Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword>, on Tuesday, granted one-week time to yoga guru <keyword id="20055079" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ramdev" source="keywords">Ramdev</keyword>, his aide <keyword id="21172332" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Balkrishna" source="keywords">Balkrishna</keyword> and <keyword id="20083247" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Patanjali-Ayurved" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Patanjali Ayurved" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Patanjali Ayurved">Patanjali Ayurved</keyword> to issue a <keyword id="114576" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="public-apology" source="Orion">public apology</keyword> in the misleading advertisements case, but said it was not letting them "<keyword id="2308348" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="off-the-hook" source="Orion">off the hook</keyword>" now. Both Ramdev and Balkrishna were present during the hearing and personally tendered an unqualified apology to the apex court. A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah took note of their apologies, but made it clear that at this stage it has not decided to "let them off the hook". "You are doing good work but you can't degrade allopathy," the bench told Balkrishna while interacting with him. Ramdev, who also interacted with the bench, said he had no intention to show disrespect to the court in any manner. However, the bench told Balkrishna that they (<keyword id="6356684" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="patanjali" source="Orion">Patanjali</keyword>) are not so innocent that they didn't know what the top court had said in its earlier orders in the case. "I am willing to give a public apology," senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Balkrishna, told the bench at the outset. The apex court asked Ramdev and Balkrishna, both of whom were present in the court, to come forward for an interaction with the bench. "They should feel they have a connect with the court," the bench said. The apex court has now posted the matter for further hearing on April 23. Ramdev and Balkrishna had last week tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products. In two separate affidavits filed in the court, Ramdev and Balkrishna have tendered an unqualified apology for the "breach of the statement" recorded in the November 21 last year order of the apex court. In the November 21, 2023 order, the top court had noted that counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved had assured it that "henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form". The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is "bound down to such assurance". The non-observance of the specific assurance and the subsequent media statements irked the apex court, which later issued a notice to them to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.

Patanjali ads case: Supreme Court asks Ramdev, Balkrishna to issue public apology; says not letting them off hook yet

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> has ruled out requirement of an <keyword id="6356006" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aadhaar-card">Aadhaar card</keyword> for availing benefits of government’s <keyword id="77362" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Welfare-schemes">welfare schemes</keyword>. 
 
However, it added the government can surely make it mandatory for <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/6-things-for-which-Aadhaar-card-is-mandatory-now/articleshow/57791987.cms">other things</a> like opening bank accounts. The <keyword id="6356229" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court">Apex Court</keyword> said a seven-judge bench needs to be set up to hear the pleas challenging Aadhaar, and also that it is not possible as of now. 
 
Also read: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/keep-your-aadhaar-number-ready-while-filing-income-tax-return/articleshow/57777330.cms">Keep your Aadhaar number ready while filing income tax return</a> 
 
The government has, on its part, already said nobody will be deprived of benefits due to lack of an Aadhaar card, since they can use alternate means of identification to receive benefits until an Aadhaar number is assigned. 
 
Also read: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/world-bank-is-impressed-with-aadhaar-programme-says-beneficial-for-the-world-if-widely-adopted/articleshow/57665980.cms">World Bank is impressed with Aadhaar programme; says beneficial for the world if widely adopted</a> 
 
In October 2015, SC had lifted its earlier restrictions and permitted the voluntary use of Aadhaar cards for welfare schemes like MGNREGA, all pension schemes, the provident fund and flagship programmes like the '<a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/shocking-rs-74610-croredeposited-in-jan-dhan-accounts-after-note-ban/articleshow/56850719.cms">Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna</a>' of the NDA government, along with LPG and PDS schemes. 
 
There has been criticism about making Aadhaar cards mandatory, since <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/latest/database-completely-secure-uidai-assures/articleshow/57490909.cms">UIDAI</a> is said to be getting biometric details through private agencies, thus violating citizens' fundamental rights. 
 
(Image source: Sound and Light)

Beneficiaries of welfare schemes don’t need to have Aadhaar, rules Supreme Court

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear SEBIs petition, in an open court, seeking review of its August 5 judgment, which directed the market regulator to share certain documents with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said: "Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the submissions advanced in the review petition, we deem it appropriate to allow application for listing of the instant petition in open court. Let this review petition be listed in court on October 12, 2022." <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> has refused to entertain RIL's request to share the privileged documents on the grounds that under the Sebi (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, the accused company has no right to seek information from it. The <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword>, in its judgement, had rejected this stand of the market regulator. RIL had claimed that documents will exonerate it and its promoters from criminal prosecution initiated in a case related to the alleged irregularities in acquisition of its own shares between 1994 and 2000. Last week, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna had recused from hearing RIL's petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against SEBI for failing to provide certain documents to the company. On August 5, a bench led by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had said: "The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents, also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency." The top court had said the market regulator should show fairness and furnish documents sought by RIL, and SEBI has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. RIL filed a contempt petition as SEBI has not shared three documents -- the two legal opinions by former apex court judge B.N. Srikrishna and former ICAI president Y.H. Malegam's report which examined the irregularities. The company claimed SEBI cannot continue to resist the production of these documents and it had also sent a notice to the regulator saying if documents were not received by August 18, then it will establish that SEBI does not want to comply with the apex court's judgment. In 2002, Chartered Accountant S. Gurumurthy filed a complaint with SEBI alleging irregularities by RIL, its associate companies and their directors/promoters, including <keyword id="3820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="mukesh-ambani" source="Orion">Mukesh Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Nita; <keyword id="9171" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="anil-ambani" source="Orion">Anil Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Tina; and 98 others. The complaint cited the issue of two preferential placement of non-convertible debentures in 1994. SEBI had alleged that RIL along with Reliance Petroleum had circuitously funded the acquisition of its own shares in violation of the Sections 77 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/markets/news/sebi-tightens-disclosure-norms-for-ipo-brings-mutual-fund-transactions-under-the-gambit-of-insider-trading-rules/articleshow/94577801.cms">SEBI tightens disclosure norms for IPOs, brings mutual fund transactions under the gambit of insider trading rules</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/jio-will-launch-5g-for-the-entire-country-by-december-2023-mukesh-ambani/articleshow/94579338.cms">Jio will launch 5G for the entire country by December 2023: Mukesh Ambani</a>

