist and her male friend onto a bus, where the girl was gruesomely raped and her companion brutally beaten. The girl subsequently succumbed to her injuries 13 days later in Singapore. The incident caused nationwide outrage and led to widespread outpouring of anger against the rapists, including the teenager.

Supreme Court stays UP Lokayukta’s swearing-in

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The order came from a bench comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit which took cognisance of a PIL filed against the appointment on Saturday morning.

The appointment of the UP Lokayukta, caught in a tortuous tangle since April last year, took another startling turn as the Supreme Court stayed the oath of the new incumbent on Saturday. Ironically, it was an unprecedented order of the apex court itself which had paved way for the new appointment.The order came from a bench comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit which took cognisance of a PIL filed against the appointment on Saturday morning. The PIL contended that the apex court had unilaterally announced the name of Justice Virendra Singh Yadav as the new Lokayukta on Wednesday, but the order was based on incomplete and misleading information given by the state government’s counsel Kapil Sibal.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>“I filed the PIL this morning pleading that it be heard on Saturday itself as it would become infructuous if the oath was administered to Justice Yadav on Sunday morning as scheduled,” the petitioner Sachidanand Gupta told dna. “My PIL is based on the letter sent by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to the Governor on Thursday, excerpts of which have appeared in newspapers,” he added.The High Court CJ had reportedly stated that Justice Yadav’s name had already been scrapped, and that the apex court had been given false information regarding the names which were discussed by the three-member selection committee, comprising the CM and the Leader of Opposition besides himself, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The panel had discussed five candidates but a different list was submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.In a surprising move, the apex court opened on a Saturday and heard the petition at 4.30pm. After initial arguments, the bench ruled that the matter would be heard when the court reopens on January 4. The administration of oath to Justice Yadav has been stayed till the time the petition is decided.UP Lokayukta tangle – The TimelineMarch 2012 – Lokayukta Justice (retd.) NK Mehrotra completed six-year term, granted two years’ extension the same day by Akhilesh Yadav the day he is sworn in as CMMarch 2014 – The extension also ends, but Lokayukta continues in officeApril 2014 – Hearing a PIL, Supreme Court asks UP to appoint new Lokayukta in six monthsJuly 2015 – Apex court orders state to make the appointment in 30 days; state govt. bent upon appointing its handpicked man; Governor thwarts the move, returns the file four timesAug 2015 – UP govt. amends Lokayukta Act to keep HC CJ out of the appointment process Sep 2015 – After Governor refuses to accept this Bill, the government agrees to go by the old unamended Act.Sep 2015 – CJ refuses to go along, demanding that the amendment Bill be withdrawn firstDec 14, 2015 – Apex court asks UP to appoint Lokayukta in two daysDec 16 – With state still vacillating, appoints Lokayukta, setting a historical precedent Dec 18 — Governor announces his oath to be held on Dec 20Dec 19 — SC stays oath, next hearing on Jan 4

Nirbhaya case: SC declines DCW appeal for urgent hearing to stop juvenile from walking free

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The Special Leave Petition filed by DCW against the order of the Delhi High Court, which refused to restrain the release of the convict, was referred by the Chief Justice of India TS Thakur before the vacation bench.

Supreme Court

The juvenile offender of the horrific December 16 gangrape case is all set to walk free on Sunday as the Supreme Court refused the dramatic post-midnight move of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) to stay his release by giving an urgent hearing.A vacation bench comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit in their order pronounced at 2 am, posted the matter for hearing on Monday.However, DCW chairperson Swati Maliwal and the lawyers of the women’s panel hoped that since the matter has become sub judice, the government and Delhi Police will not release the juvenile offender. <!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Related Read: Nirbhaya’s parents and 40 students released after short detention by Delhi Police”The matter has been posted for hearing on Monday as item number 3. The matter has now become sub judice. I hope that government and the Delhi Police will wait for one day and not release him,” Maliwal told reporters outside the residence of Justice Goel.The Special Leave Petition filed by DCW against the order of the Delhi High Court, which refused to restrain the release of the convict, was referred by the Chief Justice of India TS Thakur before the vacation bench.Lawyers associated with the case, including senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar and Devdutt Kamath, had rushed to Justice Goel’s residence at around 1.30 am after Maliwal was told by the Registrar that the matter has been assigned to the vacation bench.”CJI had refferred matter to Vacation Bench. Registrar General taken our case to Judge. On our way dere. Appeal for case to be heard tonight,” Maliwal had tweeted earlier. The grounds which has been taken in the appeal against the High Court order says that no mental assessment of the state of mind of the juvenile offender has been taken into account for his release.Advocate Kamath said that there are intelligence reports that even during his stay in the provision home, the convict was unremorseful of his action and he has been further radicalised. So at this stage, it cannot be said that he is not a threat to the society.The SLP has also stated that though the High Court was of the view that there was a need for mental assessment of the convict, there was no direction that before his release the authorities should go for a health and mental assessment of the offender.Further, it is submitted in the petition that there is also likely to be threat to his own life as reports are appearing that there is anger and tension between two groups in his own village. “Therefore it is also in his own interest and for the protection of his life that he should not be dumped and left unprotected,” it said.In the petition, Kamath said there are other legal points raised to challenge the High Court order. Guru Krishna Kumar is to appear for DCW in the case. The High Court had yesterday refused to restrain the convict’s release citing that there is no legal provision for the action.Maliwal reached the Chief Justice of India’s residence around midnight and later arrived at the Registrar’s office in the apex court premises. A day before his scheduled release, the juvenile convict was moved out of Delhi today even as distraught parents of the victim were detained today after they held a protest against allowing him to walk free.The convict, who is now 20 years old and was known to be the most brutal of the attackers, has been taken to an undisclosed location from a correction home in North Delhi amid concerns that there was a threat to his life.Sources said the juvenile has been kept under observation of an NGO under the protection of Delhi Police. The parents of the gangrape victim, along with 40 Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University(JNU) students, were detained by the police as they staged a protest against the release of the juvenile convict. The police action was condemned by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.”I am shocked to learn that Nirbhaya’s parents have been detained. They shud immediately be released. Police action against Nirbhaya’s parents is unacceptable. I have asked Chief Secretary to talk to Police Commissioner and get them released,” Kejriwal tweeted.

Goa CM Laxmikant Parsekar refutes charges about liaison with mining companies

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

Parsekar said he is ready for a debate with all those who are “abusing and criticising” him over the issue. He said he was unnecessarily being accused of working for the welfare of mining firms.

Goa CM Laxmikant Parsekar
File Photo
dna Research & Archives
Goa Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar on Saturday rubbished opposition Congress’ allegations that he was in liaison with the mining companies and dared his critics for a debate on the issue.”Resumption of mining within the parameters of law and in a controlled manner is very much necessary,” the Chief Minister said while addressing the 54th Goa Liberation Day function. Parsekar said he is ready for a debate with all those who are “abusing and criticising” him over the issue. He said he was unnecessarily being accused of working for the welfare of mining firms.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”I am being accused of working for the welfare of the mining companies. Why should I?” he questioned.Iron-ore transport from mining lease of Sesa Iron Ore was stopped on December 4 after the truckers resorted to agitation over a pay hike demand. To complicate the situation further, Congress party leaders extended the support to the truckers in their demand.State government’s intervention has failed to bring in peace between miners and truckers. Congress spokesperson for Goa Sunil Kawthankar had earlier alleged that Parsekar was working “in favour of the mining companies”. However, Parsekar clarified that his efforts were only to solve the bottleneck so that jobs in the mining industry are saved.In a veiled reference to Congress leaders, the Chief Minister said there are many, who provoke the stakeholders like truckers to strike and ensure that the exports are not resumed.”Considering the plummeting iron ore prices, some of the mining companies hesitate to continue their business in Goa,” he said.The mining industry in the state had been put on hold for around three years by the Supreme Court owing to allegations of illegalities. An Inquiry Commission led by Justice M B Shah had said illegal mining worth Rs 35,000 crore was reported in Goa from 2005-2012.

MPs unite to defeat Bill to amend Section 377

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

Criticising the attitude of MPs, a Bangalore-based NGO Sangama, working for the sexual and gender minorities, said that no responsible Parliament should ignore the harassment and persecution of sexual minorities on account of outdated and archaic Section 377.

While the Juvenile Justice Bill continues to languish in Rajya Sabha over a year now, Lok Sabha on Friday shot down an effort by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor to legalise gay sex through a private member’s Bill at the introduction stage itself. The MPs prevented any discussion aimed at dropping Section 377 from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 that criminalises homosexuality. The ruling BJP members pressed for division to flung out the Bill and scored victory as its introduction was disallowed by a majority of 71 as against 24 voting for it. Tharoor tweeted: “Surprising to see such intolerance.”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Criticising the attitude of MPs, a Bangalore-based NGO Sangama, working for the sexual and gender minorities, said that no responsible Parliament should ignore the harassment and persecution of sexual minorities on account of outdated and archaic Section 377.Shashi Tharoor also said he was only fulfilling the Supreme Court’s wish in a ruling in December 2013, leaving it up to Parliament to remove the obnoxious Section from the statute. In a Twitter post, the former Union minister said: “Intro of Pvt. Member’s Bill 2 decriminalize consensual sex btwn consenting adults defeated in LS 71-24. Surprising to see such intolerance.” He said: “Notice of intent to oppose introduction of Bill came so late, there was no time 2 rally support.”In yet another tweet, he said: “We weren’t at passage. It was just “leave to introduce the bill” that was rejected by the intolerant. They couldn’t even debate!” He is, however, not dejected by defeat of his attempt as he tweeted further: “Will try again in future. We shall overcome!” Tharoor, however, found no resistance to two other private member’s Bills he introduced on Friday, one to amend the IPC to substitute a new section for Section 124A on sedition and another Asylum to protect refugees and asylum seekers and to determine their cases. In a landmark judgment in 2009, the Delhi High Court had stuck down Section 377 of the IPC as “unconstitutional” and decriminalised consensual sex among adult homosexual men. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the verdict on 12.12.2013 to re-legalise Section 377 while putting the ball in the government’s court, arguing that it was free to annul the law through legislation.Section 377 deals with “unnatural offences” and says “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.Rajesh Umadevi, director of Sangama said the retention of Section 377 was aimed at to harass and persecute sexual minorities, including transgender and various identities. “The insidious danger of Section 377 lies in the fact that it permeates different social settings including the medical establishment, family and the state. It also expressed the deep societal repugnance towards sexual minorities and provided the flag leaf of legitimacy for the harassment of sexual minorities,” he said.

