That's all for today readers. The Supreme Court while delivering a verdict on petitions on the situation in J&K after the abrogation of Article 370, directs Jammu Kashmir government to review all restrictive orders within a week.Thank you for staying tuned. For more latest news visit www.deccanherald.com.
SC verdict on J&K lockdown: 10 things to know
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered its verdict on a batch of pleas including that of Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad challenging the restrictions imposed in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of provisions of Article 370.
Here are 10 things to know from the Supreme Court's verdict:
1) The Supreme Court directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review forthwith all orders suspending the internet services in the valley within a week and put them in the public domain.
2) A five-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana asked the administration to restore internet services in institutions providing essential services like hospitals and educational places.
Read the full report here.
Access to internet fundamental right, says SC
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders of suspension of the internet in the state within a week.
The apex court also ruled that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
"Internet is a major means of information, therefore, Freedom of Speech and Expression through the internet is part of Article 19(1)(A) and restrictions on it should be inaccordance with restrictions to this right," the court said.
Read the full report here.
SC orders J&K govt to review internet shutdown orders
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review forthwith all orders suspending internet servicessaying itenjoyed constitutional protection as a tool for freedom of speech and expression and to carry on any profession.
Maintaining that the internet is integral to the fundamental right, a three-judge bench, presided over by Justice N V Ramana, said suspending the communication service without duration and indefinitely would also be violative of the Telecom Rules.
Read the full report here.
The Supreme Court has also asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to restore Internet services in all institutions providing essential services like hospitals, educational centres, reports PTI.
The Supreme Court has said that since the state did not publish the order to impose Section 144 or curb internet. It is completely wrong andhenceforth all state orders should be published andthese orders can again be challenged in courts, according to News 18.
Supreme Court directs for the orders of suspension of telecom services and Section 144 orders to be reviewed by the concerned authority within seven days and any future orders to be reviewed in a timely manner.
SC rules the right to access Internet as a fundamental right under Article 19 of Constitution.
JUST IN | Supreme Court while delivering verdict on petitions on situation in J&K after abrogation of Article 370 directs Jammu Kashmir Govt to review all restrictive orders within a week.
The Supreme Court has ordered review of every order of internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir.
Section 144 can't be used to oppress voices of dissent, says SC.
Internet is a major means of information therefore FoE through internet is part of Article 19(1)(a) and restrictions on it should be on accordance with restrictions to this right, says SC.
Internet is key part of the Right to Speech and ones fundamental rights, says SC.
The importance of the internet cannot be underestimated and the internet as stool should be distinguished from FoE through the internet, says SC.
Liberty and security are always at loggerheads. It is Court's job to ensure that the citizens are provided all rights and security, says SC.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai will pronounce its judgment today at 10.30 in the petitions challenging the internet and communication shutdown in Kashmir.
Good morning readers and welcome to our live coverage of the Supreme Court verdict on pleas on Jammu and Kashmir.
The verdict for three major cases was delivered by the Supreme Court on Thursday, November 14 - revie pleas against Sabaraimala issue issued to a 7-judge bench, contemp plea against Rahul Gandhi closed and Rafale deal review petitions were dismissed.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi now has four more cases to hear before he retires on November 17, 2019.
Thank you for tuning to Deccan Herald'slive updates.
Follow www.deccanherald.com for all the latest news and updates.
Justice Joseph of the Supreme Court has opened a huge door into the investigation of the Rafale scam. An investigation must now begin in full earnest. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) must also be set up to probe this scam: Rahul Gandhi
SC’s decision to dismiss the review petition on Rafale is a befitting reply to those leaders & parties who rely on malicious&baseless campaigns. Today’s decision yet againreaffirms Modi sarkar’s credentials as a govt which is transparent&corruption free.
Now, it has been proved that the disruption of Parliament over Rafale was a sham. The time could have been better utilised for the welfare of people. After today's rebuke from SC, Congress & its leader, for whom politics is above national interest, must apologise to the nation: Amit Shah - ANI
SC asks Rahul Gandhi to be “more careful”
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave a “word of caution” to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for attributing his statement 'Chowkidar (PM Narendra Modi) is a thief” to the top court, and asked him to be “more careful in future” in his “utterances” or “political discourses”.
Rahul, Congress should apologise: BJP on Rafale
The BJP on Thursday came down heavily on Congress after Supreme Court rejected review petition on Rafale deal, demanding an apology from its top leader Rahul Gandhi while accusing him and his party of mounting a "deeply suspicious campaign" at the behest of those who lost the deal.
At whose behest did Rahul Gandhi unleash a campaign against Rafale. This campaign is shrouded in deeply suspicious circumstances. Congress has a history of taking sub-contract in defence contracts, saysPrasad, adding that the campaign was to help those who lost in tender.
