#Sabarimala: Kerala govt says I am not allowed into the temple, Colin Gonsalves tells SC on behalf of Rehna Fathima.
The practice has been going on for 1000s of years. Balance of convenience requires that such an order should not be passed in your favour today, CJ SA Bobde.
#Sabarimala: If matter is decided in your favour, then we will certainly pass an order, remarks CJI SA Bobde.
#Sabarimala: "We are all opposed to violence. We domt engender violence", responds Sr Counsel India Jaising to the remarks of the bench that there is possibility of violence.
#Sabarimala: "Law is in your favour. We know that", CJI SA Bobde.
"The order in review petitions does not operate as a stay", Jaising.
"Of course it does not. ", Bobde J agrees.
"But it is an emotive issue. Be a little patient", CJI Bobde adds.
#Sabarimala: Sr. Counsel Indira Jaising says then review petitions should be listed at the earliest.
CJI Bobde says he will endeavour to constitute a Bench at the earliest after the 7-judge bench decides the petitions on rights of Muslim and Parsi women.
#Sabarimala: The earlier order of SC granting police protection to Bindu will continue. Rehna Fathima will also be provided such protection if she applies. (This protection is not for entry to temple but a protection extended considering threat to the petitioners)
#Sabarimala: So CJI Bobde bench acknowledges there is no stay on Sept 2018 constitution bench judgment yet no coercive orders will be passed to allow entry of women.
Interesting that in another court justice Rohinton Nariman had pulled up govt for not implementing the judgment
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sudarshan News and media regulation: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Centre has filed a fresh affidavit calling for regulation of digital media before the court takes up issue of regulation of TV channels.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi is appearing on behalf News Broadcasters Federation which has sought impleadment in the matter.
Rohatgi says NBF is the largest body of tv channels in India with 160 members from different parts of the country.
He submits News Broadcasters Association is not representative of news channels and seeks permission to file an affidavit to put forth a self-regulatory mechanism.
Hearing against Sudarshan News commences before the Supreme Court.
Sanjay Hegde enters appearance on behalf of Zakaf Foundation of India.
"I have a watching brief in this matter. We are not a party to this matter," says Hegde.
Justice DY Chandrachud tells Hegde that Sudarshan News has raised substantial issues against Zakaf Foundation.
"But we are not here to investigate into your client. But Sudarshan News has sought to justify their programme on the grounds of your source of funding"
Sudarshan News and UPSC Jihad: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Sr. Counsel Anoop Chaudhuri appearing for petitioner says Sudarshan news has filed an affidavit with vague allegations and submits he wants to file a rejoinder.
Shyam Divan says it was difficult to file a detailed affidavit in two days. We (lawyers) are all in different locations.
We were ambushed by various applications/ interventions, he submits.
Sudarshan News files affidavit before Supreme court defending its programme Bindas Bol and the use of the term "UPSC Jehad".
The affidavit largely focuses on foreign funding received by Zakat Foundation, an orgnisation which supports civil service aspirants.
Sudarshan News has claimed that some such funds received by Zakat Foundation are from terror-linked organisations.
The organisations/ individuals named in the affidavit are Madina Trust, Muslim Aid (UK), Zakat Foundation of America and Zakir Naik
The affidavit says the TV channel has no ill-will against any particular community or individual and do not oppose selection of any meritorious candidate
"There is no statement or message in the four episodes broadcast thatmembers of a particular community should not join UPSC"
Supreme Court raises grave concerns about the manner in which debates are conducted by certain television channels.
Justice KM Joseph says many times panellists are not allowed to speak and anchor takes up most of the time and panellists are also half-muted.
Supreme Court berates Sudarshan news.
Here is one anchor who says one particular community is trying to gain access to UPSC. Can anything be more insidious than such claims. Such allegations affect stability of country and also casts aspersions on credibility of exam.
In the UPSC exam, all are subject to same tests, interviews and are assessed by same persons. But the insinuation is one community is trying to infiltrate the UPSC. Can such allegations without factual basis be allowed, asks Justice DY Chandrachud?