UP Governor ends row, okays Lokayukta for oath

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The Governor will administer the oath of office to the new appointee on Sunday.

UP Governor Ram Naik on Friday finally gave his assent for the appointment of Justice (retd) Virendra Singh Yadav as the new Lokayukta ending a rather unseemly episode marked by controversies and uncertainty throughout the selection process.The Governor will administer the oath of office to the new appointee on Sunday.In an unprecedented step, the Supreme Court had on Wednesday used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and named the Lokayukta, severely chiding the Constitutional authorities responsible for the selection over the undue delay in making the appointment despite several reminders by the apex court.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Justice Yadav was one of the five candidates whose names were under consideration by the three-member selection committee comprising the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Allahabad High Court, the UP CM and the Leader of Opposition.On Thursday, the anointment of Justice Yadav had come under a cloud despite a clear order of the apex court after Allahabad High Court CJ Justice DY Chandrachud shot off a letter saying Justice Yadav’s name had already been scrapped, and that a serving judge Justice AN Mittal was the consensus choice of the three-member selection panel.However, the UP Governor has apparently chosen not to be drawn into any further controversy, and has gone by the word of law as clearly spelt out in the Supreme Court’s Wednesday order.

Section 377: Shashi Tharoor sees ‘intolerance’ in BJP over rejection of Bill

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The introduction of the private members’ Bill, which sought amendment to the IPC by seeking to “substitute a new section for Section 377”, was objected to by BJP member Nishikant Dubey, who said he was opposing it not because of any religion, vedas or ‘puranas’ but because of the Supreme Court judgement.

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Friday saw “intolerance” among a section of the ruling BJP after his move to introduce a Bill for decriminalising homosexuality was rejected in Lok Sabha.The introduction of the private members’ Bill, which sought amendment to the IPC by seeking to “substitute a new section for Section 377”, was objected to by BJP member Nishikant Dubey, who said he was opposing it not because of any religion, vedas or ‘puranas’ but because of the Supreme Court judgement. Reacting to the development, Tharoor said, “It strikes me as extremely intolerant because at this stage, it’s a very routine procedure.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”I begged to introduce the Bill. It is extremely unfortunate for a Bill to be rejected, even for introduction and it shows, I am sorry to say, the degree of intolerance that exists in sections of our ruling party.” The Congress leader and former Union Minister said he “will move the Bill again when the session is convened next to ensure individual privacy is possible”. The bulk of the votes opposing “even the introduction of the Bill” came from BJP, claimed Tharoor, although he also noted that there were “some members” of the ruling party who “seemed to have” voted to allow him to introduce it.The opposition MP said he proposed to amend Section 377 of IPC in order to de-criminalise homosexuality in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement in this connection. The apex court had in 2013 overruled a 2009 decision by Delhi High Court striking down the section and said that it was for the Parliament to decide whether to amend or delete it and not the judiciary. Saying that “it is not the government’s responsibility to decide how people behave in their private life”, the Thiruvananthapuram MP said, “I have not proposed the deletion; I have just proposed amendment and the purpose of the same is to ensure consensual sex between consenting adults will be legally possible. That is, we will keep the government out of our bedroom.”There is a need now to look “very, very critically” at how the public sees this issue, he further averred while seeking a public debate on the issue. “That there are so many people in the ruling party present on the government benches who are expressing their intolerance and homophobia in this manner is very revelatory,” he charged. “After all, what we are talking about is human freedom, human privacy, human dignity,” he added.Tharoor expressed confidence that if the public starts “waking up” to the reality of what is being discussed and what is at stake, he will have at least succeeded in “raising” consciousness about the issue.”In that spirit, today’s defeat will still be a victory for the cause of justice and freedom in our country,” he said.Two other Bills moved by Tharoor, for amending Section 124A of IPC, that covers sedition, and the National Asylum and Refugee Bill, which favours the extension of rights to foreign nationals, were allowed to be introduced in the House.

Shashi Tharoor’s private bill to decriminalise homosexuality defeated in Lok Sabha

“);
}
$(‘.social-sticky’).addClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
}else{
$(‘.social-sticky’).removeClass(‘sticky-social-top’);
$(‘.social-sticky’).html(shtml);
}
});
}

The Congress leader tweeted: “Intro of Pvt.Member’s Bill2decriminalize consensual sex btwn consenting adults defeated in LS 71-24. Surprising to see such intolerance.Notice of intent to oppose introducn of Bill came so late there was no time 2rally support. Will try again in future. We shall overcome!”

File Photo

Shashi Tharoor’s Private Bill to decriminalise homosexuality and do away with Section 377 was turned down in Lok Sabha. The Congress leader tweeted: “Intro of Pvt.Member’s Bill2decriminalize consensual sex btwn consenting adults defeated in LS 71-24. Surprising to see such intolerance.Notice of intent to oppose introducn of Bill came so late there was no time 2rally support. Will try again in future. We shall overcome!” Earlier, transgender rights activist Laxmi Tripathi told ANI, “Section 377 must be discussed in the Parliament. It should not be considered on morality value, but as a human and constitutional right. Section 377 should be dismissed.” Hundreds of gay rights activists on Sunday danced to drum beats and held colourful balloons as they marched in the ‘Queer Pride Parade’ in Delhi, celebrating the diversity of gender and sexuality. Speaking at the Times Lit Fest , Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had said that the apex court should not have reversed the Delhi High Court order de-criminalising consensual sex among homosexuals. “When you have millions of people involved in this (homosexuality) you can’t nudge them off,” Jaitley said. In December 2013, the Supreme Court had overturned the Delhi High Court’s July 2009 judgement, which had declared Section 377 as unconstitutional. The apex court had stated that amending or revoking Section 377 should be a matter left to the Parliament and not the judiciary. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalises homosexual acts, stating it is ‘against the order of nature’.

Diesel cars proliferate in Parliament as Delhi chokes

Long-distance and cost-effectiveness of diesel car are the reasons for MPs to use it

SUVs parked at Parliament House complex on Thuursday
B B Yadav
dna
The Supreme Court may have banned the registry of new diesel cars above 2000cc, in the National Capital Region for three months, but the country’s legislators seem to prefer them as their ride of choice. As Delhi’s air turns smoggier by the day and pollution levels continued off the charts, the Parliament House Complex turns into a veritable showroom for the fanciest diesel cars.With licence plates from all over the country, countless Innovas, Fortuners, Boleros, Pajeros rolled in and out, ferrying well heeled legislators. Thrown in the mix were Land Rovers and Land Cruisers , Mercedes and BMWs. There was even an eyeball grabbing Porsche from Jharkhand that quietly sped away. Some of these vehicles were so luxurious they made the trusty, omnipresent Innova look quite pedestrian in comparison.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Such was their proliferation, that putting a name to the vehicle turned out to be a nigh impossible task.Each had an engine displacement higher than 2000cc, the line that the apex court has now drawn as to what is permissible. Unaffected by the ban, the gas guzzlers will continue to ply through January to March in and out of Delhi.Many MPs dna spoke to were a tad defensive about their cars. BJP MP Kirron Kher, who drove off in a Mercedes 4matic, said “do they expect MPs to now buy new cars? Where will the money come from for that. I only bought my car last year, and it’s not even from Delhi.” She added, “We’re not as rich as it seems, though we live well. They should have told us not to get our cars before.”PC Chacko, former Congress MP said he had a “personal liking” for diesel cars because of economy. “I travel almost 200 kms daily. A diesel car makes economical sense.” He added, “this is a knee jerk reaction by the court. Delhi does need to withdraw cars, its roads cannot sustain so many. But there is no plan, either by the centre or the state, on purifying air. They should focus on emission standards instead for diesel cars.”Economy as a reason, especially for long distance travel, was repeated by Deepender Singh Hooda, Congress MP. He also said that his main reason for investing in his car was comfort for a bad back. However, he added, “I am not principally against reducing diesel cars. We all must do our bit for the environment.”BJP MP Yogi Adityanath, before whooshing away in his Fortuner, only said that he would obey whatever law was formed, even if that meant not using his car.The only MP dna found firmly supportive of the ban was Selja Kumari, Congress Rajya Sabha member, who admitted to using Innovas, though only when travelling out of town. “Even this ban is a conservative measure, they need to go further. We only use diesel cars because they’re available,” she said.Environment minister Prakash Javadekar, perched outside in the sun, said that the government was already working towards providing better fuel, pre-poning the migration to Euro-6 emission standards.Privately, though, a senior leader grumbled a fair bit about the crackdown on diesel, saying that it took time to upgrade to better fuel and better car design, and that nothing could be solved instantly.Senior advocate KTS Tulsi, MP in the Rajya Sabha, one of the three people to bicycle to the Parliament said that MPs needed big cars in their constituencies, but shouldn’t drive them in Delhi. “We’re reducing the lifespan of our children and inflicting disease. We must wean people off private cars, and on to public transport.” He also plans to start cycling to the Supreme Court from now on. All big playersWith licence plates from all over the country, countless Innovas, Fortuners, Boleros, Pajeros rolled in and out, ferrying well heeled legislators. Thrown in the mix were Land Rovers and Land Cruisers , Mercedes and BMWs. There was even an eyeball grabbing Porsche from Jharkhand that quietly sped away. Some of these vehicles were so luxurious they made the trusty, omnipresent Innova look quite pedestrian in comparison.