Rahul Gandhi should apologise to the nation, saysRavishankar Prasad on the Supreme Courtrejecting Rafale review petition.
Full text of Supreme Court's verdict on review pleas of Rafale judgement
Political parties in Kerala welcome SC decision to refer Sabarimala case to larger bench
Political parties in Kerala on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court decision to refer its September 28, 2018 order allowing women of all ages into the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala to a larger bench.
Hailing the verdict, Leader of the Opposition Ramesh Chennithala asked the Left-led state government "not to create issues" by providing security and taking women in the banned age group to offer worship at the Ayyappa temple. (PTI)
The Supreme Court has upheld the traditions of Sabarimala andthis verdict has made it clear that the state should not involve itself in the matters of faith. I hope the state govt does not try to get young women into the temple,Kummanam Rajashekharan, BJP leader tells CNN News18.
'SC's Sabarimala verdict protect rights of devotees'
Senior BJP leader B L Santhosh on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to refer the Sabarimala case to a larger bench, claiming that it is in the direction of protecting rights of devotees and upholding the faith.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said restrictions on women in religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well as it referred all review pleas to a larger seven-judge bench.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, reading the verdict on behalf of himself and Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra, said the larger bench will decide all such religious issues relating to Sabarimala, entry of women in mosques and practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Soon after the Supreme Court pronounces its decision to refer the review petitions to a larger bench, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor tweets saying, "I welcome the SC's decision to refer the vexed Sabarimala issue to a larger bench. The issues involved have implications for the practice of all faiths."
SC refers Sabarimala review pleas to 7-judge bench
The Supreme Court on Thursday said restrictions on women in religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well as it referred all review pleas to a larger seven-judge bench.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, reading the verdict on behalf of himself and Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra, said the larger bench will decide all such religious issues relating to Sabarimala, entry of women in mosques and practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Read the full report here.
Women's rights activist Trupti Desai hopes that the larger bench will not overturn the September 28 judgement. She tells CNN News18 that she will visit the shrine on Saturday.
BREAKING | The Supreme Court closes a contempt plea filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the court his “chowkidar chor hai” remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Rafale case.
The Supreme Court says there’s no ground to order FIR into the Rafale deal.
BREAKING | All the review pleas in Rafale case have been dismissed by Supreme Court.
"This is a victory for us. There is an admission that the earlier judgement should be scrapped. We are proud of the Supreme Court,"saysRahul Easwar, the activist, who had spearheaded the case against the September 28 judgment.
Petitions have sought to revive the debate about what's religion and essential religious practices, saysCJI.
Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2, has referred the review petitions to a larger constitution bench. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice DY Chandrachud gave dissent judgement.
Justices Rohinton Nariman and DY Chandrachud dissent.
Issues relating to conflict between Shirur Math and Dargah to be decided larger Bench including on essential religious practices and other aspects. Sabarimala review petitions to remain pending till the issue is decided by larger bench, says Supreme Court.
BREAKING | The Supreme Court refers the review petitions against the verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups in the Sabarimala Temple to larger bench.
Supreme Court clarifies the right of women to enter mosques, Parsi women to enter fire temple are also connected matters. Dawoodi Bora Community also has similar issues, says the apex court.
Supreme Court says the entry of women into places of worship is not limited to this temple. It includes the issue of the entry of women into mosques.
Two sections of the same religion have the same rights. Pleas have sought to revive debates about religious practices, says CJI.
CJI Ranjan Gogoi to read out the verdict soon.
All five judges assemble for Sabarimala verdict in the Supreme Court.
A Padmakuamar, the outgoing president of TDB, said the verdict should be accepted with self-restraint and peace. "The Board's request to everyone is that we should accept the verdict whatever it may be. We hope that the state government will act in accordance with the verdict," he told TV channels.
Ramesh had added that the stand taken by the apex court in the Ayodhya case that deity Ram Lalla could be viewed as a special personality, can be applicable in the Sabarimala case also, he said.
BJP state general secretary M T Ramesh has said that if the verdict was against devotees, the party would seek constitutional means to address the concerns of devotees. "We hope that the verdict on the review petitions will be in favour of devotees. The stand adopted by the state government was the reason for the earlier judgment that came out against the sentiments of devotees," he told reporters.
The apex court, on September 28, 2018, had lifted the ban that prevented girls and women between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine and held that this centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional. The opposition Congress party and the influential Nair Service Society (NSS), an outfit of the forward Nair community, had also vehemently objected to the Left government's decision to go ahead and implement the verdict.
