#DelhiGangRape: Hearing begins in Supreme Court on plea by centre seeking separate exeuction of the convicts.
#DelhiGangRape: Now that no mercy petition is pending, you can seek issuance of fresh death warrant, Justice Ashok Bhushan to Centre.
#DelhiGangRape: Centre points out rules mandating simultaneous execution and that one of the convicts has not filed mercy petition.
"But that is only if any mercy petition is pending. You cannot compel someone to file mercy petition", Bench responds.
#DelhiGangRape: If I get a fresh death warrant, then Pawan will file a mercy petition the next day and entire process will be stalled, says Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
#DelhiGangRape: "I (Centre) am not doing this for anybody's enjoyment. I am excuting the mandate of law and they are frustrating the mandate of law", submits SG Mehta.
#DelhiGangRape: "High Court wrongly brought in concept of simultaneous execution", SG Tushar Mehta.
#DelhiGangRape: People were celebrating when rape accused were shot dead in Hyderabad. It shows people are losing faith in our system.
In this case too, I am struggling to get a death warrant even after Your Lordships judgment, says SG Tushar Mehta.
#DelhiGangRape: SG Mehta says centrr will wait for Pawan to file mercy plea but asks court to pass order allowing exeuction of the three other convicts.
Supreme Court says it cannot do that without hearing the case.
#DelhiGangRape: They are playing with the judicial system, SG presses for separate execution but Supreme court makes it clear that it cannot be decided in one day.
#DelhiGangRape: Supreme Court issues notice to convicts, gives liberty to centre to approach trial court for fresh date for execution of death warrant.
Matter adjourned for day after tomorrow when court will consider question of simultaneous execution.
• • •
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?