JD(U) MP KC Tyagi seeks action against Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali

The Uttarakhand government, he said, had found an Ayurvedic ‘son-bearing’ medicine sold by Baba Ramdev’s pharma company fake but no action was taken.

JD(U) MLA KC Tyagi

A demand for action against yoga guru Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali pharma company for selling products like noodles and pasta without the food regulator’s approval was made in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday.Raising the issue through a Zero Hour mention, KC Tyagi (JD-U) also raised questions over why no appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court order lifting restrictions on sale of popular noodles Maggi.Describing the two as the new “Dabangs”, he said no action has been taken despite FSSAI finding faults with their products. He alleged that Patanjali noodles and pasta are being sold without the approval of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Uttarakhand government, he said, had found an Ayurvedic ‘son-bearing’ medicine sold by Baba Ramdev’s pharma company fake but no action was taken.”He (Baba Ramdev) poses as if he is very close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He openly claims that he has helped with ‘tan, man and dhan’ (physically, mentally and monetarily) in formation of the BJP government,” Tyagi alleged.Similarly, the verdict of Bombay High Court in the Maggi case was accepted. “Why was no appeal made to the Supreme Court,” the JD(U) leader said and remarked “daal mein kuchh kala hai” (there is something fishy).

Supreme Court bars registration of diesel SUVs, cars of 2000 cc above in Delhi

The bench was hearing the pleas of auto dealers and the Centre not to ban diesel vehicles as the same will affect the supply of essential commodities.

Taking a tough stand against rich people using luxury SUVs and ensuring that the common man should not suffer due to pollution, the Supreme Court on Wednesday banned registration of diesel vehicles of 2000 cc and above till March 31 next year in Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR). The bench was hearing the pleas of auto dealers and the Centre not to ban diesel vehicles as the same will affect the supply of essential commodities. Issuing a slew of measures to check the pollution level in the city, the apex court directed that commercial vehicles registered before 2005 will not be allowed to enter the city and the cabs, including Ola and Uber, will have to convert to CNG. The court set the March 31deadline for it.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Passing a detailed order, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur said, “It is noteworthy that diesel vehicles of 2000 cc and above and SUVs are generally used by more affluent sections of our society and because of the higher engine capacity are more prone to cause higher levels of pollution.”The court said, “A ban on registration of such vehicles will not, therefore, affect the common man or the average citizen in the city of Delhi. We accordingly, direct that registration of SUVs and private cars of the capacity of 2000 CC and above using diesel as fuel shall stand banned in the NCR up to 31st March, 2016.”It also ordered for the diversion of commercial vehicles which are not bound for Delhi, specially trucks, which pass through the national capital on way to other destinations after finding them the major source of vehicular emissions in the city.”No Vehicle which is not bound for Delhi will be allowed to enter from NH-8 which connects Jaipur to Delhi and NH-1 that connects the states of Punjab, Haryana and other northern states to Delhi… the largest number of vehicles that are entering Delhi are from these two entry points,” the court said. Additionally, the court also doubled the environment compensation charge (ECC) by saying the light duty vehicles will have to pay Rs 1,400 and three-axle vehicles Rs 2,600 as ECC for entering DelhiThis very court had on October 12 ordered the light duty vehicles to pay Rs 700 and three-axle vehicles Rs 1,300 for entering Delhi in addition to the toll tax from November 1 as ECC.Further the court directed the authorities, including the local bodies and institutions within the National Capital Region (NCR), to refrain from disposing of solid waste by burning such waste and to take steps for proper management in a scientific manner as per the norms and the relevant rules.Accepting the suggestions placed by senior advocate Harish Salve, who is assisting the court in this matter, the bench directed the Delhi government to take “immediate steps for repair of pavements and make pavements wherever the same are missing and also to take immediate steps for procurement of the requisite vacuum cleaning vehicles for use on Delhi roads expeditiously” and fixed the deadline of March 31, 2016.The bench was hearing various pleas including the 1984 PIL filed by environmentalist M C Mehta.

Belgaum hopes for speedy justice from Supreme Court

Many youngsters of these Marathi-speaking parts of Karnataka struggle to get legal docus for jobs in Maharashtra

It was an early New Year celebration for Belgaum resident Piyush Nandkumar Hawal (25) on Wednesday when he received news about the formation of a separate nodal ministry for the Belgaum dispute, as reported by dna on Tuesday. The ministry was formed under the leadership of public works department (PWD) minister Chandrakant Patil.Hawal wasn’t alone. The Marathi-speaking people of Belgaum, Bidar, Karwar and Gulberga districts of Karnataka were in a jovial mood and could be seen congratulating each other as the news gradually spread through social media.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”The news came as a pleasant surprise to us. This has been our demand for years and we had intensified our efforts three months ago,” said Hawal, who has been meeting Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Sena MLAs and MPs in Maharashtra and Delhi to consolidate their support for the Belgaum movement.Speaking to dna over the phone, president of Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (MES), Vasantrao Patil, said, “This is the first positive step by the Maharashtra government in the last 60 years. We are hopeful. We look forward to speedy justice by the Supreme Court.” MES has been fighting for a merger of 865 villages of Karnataka with Maharashtra on linguistic grounds since 1956.The prime reason for celebrations is that the Marathi-speaking people of this disputed area need not make rounds of the chief minister’s office and general administration department (GAD) for small works. All works, related to border disputes, come under the purview of GAD, a portfolio that CM Devendra Fadnavis has kept with himself.Many youngsters and students of these Marathi-speaking parts of Karnataka often struggle to get caste verification and other citizenship documents, required for admission and jobs in Maharashtra, where quota is offered to Belgaum students.Former Belgaum mayor Maloji Ashtekar said, “The aspirants have to rush to Mumbai, 500km away, to meet the CM. And since the CM is the busiest person in the government, people have to make several rounds. With Chandrakant Patil as nodal minister, we can now expect much respite. Besides, going to Kolhapur (Patil’s hometown, nearly 100-120km from the disputed area) would be a lot easier and cheaper than going to Mumbai.”With Patil as the nodal minister, Belgaum also hopes for speedy justice. “In the last one year, Fadnavis didn’t meet lawyers fighting the state’s case in the Supreme Court even once. On the other hand, Karnakata CM Siddarmaiah held two meetings with his legal team. We hope that Patil spends some time on the case,” said Hawal. Fadnavis could not be reached for comments due to the ongoing session in Nagpur. ‘BJP-Sena stopped grants for Belgaum institutes’People complained that the BJP-Sena government stopped a grant of Rs5 crore for Belgaum, which was approved by the previous Congress-NCP government two years ago. “The fund allocated by Ajit Pawar, the then finance minister, was for institutions working for the Marathi language and Marathi-medium schools in this area. The Fadnavis government must restore the same,” said Vasantrao Patil.

Make fresh MOP in consultation with CJI to appoint judges: Supreme Court to Centre

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to prepare fresh memorandum of procedure (MOP) in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the appointment of judges for the apex court and high courts.Issuing a slew of guidelines to improve the collegium system and to make the procedure more transparent and accountable, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice J S Khehar also asked the government to look into five key aspects — eligibility criteria, transparency in appointment process, setting up of secretariat for management of selection process, mechanism to deal with complaints against those who are being considered for appointment and to look into the miscellaneous issues.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Narrating the reasons after examining thousands of suggestions from various quarters, the court said, “The Government of India may finalise the existing MOP by supplementing it in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The CJI will take a decision based on the unanimous view of the collegium comprising the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court,” the bench said.”The MOP may indicate the eligibility criteria, such as the minimum age, for the guidance of the collegium (both at the level of the High Court and the Supreme Court) for appointment of Judges, after inviting and taking into consideration the views of the State Government and the Government of India (as the case may be) from time to time,” it said.Ensuring transparency in the appointment process, the bench said the MoP for the appointment of judges ought to be made available on the website of the court concerned and on the website of the department of justice of the government of India.The bench also noted that the MOP may provide for an appropriate procedure for “minuting the discussions including recording the dissenting opinion of the judges in the collegium while making provision for the confidentiality of the minutes consistent with the requirement of transparency in the system of appointment of judges.”The bench said that for better management of the system, the MOP may provide for establishment of secretariat for each high courts and the apex court and prescribe its functions, duties and responsibilities. The court passed the order after noting the submission of attorney general Mukul Rohatgi that the MOP and introducing amendments therein, had always been prepared by the Government in consultation with the President of India and the CJI.The court also noted down the submissions of the AG who had noted that formulation of MOP was an administrative responsibility which fell in the executive domain and the apex court neither had expertise nor the wherewithal for proposing amendments in the existing MOP which was drawn on June 30, 1999 by the Government for improving the collegium system.

Nirbhaya rape case: Actions that have been taken towards women safety since then

The case garnered a lot of attention and became synonymous with women’s rights for safety in this country as well as outside.