Here's what the Supreme Court's judgement from September 28 reads:
"It is a universal truth that faith and religion do not countenance discrimination but religious practices are sometimes seen as perpetuating patriarchy thereby negating the basic tenets of faith and of gender equality and rights."
We expect a positive verdict so that our traditional customs and beliefs will be restored and protected,BJP leader, VT Rema tells CNN News18.
The top court's verdict today comes on a clutch of petitions including the 56 review petition, four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleaschallenging the September 28 order. Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra are among the member of the five-judge bench which is being led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
The portals of the hill shrine, located in a reserve forest in Western Ghats in Pathanamthitta district of the state, would be opened for the two-month-long Mandalam Makaravilakku season on November 16 evening. Vijayan on Saturday took stock of the preparations being carried out by various departments to ensure a hassle-free pilgrimage.
The southern state had witnessed high drama and protests by devotees and right wing activists last year against the CPI(M)-led LDF government's decision to implement the top court's order. The verdict was also crucial for the LDF government, led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, as the beginning of the annual pilgrimage season at Sabarimala is just three days away.
We are expecting a favorable order from the Supreme Court. If the verdict is not favourable then we shall file a curative petition. We had met PM Narendra Modi and President and they had also given us assurances,Shashi Verma, Spokesperson, Pandalam royal family tells CNN News18.
Sabarimala verdict:Anxiety grips Kerala
Political parties, right wing outfits and devotees in Kerala are keeping their fingers crossed as the Supreme Court is set to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on pleas seeking review of its decision to allow entry of women of all age groups in the Sabarimala Temple. The southern state had witnessed high drama and protests by devotees and right wing activists last year against the CPI(M)-led LDF government's decision to implement the top court's order. (PTI)
In the Sabarimala case, the top court last year had ordered that women of all ages must be allowed into the famous Ayyappa shrine in Kerala, ending a centuries-old ban on women and girls between 10 and 50 years. As the verdict sparked a series of protests, The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), that manages the Sabarimala shrine, argued that the court cannot intervene with a century-old belief.
SC verdict on Rafale judgment review plea today
The Supreme Court is to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of petitions for reconsideration of its judgement dismissing a plea for a CBI probe into the deal to buy Rafale fighter jet from France.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph had on May 10 reserved the orders petitions filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
They sought a re-examination of the court's findings that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.
Read the full report here.
Chowkidar chor hai: Rahul to get SC verdict on Nov 14
The Supreme Court would on Thursday pronounce its judgement on a contempt petition against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for attributing his statement 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi Chowkidar is thief' to the top court.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph had on May 10 reserved its judgement, even though Rahul had tendered “unconditional apology”.
Read the full report here.
Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman judge on the bench that will review verdict on Sabarimala issue, however, had dissented saying that restriction on the entry of women to the temple was based on the unique character of the deity, a celibate God, and was not founded on any social exclusion.
She had sounded a note of caution saying in a pluralistic society of diverse faiths, beliefs and traditions, to entertain PILs challenging religious practises followed by any group, sect or denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular fabric of this country.
The court had then opened the doors of famous Lord Ayappa's temple in Pathanamthitta district, Kerala for all women, particularly of between 10-50 years of age, who were, hitherto, barred on the ground that menstruating women were not pure.
It had said that any rule based on discrimination or segregation of women pertaining to biological characteristics was not only unfounded, indefensible and implausible but could also never pass the muster of constitutionality.
CJI Ranjan Gogoi-led five-judge bench had reserved its judgment on Sabarimalain February this year on 65 petitions filed for the reconsideration of the verdict passed on September 28, 2018, with a majority of 4:1.
Petitioners contended if the constitutional court started to entertain petitions pertaining to faith, custom, practices, and belief, it would virtually open a pandora's box and create pandemonium, as various religious practices of other faiths would be questioned.
SC judgement on Sabarimala review pleas on Nov 14
The top court is to pass its verdict on Thursday on a batch of review petitions against its decision allowing the entry of women between 10 and 50 years into Kerala's Sabrimala temple.
The issue raised before the court pertained to whether the right of individuals (women) could be allowed in a public place of worship, irrespective of traditions and practices, and whether the devotees of Lord Ayappa could constitute religious denomination within the Article 26 to be given freedom to manage their affairs, among others.
Read the full report here.
Good morning readers, the Supreme Court will announce its verdict on three key cases. These include the Sabarimala and Rafale review petitions as well as a criminal contempt plea filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. After the historic verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute matter, CJI Ranjan Gogoi was left with four other important judgments before demitting office on November 17. Stay tuned for live updates.
Deccan Herald is on WhatsApp Channels| Join now for Breaking News & Editor's Picks