Representational Image

The 2012 Delhi gang rape or the Nirbhaya rape case brought forth a lot of issues right from the power of youth who unanimously stood up for a cause, to the security of women in the democratic country which boasts of being a female nation.The case garnered a lot of attention and became synonymous with women’s rights for safety in this country as well as outside. However, after all these years, were these issues addressed as they should have been?Our newspapers, today, still show the ongoing discussion and divided opinion on the release of juvenile convict or about Parliament contemplating on criminalising marital rape. However, does a country with a female population of 624 million, feel safe as instances of sexual exploitation make news every morning?<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Three years down the line, let us see if things seemed to have changed for better or for worse after the horrifying night of December 16:Positive changes that have been made:The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which was initially an ordinance promulgated by Pranab Mukherjee on April 3, 2013, after this incident was passed and made into a legislation by the Parliament in March 2013. This legislation was formed after reviewing 80,000 recommendations that were received after wide consultations and research by the Justice Verma Committee. Several crimes like stalking, voyeurism were clearly specified and included in the list of new crimes in this legislation. Acid violence and disrobing, a common crime in India, was further elaborated on with respect to the punishment that should be given to the convict.
Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the age of consent was increased from 16 to 18.
In order to ensure that victims are not hesitant in filing a complaint, the security blanket that protected public servants and police officers has been removed.
Stalking, voyeurism and sexual harassment, which were one considered gender neutral, were changed to offence committed on women.
The law also states that in case of repeated offence of rape or in case where victim has been led to a comatose stage, death penalty can be pronounced on convict. Whereas, there is also an increase in jail term. (Unlike what happened in Aruna Shanbaug case.)
Changes that have not been made yet:
The Juvenile Justice Act which deals with punishment for juveniles accused of heinous crimes is still pending in Parliament.
Marital rape is still legal in the country.
While Ram Singh, a convict, died while he was being tried, the other four Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Akshay Thakur were given death sentence by fast track court, which was upheld by Delhi Court, but the Supreme Court has stayed their death sentence.
Juvenile, who was said to be the most brutal, has served his detention period of three years, may be released on December 20, and Women and child development (WCD) may grant him a rehabilitation grant of Rs. 10,000. However, Subramanian Swamy, a BJP leader has filed a PIL, seeking a stay on his release.

Supreme Court appoints Justice Virendra Singh as UP Lokayukta

The bench regretted that its several orders have not been “heeded” by the constitutional functionaries — the chief minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of the Allahabad high court.

In an unusual order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday exercised its constitutional authority and appointed formed High Court judge, Justice Virendra Singh, as Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh after the state government failed to comply with its directives.In an embarrassment for the SP government in Uttar Pradesh, the bench examined a list of nominees and ordered the appointment.”The failure of constitutional functionaries to comply with the orders of the highest court of the land is deeply regretted and astonishing,” a bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, adding, “We, therefore, proceed to exercise our right under Article 142 of the Constitution to remedy the situation by passing an appropriate order.” The court said that it appoints Justice Singh as Lokayukta and asked the state government to file a report by December 20 indicating compliance of its order.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The bench regretted that its several orders have not been “heeded” by the constitutional functionaries — the chief minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of the Allahabad high court.In the forenoon, the bench took strong note of the submission of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, that though it had shortlisted five names but no consensus has been arrived at on a specific person.The bench then asked Sibal to provide the names by 12.30 PM itself and said, “we know how to get our orders complied with”.The law provides that a high-powered committee of the chief minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of the concerned high court together appoints the chief of the state ombudsman.Earlier on December 14, the apex court had rapped the UP government for not appointing Lokayukta in the state despite its directions, saying it seemed that appointing authorities have their “own agenda”.The bench was hearing the pleas filed by Mahendra Kumar Jain and lawyer Radhakant Tripathi seeking a direction to the state to appoint the Lokayukta at the earliest in pursuance of the Supreme Court orders.

Three years after December 16 gangrape, activists say women’s safety has not improved in Delhi

“What has changed in Delhi? Do we have lesser rapes now? Has the security system been strengthened?” activists asked.

Women activists say “nothing much has changed” when it comes to safety of women in the national capital since the tragic December 16 gangrape case three years ago which shook the nation and led to a massive public outcry, forcing Parliament to enact a new anti-rape law.”What has changed in Delhi? Do we have lesser rapes now? Has the security system been strengthened? Have the convicts of brutal gangrape been hanged? Definitely, the Nirbhaya gangrape triggered a huge outcry, but where are the results,” said Ranjana Kumari, activist and Director, Centre for Social Research.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”The nation is yet to see the ‘hanging’ of the convicts and to believe the fact that the ones contributing to violence against women will be severely punished and the situation ‘changed VS not changed’ will continue till strong examples are set that the accused will not be spared,” she added.Another activist Kavita Krishnan said, “The juvenile accused is likely to walk free, that speaks volumes about the ‘change’ in the past three years. Neither there is political will nor conviction of the accused”.”Law has been made, funds have been allocated, fast track court was to hear the case, but where is the implementation and where are the results that reflect a change in the society,” she added.Six persons, including a juvenile, had brutally assaulted and raped a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in south Delhi on December 16, 2012. The victim had succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012, plunging the country into grief.Mukesh, Vinay, Pawan and Akshay were awarded death penalty by a trial court in the gangrape and murder case which was later confirmed by Delhi High Court. Their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. Accused Ram Singh had allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail on March 11, 2013, and proceedings against him were abated following his death.The Centre had yesterday asked Delhi High Court to extend the observation home stay of the juvenile convict who is scheduled to be released on Sunday, saying several mandatory aspects were missing from the post-release rehabilitation plan which needed to be considered before setting him free. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also issued conditional summons to the Delhi chief secretary, police commissioner and the Union home secretary on Tuesday following their “failure” to produce reports on the release of the juvenile convict.”Things have moved on paper, policy decisions are also being made. It is not that initiatives have not been taken but this passing of buck between the Centre and the state government is providing an edge to police as there is no accountability,” said Annie Raja, General Secretary, National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW).Various events including candlelight vigils and art exhibitions will be organised in the national capital tomorrow as a token of remembrance for Nirbhaya.In memory of their beloved daughter and to reaffirm their lifelong commitment to improving women’s safety, the parents of the victim, in collaboration with women’s and citizens groups, will also mark the day as ‘Nirbhaya Chetna Divas’ at Jantar Mantar.

Supreme Court pulls up CBI for delay in coal scam cases

Expressing unhappiness over the “prolonged delay” in the investigation of coal scam-related cases by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Supreme Court on Monday said, “it could not be an unending affair.””Something has to be done. It can’t go on like this,” said a bench of Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice A K Sikri reminding the investigating agency that it was supposed to wrap up all the investigations by December 31, 2014 and that now 2015 is going to end.Noting that a “considerable time has already been taken”, the court granted the CBI time till March 31, 2016 and asked it to complete the investigation as early as possible.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The court observation came after the investigating agency sought its nod for relieving one of its senior officers, who is supervising investigations into coal scam-related cases, upon his “prestigious” appointment to the National Defence College.The court said that such movement of officers from the investigating agency delays the investigation after CBI’s counsel Amarendra Sharan tried to impress upon the court that movement of the senior ranking officer for another posting may not affect the pace of investigations.”It can’t go on like this. We are very clear about it. You have to be clear as well,” the court the CBI.Sharan said the investigation was not into the old cases but in the 15 new cases that were taken up later, adding the probe into these case was “very fast”.Meanwhile, the bench was also unhappy with the Directorate of Enforcement’s provisional orders for the attachments of properties worth Rs186 crore, Rs 24.5 crore and Rs 2 crore but no complaint has been filed so far in two cases wherein the investigating agency in its progress report till September 11 had said that it would be filing “complaint shortly”.In the third case also it failed to file the complaint.Sharan told the court that in the first two cases, the complaints was with the special public prosecutor R S Cheema who is heading the prosecution of the coal scam cases by the CBI. He also sought time till end of this month to file a fresh status report.

Crematorium near Taj: Supreme Court seeks ‘comprehensive plan’ from Uttar Pradesh government

The bench sought a response from the state government within six weeks on the issue after it informed the court that it has planned to promote the electric crematorium and make it’s use free from the next year for people to choose it over traditional method to lit funeral pyres.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Uttar Pradesh government to submit a comprehensive plan on reduction of carbon level near the Taj Mahal with the use of technology by modernising an 18th century crematorium near the world heritage site.A bench comprising Justices T S Thakur and C Nagappan took note of the submission of the state government that it would not be feasible to relocate the crematorium and rather asked the authorities to make people aware so that they use the electric crematorium.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The bench sought a response from the state government within six weeks on the issue after it informed the court that it has planned to promote the electric crematorium and make it’s use free from the next year for people to choose it over traditional method to lit funeral pyres.The court, meanwhile, gave permission to the state government to fell 281 trees for widening of the Agra-Lucknow Expressway after the state assured it that it will plant 2800 trees as compensatory plantation as mandated by rules.The bench was hearing the matter after taking it into account a letter written by an apex court judge, Justice Kurien Joseph, pointing out that the Taj was under threat from pollution due to smoke emanating from the crematorium.On November 16, the apex court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to consider shifting of the crematorium.It had noted that despite several previous orders to the Agra Nagar Nigam and Agra Development Authority, “nothing meaningful” has been done and the public crematorium continues to be at present location resulting in possible damage to the historic monument.Justice Joseph’s letter stated that he along with his family had visited the Taj in September. During his visit, he noted that the emissions arising from the cremation ground may damage the monument’s white marble.In his letter, Justice Joseph had also proposed that the authorities be directed to relocate the crematorium to some other place in order to protect the site.

New Delhi: Stricter traffic rules to be implemented starting tomorrow

The senior officers and field staff have been briefed through meetings and a detailed circular about implementation of the new guidelines will come into force from tomorrow morning, the officer said.

PTI
Driving licences of traffic violators in the national capital will be suspended for three months as Delhi Traffic Police is all set to implement Supreme Court-appointed committee’s recommendations from tomorrow.”Seizing and suspension of driving licences, even for the first offenders, will take place for jumping red light, drunken driving, over-speeding, using mobile phone while driving, and carrying passengers in goods vehicles,” said Muktesh Chander, Special Commissioner (Traffic).”We are going to implement the recommendations of the Supreme Court’s Committee strictly from day one and all the Traffic staff have been readied to handle violators as per the new guidelines,” he said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The senior officers and field staff have been briefed through meetings and a detailed circular about implementation of the new guidelines will come into force from tomorrow morning, the officer said. Besides, the violations of traffic rules will also be punished with heavy fines.Fines for first offence and subsequent offences in case of over-speeding will be Rs 400 and Rs 1,000 respectively, the officer said. In case of drunk driving, court challans will be issued and such drivers could end up paying a fine of upto Rs 2,000, besides serving jail term of upto 6 months on being sentenced by magistrate on their first offence.On subsequent offences of drunk driving, the accused will pay fine of upto Rs 3,000, besides being sent behind bars for a period of upto 2 years, he said. The fines for using mobile phone while driving as first and subsequent offence will be Rs Rs 1,000 and Rs 2000. People not wearing helmet and seat belt will be fined with Rs 100 and Rs 300, the officer added.

Doing ‘our best’, will appoint new Lokayukta soon: UP after SC cracks whip on state govt

The apex court on Monday rapped the UP government for not appointing Lokayukta despite its directions and ordered compliance by December 16, saying it seemed that appointing authorities have their “own agenda”.
File Photo
dna Research & Archives
The Uttar Pradesh government on Monday said it was doing “its best” to appoint a new Lokayukta as soon as possible, hours after Supreme Court cracked the whip on the state government for not appointing the anti-corruption ombudsman even after its earlier directions. Senior government officials on Monday went into a huddle in Lucknow after the apex court’s direction to the UP government to appoint a new Lokayukta within two days.”The state government is doing all its best to appoint a new Lokayukta as early as possible,” an official spokesman told PTI. They also said that senior officials were going through today’s order.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The apex court on Monday rapped the UP government for not appointing Lokayukta despite its directions and ordered compliance by December 16, saying it seemed that appointing authorities have their “own agenda”.”Why do you not appoint the Lokayukta? Why has our order not been complied with? Why can’t the Chief Minister, the Governor and the Chief Justice (of the High Court) sort this out?,” the bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana said.”We don’t mince words. It seems, each one of you have your own agenda… you make the appointment by Wednesday,” it said while fixing the petitions on the issue for hearing on December 16.A tug of war is being witnessed between the state government and Governor Ram Naik for the last several months over the appointment of a new anti-corruption ombudsman after justice (retd) N K Mehrotra.In August this year, the Governor had returned a file recommending Justice (retd) Raveendra Singh’s name to Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav for the third time.A Raj Bhawan communique had said the Governor returned the file asking the state government to follow proper procedure for the appointment. It had said that Leader of the Opposition Swami Parsad Maurya wrote to the Governor informing him that the three members of the selection committee — the Chief Minister, Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and Leader of the Opposition in the state Assembly — never met to decide the name of the Lokayukta.The state government officially recommended Singh’s name on August 5. The file has since gone back and forth thrice. Naik has made it clear he will not give his assent until the name is cleared in a meeting of the selection committee. He has also recommended that the selection committee first consider a panel of names rather than directly take an opinion on just one name.The Supreme Court had issued notice to the state government on December 4, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against it for non-compliance of its order to appoint a new Lokayukta in the state. A bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana had sought response from the state on a fresh contempt petition alleging that despite apex court’s orders to find a suitable replacement of current Lukayukta, no appointment has been made so far.Amid the tug-of-war between UP Rajbhawan and the state government, Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav had met Governor Ram Naik on December 9. The Governor is believed to have told the chief minister to find out a way with regard to appointment of Lokayukta after discussing the issue with Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court DY Chandrachud. The Governor does not appear to be in favour of referring the Lokayukta issue for presidential consideration as it will only prolong the matter.Naik has returned the file concerning the appointment of a new Lokayukta to the state government a number of times, each time asking the chief minister to follow the proper procedure for selecting the ombudsman. The process to select the new Lokayukta ran into rough weather after the Chief Justice had expressed his reservations against the government’s nominee Justice (retd) Ravindra Singh Yadav.The state government and the Governor are also not on the same page on Yadav’s nomination and the file recommending his name has moved back and forth between Rajbhawan and the state government. The UP Assembly has passed the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2015, to amend Lokayukta Act dropping Allahabad High Court Chief Justice from the selection committee.The bill proposed that the committee be made a four-member body comprising the CM, Leader of the Opposition, Speaker and a retired judge who would be selected in consultation with the CM and Speaker. The amendment was passed after the Governor refused to accept the appointment on the grounds that a proper meeting of the selection committee was not held and also the Allahabad HC Chief Justice had expressed reservations in view of Singh’s proximity to the ruling Samajwadi Party. The bill is still awaiting the Governor’s nod.On April 24, last year, the court had upheld the constitutional validity of amendment in UP Lokayukta Act for fixing eight-year tenure for the anti-corruption ombudsman. It had also directed the state government to take steps for selecting new incumbent within six months. The apex court, in July this year, had taken note of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of its on April 24, 2014 order and directed the state to do the needful within 30 days.Justice Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta on March 16, 2006 for six years. Later, the government granted him a two-year extension by amending the Act under which the tenure was extended to eight years or till a successor took over. While upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment to the UP Lokayukta Act, the court had directed the state government to take steps to select a new ombudsman within six months.

Supreme Court raps Uttar Pradesh govt for not appointing Lokayukta

The apex court, on December 4, had issued notice to the state government on a separate plea asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against it for non-compliance of its order to appoint a new Lokayukta in the state.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav
File Photo
PTI
The Supreme Court on Monday rapped the Uttar Pradesh government for not appointing Lokayukta in the state despite its directions and ordered compliance by December 16, saying it seemed that appointing authorities have their “own agenda”.”Why do you not appoint the Lokayukta? Why has our order not been complied with? Why can’t the Chief Minister, the Governor and the Chief Justice (of the High Court) sort this out?,” the bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”We don’t mince words. It seems, each one of you have your own agenda… you make the appointment by Wednesday,” it said while fixing the petitions on the issue for hearing on December 16. The bench was critical of the submissions made by the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh that the needful would be done shortly.”Last time also, you had said the same thing,” the bench said.The bench was hearing the pleas filed by Mahendra Kumar Jain and lawyer Radhakant Tripathi seeking a direction to the state to appoint the Lokayukta at the earliest in pursuance of the Supreme Court orders. The apex court, on December 4, had issued notice to the state government on a separate plea asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against it for non-compliance of its order to appoint a new Lokayukta in the state.On April 24, last year, the court had upheld the constitutional validity of amendment in UP Lokayukta Act for fixing eight-year tenure for the anti-corruption ombudsman. It had also directed the state government to take steps for selecting new incumbent of Lokayukta Justice (retd) N K Mehrotra within six months.The apex court had in July this year taken note of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of its on April 24, 2014 order and directed the state to do the needful within 30 days.The contempt plea, filed by Sachidanand Gupta, had alleged disobedience by the state government. Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for Gupta, had said that the state administration needed to be issued contempt notice for its brazen defiance of the orders. Justice Mehrotra was appointed as Lokayukta on March 16, 2006 for six years and later, the government granted him a two-year extension by amending the Act under which the tenure was extended to eight years or till a successor took over.While upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment to the UP Lokayukta Act, the court, in 2014, had directed the state government to take steps to select a new ombudsman within six months.

Parliamentary panel slams judicial activism, Supreme Court monitoring of probes

The remarks assume significance as probes in most of multi-crore corruption cases like 2G spectrum allocation, coal blocks allocation and Vyapam scams are being monitored by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

A parliamentary committee has criticised judicial activism of Supreme and higher courts by overseeing investigation and passing interim directions to CBI saying it may appear to be a colourable exercise of power by them.The committee also noted that various high courts and Supreme Court are frequently issuing directions to CBI to handle cases relating to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also of “Public Order”.The superior courts are even directing CBI in a number of cases to report day-to-day progress in a sealed cover bypassing Sections 172 and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and performing functions envisaged under the criminal justice system of the country for the lowest rung of criminal court, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice said in its report.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”Judicial activism of higher judiciary by taking pains of overseeing an investigation and passing interim directions to CBI and even pre-empting the rights and remedies available to affected persons under criminal justice system.”It may, therefore, appear to affected persons as a pre- emptive and colourable exercise of power by the superior courts,” it said.The remarks assume significance as probes in most of multi-crore corruption cases like 2G spectrum allocation, coal blocks allocation and Vyapam scams are being monitored by the Supreme Court.

Here’s why 1 lakh Muslims are demanding death penalty for Kamlesh Tiwari

Kamlesh Tiwari made an inflammatory statement reportedly after Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan said that RSS leaders are homosexuals and that is why they don’t get married.

All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) supporters taking out a protest rally against Hindu Mahasabha leader Kamlesh Tiwari over his remarks against Prophet Muhammad in New Delhi

PTI
Self-proclaimed Hindu Mahasabha activist Kamlesh Tiwari is in trouble for making derogatory remarks against Muslims and Prophet Mohammed. Angry about his remarks, one lakh Muslims gathered in Muzaffarnagar to demand death penalty for Tiwari.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>On December 3, Kamlesh Tiwari, in a press note issued by him, claimed that Prophet Mohammed was the first homosexual. His statement reportedly came after Samajwadi Party minister Azam Khan had said that RSS leaders are homosexuals and this is why they don’t get married.Azam Khan’s remarks had come after Arun Jaitley had spoken up against Section 377 and said that the Supreme Court judgement on gay sex should be reconsidered. Arun Jaitley had said: “Supreme Court’s 2014 verdict banning gay sex is not in accordance with evolving legal jurisprudence and court needs to reconsider it.”Tiwari had been arrested in Lucknow the same day, and he was disowned by the Hindu Mahasabha who claimed that he wasn’t part of the outfit. The group said that the BJP and RSS had made up the fact to tarnish their image.According to a report, Samajwadi Party’s media convener Javed Ansari said that the protestors had two demands:Death penalty for Kamlesh Tiwari which should exist for anyone who insults the Prophet
Stricter laws against religious leaders who make hate speeches
On the other hand, Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad has demanded capital punishment against Azam Khan for his statements. The Indian Express quoted him as saying: “All this happened due to conspiracy of Hindu Mahasabha and the minister (Azam) so that Muslims and Hindus continue fighting and votes are divided… This Muslim minister is tarnishing the image of the government. After his controversial statement, Tiwari gathered courage to issue derogatory statement against Prophet Muhammad.”

Extension of juvenile’s stay at observation home: Delhi High Court seeks report

The court asked whether a management committee has been constituted as per the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Rules, is it still in existence and what are its activities.

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Friday moved a plea before the Delhi High Court for an order not to release the juvenile convict in the December 16, 2012, gang-rape case till he has reformed completely.Issuing notice to Centre, a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also asked the government to inform it about the measures taken, if any, regarding post release rehabilitation of the juvenile, who will be freed on December 15 after serving the three year incarceration.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The court asked whether a management committee has been constituted as per the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Rules, is it still in existence and what are its activities.”What are the plans… It is not an ordinary case and requires consideration,” the bench said.The court passed the order after the Centre’s lawyer told the bench that there was no opposition to extension of the juvenile’s stay at the observation home, as per the rules the committee has to make plans for post release rehabilitation.Counsel for the Centre placed before the court the reports of the IB relating to the behaviour of the juvenile during his stay in special home.However, the court asked the counsel to place the report before it in a sealed cover.The government was responding to Swamy’s petition, who claimed that there is lacuna in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.JJ Board had sentenced the juvenile three years detention in reformation home. In his petition before the HC, Swamy contended that “no provision has been made in the Act, to provide for vicious unregenerate convicted juveniles who despite having undergone the reformation process for the maximum penalty of three year’s custody in a special home, continue to be a menace to the society”. Swamy said provision has to be made to deal with such juvenile for further period in such a manner that he does not prove menace to the society. Six persons, including the juvenile, had brutally assaulted and raped a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in south Delhi on December 16, 2012. The victim had died in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012. Mukesh, Vinay, Pawan and Akshay were awarded death penalty by trial court in the gang rape and murder case which was later confirmed by Delhi High Court. Their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. Prime accused Ram Singh had allegedly committed in Tihar jail in March 2013.

Will study NGT order on diesel-run vehicles: Delhi government

Earlier in the day, the NGT directed that diesel-run vehicles will not be registered in Delhi with immediate effect and asked the central and state government departments not to purchase such vehicles. Under interim measures, there will be no renewal of registration of diesel vehicles which are more than 10-year-old.

Delhi government today said that it will study the National Green Tribunal’s order directing that diesel-run vehicles will not be registered in the city with immediate effect.According to transport department, around 400 new diesel- run vehicles are registered in the national capital. There are around 5.5 lakh diesel vehicles plying in the national capital. In total, 88.27 lakh vehicles are registered in Delhi. “Similar matter pertaining to vehicles is pending in Supreme Court. We will study the NGT’s order and then, make a statement,” a Delhi government spokesperson said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Delhi Transport Minister Gopal Rai said that government will consider the green court’s order. More than 26.29 lakh cars and jeeps were added to the national capital in the period between April 2013 and March 2014. During last year, 27.90 lakh cars and jeeps were added in the capital, the report said.Earlier in the day, the NGT directed that diesel-run vehicles will not be registered in Delhi with immediate effect and asked the central and state government departments not to purchase such vehicles. Under interim measures, there will be no renewal of registration of diesel vehicles which are more than 10-year-old.The court also directed all the public authorities, corporations, DDA, police and other public department to prepare and submit an action plan for phasing out diesel vehicles, particularly the trucks being used by all these bodies by January 6, the next date of hearing.

Delhi HC not in favour of retired judges who head tribunals taking up private work

The court also said “a whole-time employee is expected to bestow all his time, energy and resources to the whole time employment and not to divert the same to any other job, work or vocation.”

The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that if retired judges who head or are part of statutory bodies, tribunals and commissions also simultaneously get involved in any other “commercial-legal” activity like arbitration, it may jeopardise reputation of their office.A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said “not only would pursuing such a vocation or occupation simultaneously with the office occupied be at the cost of the work of the said office, but may also jeopardise/ appear to jeopardise reputation of the said office…”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The court also said “a whole-time employee is expected to bestow all his time, energy and resources to the whole time employment and not to divert the same to any other job, work or vocation.””Moreover, retired judges appointed as chairpersons or members of statutory bodies, tribunals.. discharge judicial /quasi-judicial functions and their involvement in any other commercial legal activity or as arbitrators would necessarily require them to interact, in all possibility, with same set of people…, giving rise to speculation about their impartiality in discharge of their duty in such capacity.”The court noted that though some statutes on appointment of chairperson/member of tribunals/statutory bodies prohibit taking up of any other work, this provision was not present in all legislations, and this “lacuna” resulted in some judges being entitled to taking up arbitrations while others who were similarly placed were barred.”It is precisely to remedy such a situation that amendments to the existing legislations/new legislation are/is proposed. However, the said process, inspite of our waiting for the last nearly five years, has not yielded any fruit,” it said.It, however, did not issue any directions on the issue as it felt the subject fell in the “domain” of the legislature. It only asked the government “to bestow special attention on the issue and to ensure that appropriate legislation is made at the earliest”.The court’s observations came in its judgement disposing of a PIL by NGO Common Cause, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking that no retired Supreme Court or High Court judge should take up arbitration work while he/she was a chairperson/member of any government appointed constitutional /statutory body, commission, commission of inquiry, tribunal or appellate body.

Pollution giving Delhi a bad name, it’s time to fight it: Supreme Court

Salve, who is assisting the court in a 1984 PIL filed by environmentalist M C Mehta on the issue, said trucks, except those carrying essential goods into Delhi, can be banned in pursuance of the 2001 order of the apex court.

With a strong observation that Delhi is earning “bad name” due to air pollution, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the AAP government to come up with “common minimum acceptable programmes” to fight pollution.It agreed to examine a suggestion to ban entry of all diesel-run trucks, except those carrying essential goods, into the national capital.On the AAP government’s odd and even number formula, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur said, “Odd-even car plan is just one measure but there has to be multiple solutions; short term-long term plans. Delhi is earning bad name. Plan must be in place to let the world know we’re doing something about pollution.”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Referring to his meeting with one of the judges from the International Court of Justice recently, Justice Thakur said it was “very embarrassing” when visiting foreign dignitaries speak about the high pollution levels.The bench termed the rising pollution level in Delhi as “very serious” and advocated for a “multi-pronged” approach to deal with the situation.The bench agreed to examine the suggestion of senior advocate Harish Salve, amicus curiae, that as an interim measure, the entry of all kinds of diesel-run trucks into Delhi should be banned for six weeks to see as to whether it makes “perceptible” change in the already worsened air quality.Salve, who is assisting the court in a 1984 PIL filed by environmentalist M C Mehta on the issue, said trucks, except those carrying essential goods into Delhi, can be banned in pursuance of the 2001 order of the apex court.”We will be happy if you (Centre) can provide a platform to all stakeholders to prevent the problem. Come out with common minimum acceptable programmes…There can’t be a single solution to this problem, there has to be multi-pronged approach and suggestions to defuse pollution crisis.,.” the bench said and sought views of all stakeholders, including the Centre, Delhi government, MCD and Central Pollution Control Board.It asked the stakeholders to prepare a common minimum acceptable plan to address the issue of pollution and said that the absence of proper plan now getting reflected.During the hearing, the bench said trucks, whose final destination is not Delhi, may not be allowed to ply on capital roads even after paying the environment compensation charge.Meanwhile, the bench, asked SMYR Consortium LLP, which has been levying toll on behalf of MCD from commercial vehicles entering the city, to avail other remedies to challenge the decision of MCD to encash bank guarantees allegedly due to drop in cess collection.Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the toll collector, said that due to imposition of court-mandated environment compensation charge on commercial vehicles entering Delhi, the number of such vehicles have gone down by 30 per cent and has led to drop in civic cess collection.The apex court on October 12 had said that light duty vehicles would pay Rs 700 and three-axle vehicles Rs 1,300 as environment compensation charge from November 1, in addition to the toll tax, for entering Delhi. The court’s order, which will remain in force for four months on a trial basis, directed the Delhi Government to issue appropriate notification in this regard. It had made it clear that these charges would be operative for four months from November one till February 29, 2016 on an “experimental basis”.

Opinion | Salman Khan hit-and-run case: Bombay High Court could have returned case for reconsideration

Also, when courts pass strictures, there’s provision in the police manual for action against defaulting cops

The verdict in the Salman Khan case brings forth the inherent weakness in the criminal justice system in India – that justice and judgment are two different things. Ideally, they need to be synchronous. Indeed, the lawyer fraternity is aghast to see Salman walking free, fully redeemed. This was when almost everyone believed from overwhelming circumstances that he was the culprit. The primary reason given for his acquittal was that the police did not do their job well.Further, a well-settled law point, specific of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was deviated from and it was considered that the statement of late Ravindra Patil could not be really tenable.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>If this reasoning is taken forward, the veracity of every dying declaration shall get damaged.Indeed, the police were at fault. Sometime in 2012, an information emerged that certain sections of the police were helping Salman. The effect of such a misconduct was that the case would get lost in unending delays and non-appearance of critical witnesses. This information was verified and several incriminating facts emerged.It was found that important witnesses were not served summons. Star witness Kamaal Khan was permitted to go abroad without deposition even though he had undertaken before the court to present himself. Wrong names of doctors, who had nothing to do with the case, were brought in and this led to the delay of the trial by many years. Another star witness, Ravindra Patil, disappeared mysteriously and he was brought in only after an arrest warrant was issued.Ironically, his deposition happened only after he was put in jail. Statement of star witness Kamaal Khan was not recorded before the magistrate under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, whereas statements of three non-star witnesses were recorded under this section.In sum, the case suffered from flaws.Nevertheless, many of these were rectifiable flaws. The Bombay High Court could have remanded the case for re-trial and even further investigation under the provisions of Section 386(a) and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the high court ought to have come to a consequential finding with respect to driver Ashok Singh. He need to have been made accountable either for giving false evidence or for the act of driving, which killed and injured people.But the prosecution, it seems, did not do its homework. The state government was not vigilant enough to appoint special counsels so as to match the legal resources of the opposite party.For a case like Adarsh, where senior politicians were involved, government spent crores on counsels, but not in this case. The prosecution never put forward the case for a retrial before the high court. Nor did it come up with any plausible consequence to deal with the contradictions in driver Ashok Singh’s position.In short, it was a friendly investigation and a friendly trial. The outcome of the case had thus become apparent right from inception. What was expected indeed happened.Time has now come for the police to take remedial steps. While an appeal to the Supreme Court is required, the procedure stipulated in the police manual for prosecuting the defaulting cops where strictures are passed by the high court needs to be scrupulously followed. This alone shall bestow accountability on the defaulting public servants. (Abha Singh is an advocate at the Bombay HC)

Hit-and-run case: Bombay High Court acquits Salman Khan; then, who killed Nurulla Sharif?

Justice AR Joshi of the HC, too, rejected these arguments. But it didn’t go against the actor as he pronounced that “the prosecution had failed in proving that he (Khan) was guilty”.

Salman Khan coming out of the Bombay HC after the verdict on Thursday.
dna photo

The Bombay High Court (HC) didn’t exactly answer that. Strictly speaking, it was not bound to as the case related only to whether Salman was at the wheel or not on the day of the accident. The whodunnit can only be answered by the Supreme Court now – if the Maharashtra government goes on appeal. All that was clear on Thursday were these: Salman was not drinking and driving, and he is not guilty. Salman’s lawyers had argued in the lower court that Nurulla Sharif died when the damaged car fell on him after slipping from a crane called in by the police to tow it away. The actor’s family driver, Ashok Singh, had claimed that he was driving the car.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Justice AR Joshi of the HC, too, rejected these arguments. But it didn’t go against the actor as he pronounced that “the prosecution had failed in proving that he (Khan) was guilty”. On May 6, the lower court had convicted the actor and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On Thursday, the HC quashed the order, saying, “The trial court had erred in accepting the prosecution evidence.” As to Salman running away from the scene and whether he would be punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act for not offering medical aid to the person injured by the car in which he was seated, the HC observed: “The mob gathered after the accident was in a furious mood. Some were even carrying rods and other things in their hands. In the considered view of this court, the charge cannot be attracted, considering the then circumstances.” In any case, since the case was only against Khan, the HC cannot now order the arrest of Singh or carry out further investigations. The case, naturally, had drawn a lot of public attention and many believed that the actor was indeed guilty. Justice Joshi had a few words on this public perception. “Law does not have any place for general public opinion. It cannot be swayed away by any popular belief that a particular accused, because of his standing in society, could have committed the offence…,” he said adding “Mere suspicion cannot be an accepted material to hold a person guilty.” Justice Joshi also said that the probe into the case had various flaws. He said not recording evidences of appropriate witnesses and omissions in injured witnesses’ testimony would definitely create a doubt about the involvement of Salman. “The entire evidence was circumstantial in nature,” he said. With these words, he acquitted Salman of all charges in the case. Salman, meanwhile, was called to appear before the HC on Thursday to hear the judgment. He looked drowsy and non-emotional. Pronounced free, Salman broke down in tears. His brother-in-law Ayush Sharma and sister Alvira Agnihotri were beside him. Later, he composed himself and smiled at his lawyers. The actor later tweeted: “I accept the decision of the judiciary with humility. I thank my family, friends and fans for their support and prayers.” For Khan, it means an end to a 13-year ordeal. But all is not over yet. There’s still the black buck case. What’s the hit-and-run case?On September 28, 2002, Salman Khan is alleged to have been in an inebriated state and driving and ran over five persons, who were sleeping outside a laundry in Bandra. One person – Nurulla Sharif – succumbed to his injuries. The other four suffered injuries. What’s the state stand?Minister of state for home Ram Shinde told mediapersons that the state government would decide whether to approach the SC or not on Monday or Tuesday. He said that since the HC verdict came only on Thursday, the government is yet to receive a copy of the judgment. After receiving it, the state would send it to law department for advice and take a call. What’s the black buck case?

Salman Khan hit and run case: ‘Faith in judicial system has been shaken’, say eminent lawyers

The Maharashtra government should file an appeal in the apex court as it is a fit case to be challenged, advocate Abha Singh said.

Salman Khan outside Bombay High Court on December 10, 2015.

PTI
Legal experts on Thursday described the Bombay High Court verdict acquitting Bollywood superstar Salman Khan in the hit-and-run case as shocking and said “the faith of common man in the judicial system has been shaken.”Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat, who led the prosecution in the case in the trial court, termed the high court verdict as “shocking”, while leading criminal lawyer Abha Singh said “the faith of common man in the judicial system has been shaken.”<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”It is shocking, but I will reserve my comment till I see the entire judgement copy,” Gharat, who had secured a five-year jail sentence for the actor, said.The judgement should be challenged in the Supreme Court as the Bombay High court totally reversed the order of the trial court, Gharat said.Lawyer Abha Singh said the High Court could have sent the case back to the sessions court to remove anomalies rather than giving benefit of technical hitches to Salman and acquitting him. Under section 386 of CrPc, the high court has the powers to refer the case back to the sessions court to remove anomalies, Singh added. Also read: Survivors of hit-and-run case against Salman Khan await justiceThe Maharashtra government should file an appeal in the apex court as it is a fit case to be challenged, she said. Singh was of the view that procedural lapses cannot be used to deny justice to the victims. Even the apex court had said this in its judgements, she said.Ashok Singh, family driver of Salman, came to the trial court 13 years after the mishap as a defence witness saying he was driving the car at the relevant time and not Salman, Singh said and asked why the actor had not disclosed this (about Ashok Singh driving the car) when his statement was recorded by police 13 years ago.”Besides, under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, an expert’s opinion has to be considered as a relevant fact and considered by a court,” she said referring to the chemical analyser’s report on Salman’s blood test for alcohol consumption.”I am surprised that the high court has bypassed the Indian Evidence Act and kept quiet while acquitting the actor”.The High Court, she said, had also held that the testimony of eye witness Ravindra Patil, former police bodyguard of Salman, was not reliable. “This is against the spirit of section 32 of Indian Evidence Act because when a person makes a statement before a Magistrate it is a strong piece of evidence,” Singh said.

Jessica Lall case: Delhi HC gives parole to Manu Sharma to write exams

The court also said that Manu Sharma shall not “display any unruly behaviour during the period he was out on parole”.
File Photo

Manu Sharma, undergoing life term for killing model Jessica Lall in 1999, was granted parole on Thursday for a “specified period” by Delhi High Court to enable him to appear for his LLB first semester exams.Justice Ashutosh Kumar extended the relief to the convict from December 10 to 15 and then from December 20 to January 1 next year, while directing him to “keep away from the houses of the witnesses and the deceased’ family members”. It asked Sharma to furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The court also said that Sharma shall not “display any unruly behaviour during the period he was out on parole”.”In case he (Sharma) is found involved in any of such behaviour, the authorities concerned can approach this court and request for withdrawal of the relief granted to him by this court,” the court said, adding that “parole is for a specified period and for a specific reason”.It also made it clear that while the convict is supposed to appear for his exam at Chandigarh between December 26 to 30, he will not move out of the state for any reason. Sharma through senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog had sought a month’s parole to write his exams, which were to commence from December 26 till December 30. But before that he also has to appear for a Personal Contact Programme beginning from December 11.Observing that these are genuine prayers, the judge said he would not prevent Sharma from writing exams. The court also noted that if the police was allowing him to go for his exam at Chandigarh, then why he should not be allowed to attend the Personal Contact Programme at Chennai.Senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra, appearing for Delhi government informed the court that the convict’s plea has been rejected by the Lieutenant Governor. He also said if Sharma was allowed to go to Chennai, he may not return to Delhi. The court said that Sharma should not make any excuse and shall surrender on December 15 before sunset.Sharma has completed a post-graduate diploma in Human Rights and is now pursuing a Bachelor’s in Law course from Annamalai University, Chennai. He was earlier granted 30-day parole on December 26, 2014 to appear for his post-graduation exams with a condition that he would keep away from the area around the residence of Jessica and her family members.Sharma, son of former Union Minister Venod Sharma, was awarded life imprisonment by the high court in December 2006 for killing Jessica Lall in 1999. The trial court had acquitted him, but the Delhi High Court had reversed it and the Supreme Court had upheld the life sentence in April 2010.Lall was shot dead by Sharma after she had refused to serve him liquor at the Tamarind Court restaurant owned by socialite Bina Ramani at Qutub Colonnade in south Delhi’s Mehrauli.

Pollution in New Delhi at ‘serious’ level, needs multi-pronged approach: Supreme Court

The apex court also observed that it was “very embarrassing” when visiting foreign dignitaries speak about the high pollution level.
File Photo
dna Research & Archives
Stepping into the raging debate on pollution, the Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a suggestion to ban entry of all diesel-run trucks, except those carrying essential goods, into the national capital while asking the Centre to come up with “common minimum acceptable programmes” on the issue after consulting all stakeholders. The apex court also observed that it was “very embarrassing” when visiting foreign dignitaries speak about the high pollution level.Coming out in support of Delhi Government’s “odd and even number policy”, allowing private cars to run on alternate days from January one, a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and R Banumathi said it was an “emergency measure”.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Terming the rising pollution level in Delhi as “very serious”, the bench advocated a “multi-pronged” approach to deal with the situation. The intolerable limit of pollution is earning a “bad name” to Delhi as “the most polluted city in the world”, it said.”It is very embarrassing for us when foreign dignitaries visiting Delhi speak about the capital’s high pollution level,” it said and gave example of a visiting judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) referring to the issue.”This is very serious issue and we are earning a bad name in the world for Delhi being most polluted city,” it said and agreed to examine the suggestion of senior advocate Harish Salve that as an interim measure, the entry of all kinds of diesel-run trucks into Delhi be banned for six weeks to see as to whether it makes “perceptible” change in the already worsened air quality.Salve, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in a 1984 PIL filed by environmentalist M C Mehta on the issue, said trucks, except those carrying essential goods into Delhi, can be banned in pursuance of the 2001 order of the apex court.”We will be happy if you (Centre) can provide platform to all stakeholders to prevent the problem and come out with common minimum acceptable programes… There cannot be a single solution to this problem, there has to be multi-pronged approach and suggestions to defuse pollution crisis. The odd and even number policy is only as an emergency measure,” the bench said and sought views of all stakeholders, including the Centre, Delhi government, MCD and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).It asked the stakeholders to prepare a common minimum acceptable plan to address the issue of pollution and said that the absence of proper plan now getting reflected. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for one of the three civic bodies, besides the diesel-run cars and trucks, building construction and burning of wastes pollute Delhi.During the hearing, the bench said trucks, whose final destination is not Delhi, may not be allowed to ply on capital roads even after paying the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC). Delhi is earning bad name, there must be a plan in place to let the world know that we were doing something about pollution, it said.Meanwhile, the bench, asked SMYR Consortium LLP, which has been levying toll on behalf of MCD from commercial vehicles entering Delhi, to avail other remedies to challenge the decision of MCD to encash bank guarantees allegedly due to drop in cess collection.Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the toll collector, said that due to imposition of court-mandated ‘Environment Compensation Charge’ (ECC) on commercial vehicles entering Delhi, the number of such vehicles have gone down by 30 per cent and has led to drop in civic cess collection.The apex court had on October 12 said that light duty vehicles would pay Rs 700 and three-axle vehicles Rs 1,300 as ‘Environment Compensation Charge’ from November 1, in addition to the toll tax, for entering Delhi. The apex court’s order, which will remain in force for four months on a trial basis, directed the Delhi Government to issue appropriate notification in this regard. It had made it clear that these charges would be operative for four months from November 1 till February 29, 2016 on an “experimental basis”.Taking note of the Centre for Science and Environment’s study that about 23 per cent of the commercial vehicles and 40-60 per cent of the heavy trucks entering the city were not destined for Delhi, the court had said it was necessary to impose the charges, along with the MCD toll, to equalize the difference in cost in travelling through alternative routes.

Minimum educational qualification mandatory for Panchayat polls: Supreme Court

The petition had challenged validity of Haryana’s Panchayati Raj (amendment) Act 2015 which fixes matriculation as essential qualification for general candidates contesting panchayat polls, while the qualification for women (general) and Scheduled Caste candidates has been fixed at Class VIII.

Supreme Court
File Photo

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the validity of recent amendments in a Haryana law which fixes various criteria including minimum educational qualification for candidates contesting panchayat polls.”The writ petition is dismissed,” a bench comprising justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre said. The petition had challenged validity of Haryana’s Panchayati Raj (amendment) Act 2015 which fixes matriculation as essential qualification for general candidates contesting panchayat polls, while the qualification for women (general) and Scheduled Caste candidates has been fixed at Class VIII.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>However, in case of a woman candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category contesting election for the post of panch (panchayat head), the minimum qualification would be Class V.

Salman Khan hit-and-run case: Bombay HC may discard evidence against actor

. Salman was granted bail by the Bombay High Court the same day he was convicted and sentenced by the session’s court.

The Bombay High Court may discard the evidence by the main prosecution witness Ravindra Patil in the 2002 hit-and-run-case involving Bollywood actor Salman Khan. The court observed that evidence of the injured is not devoid of inconsistencies and the prosecution had failed to prove the truthfulness of the witness, who claimed that Khan was intoxicated.”It’s difficult to accept the answer of witness Ravindra Patil (Salman’s bodyguard), who said that car tyre burst due to impact. In a criminal trial it’s the duty of the prosecution to establish its own case and not for the accused to prove his innocence,” the High Court said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Earlier, the Supreme Court had rejected the plea to cancel the superstar’s bail filed by Patil’s mother. Salman was granted bail by the Bombay High Court the same day he was convicted and sentenced by the session’s court. On May 6 this year, Salman was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, besides several other offences and sentenced to five years jail against which he filed the present appeal in the High Court.

Issue of Telangana’s share in Krishna water may be referred to Tribunal: Centre to Supreme Court

The tribunal may be asked to decide the share of Telangana out of the water already allocated to Andhra Pradesh.

The limited aspect of sharing of Krishna river water between the newly created state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh can be referred to the Water Dispute Tribunal instead of dragging other stakeholders Karnataka and Maharashtra into it, the Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court. Telangana, which was carved of Andhra Pradesh on June 2, 2014 has sought to be considered as an entity separate from the parent state in distribution of Krishna water among the stakeholder states. It seeks fresh determination of its share in Krishna water.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant that there was no need for a fresh adjudication of the entire issue. The tribunal may be asked to decide the share of Telangana out of the water already allocated to Andhra Pradesh. The bench, meanwhile, asked the Centre to file an affidavit in the matter and fixed a batch of petitions for hearing on December 12. Earlier, the court had on September 30 fixed for today the final hearing on the petitions filed by Telangana, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra relating to a row over distribution of Krishna river water among them.Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing Telangana, had sought a direction to the Centre to set up a statutory tribunal to determine its share of the Krishna river water. He had also said that a fresh reference was required to be sent to the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal II for fresh allocation of water in view of passage of the Reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh Act. Taking note of the plea of Telangana, the court had said it seemed that its request had got “independent character qua Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh” even though the tribunal had passed its award in December 2010.It said one of the questions to be considered was whether the quantity of water already allocated to Andhra Pradesh could be demarcated between Andhra Pradesh and Telanagana or Telangana could get separate allocations. The court, however, kept all the issues under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 open for consideration. It had also said that the inter-state water disputes “should be put to rest at the earliest.”

Supreme Court orders handing over of visitors’ log book to probe panel

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered its Registry to hand over the original diary, pertaining to the visit of accused persons and their representatives to the former CBI director Ranjit Sinha’s official residence here, to the panel which was appointed by the court to probe whether such meetings had led to botching up of investigation in the illegal coal block allocation cases.The visitors’ log book, which was lying in sealed cover with another bench hearing 2G cases, will be given to the panel headed by former special director CBI M L Sharma who will have to share the contents with other members in the probe team and file a report before the court.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Allowing Sharma to have access to the visitors’ diary at 2 Janpath, New Delhi, a three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur has also granted 12 more weeks’ time to the panel to submit its report.Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Sinha, reiterated his stand that the alleged meetings alone cannot “per se” be termed objectionable as the real test would be whether those meetings led to according of favours to any named accused or other persons.The bench, meanwhile, did not pass any order on the plea seeking a direction to the Central Vigilance Commission that the panel be given documents of those cases where the CVC did not favour prosecution.”Let him (Sharma) make a request. We are not saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at the moment. In any case, he cannot sit in judgment on the decisions of the CVC,” the court said.In its expose, dna, which had access to 2 Janpath visitors’ register, had published a series of reports on Sinha’s meetings with the accused in the high- profile cases, including that of 2G spectrum scam and coal block allocations last year.dna while highlighting the guests’ diary details also disclosed that hawala operator Moin Qureshi had visited Sinha’s residence at least 90 times.Sinha, who had retired from service on December 2 last year, had admitted that he met the accused while claiming that “it was part of his job as a supervisory officer to meet the accused and that the meetings were not illegal.”Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Common Cause, sought a probe by the special investigation team into Sinha’s meetings with the coal accused.The court had on May 14 admonished Sinha for his “completely inappropriate” meetings with coal scam accused in the absence of investigating officers, saying that “further inquiry is necessary” to ascertain the fairness and impact of his conduct in the probe.—With agency inputs