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday modified the sentences of <keyword id="46447" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Nitish-Katara">Nitish Katara</keyword> murder case convicts <keyword id="46445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Vikas-Yadav">Vikas Yadav</keyword> and his cousin <keyword id="46446" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Vishal-Yadav">Vishal Yadav</keyword> and reduced their jail terms to 25 years. 
 The <keyword id="6356229" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court">Apex Court</keyword> sentenced another accused <keyword id="2180588" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sukhdev-Yadav">Sukhdev Yadav</keyword> alias Pehelwan to 20 years in prison. 
 
An Apex Court division bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra passed the order after hearing a detailed argument from both sides - the prosecution as well as the defence. 
 
The Apex Court had on August 17, 2015, upheld the conviction of Vikas, Vishal and Sukhdev, saying 'only criminals are crying for justice' in this country. 
 The three convicts were serving a life-term awarded by the lower court in May 2008 for abducting and killing <keyword id="6414390" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Katara">Katara</keyword>, a business executive and the son of a railway officer, on the night of February 16-17, 2002, as they opposed the victim's relationship with Bharti, Vikas' sister and the daughter of Uttar Pradesh politician D.P. Yadav. 
 The <keyword id="6355014" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> had on April 2, 2014, upheld the verdict of the lower court in the case and described the offence as "honour killing" stemming from a "deeply-entrenched belief" in the caste system.

Nitish Katara murder case: SC reduces sentences of Yadav brothers to 25 years

1. Akin to the Shakespearean dilemma, ‘To Be or not to be’, the debate of retention of <keyword id="134562" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="capital-Punishment">Capital punishment</keyword> is again raging, an after-effect of the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/Yakub-Memon-buried-with-Islamic-rites/articleshow/48283186.cms">Yakub Memon’s hanging</a> (on a charge upheld up to the Curative petition level, where an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement/order of the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>, after dismissal of a review petition in order to prevent injustice by law, as also yet another pre-dawn opportunity afforded by an Apex Bench). Inexplicably enough, the debate stays placid for indefinite duration till it is time for the convict to meet his final end. 

	2. Whenever the topic is debated, the protagonists of Human Rights raise the following points. Life being a gift of the Almighty, a human being has no right to decimate it. It would be catastrophic if evidence surfacing <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/Yakub-Memon-Hanged-on-the-day-he-was-born/articleshow/48276475.cms">post-execution</a> is indicative of innocence of the person executed. 
 

	3. The rival mindsets have been straining their vocal chords to hawk their ‘wares’ but each one of them has missed a point which is fundamental to the issue. 
 4. These premises are flawed to the very core of its foundation. It is not that the execution comes about just like that. The initial conviction is recorded by the <keyword id="3017606" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Court-of-Sessions">Court of Sessions</keyword> after a regular trial during the course of which full defense evidences are considered too. The recommendation for the Capital punishment is forwarded to the <keyword id="6355392" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="High-Court">High Court</keyword> and is heard by a Division Bench. In case of acceptance of the recommendation, the convict can file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the orders of the High Court. That (SLP) too would be heard by at least a two-Judge Bench of the <keyword id="6356229" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="apex-court">Apex Court</keyword>, which can be followed up by a Review Petition and a Curative Petition, both of which are considered by the judges of the Apex Court. The final judicial determination is thus preceded by adequate grant of opportunity of hearing at all hierarchical levels upto the Apex Court. In the following of that due course of Law, there is no likelihood of any error in the appreciation of fixture of liability of the convict. 

	5. My experience (as a lawyer) of more than four decades tells me that the extinction of Capital punishment would put the country into a perilous scenario. While certainly not recommending Capital Punishment to be awarded for a mere murder charge, I am of the distilled view that retention of capital punishment is a must for the society. That it should be granted only in cases falling within the ‘Rarest of the rare’ category is a legitimate view with respect to the current societal scenario. 
 

	6. A law answering the societal requirement is the best tool for governance. Being oppressed under the yoke of colonialism for a fairly long duration, a large segment of the countrymen is still not liberated from prejudices of religion / caste / region. The trust gap between the establishment and the ‘governed’, as also between the predominant communities, has widened. ‘Flourishing’ sex determination clinics reiterate the pronounced preference for a sex ‘fixation’, thereby adding to the marked decline of the female population. Differences between the rich and deprived have increased beyond redemption. Moreover, Indian youth has fallen victims to the evils of internet. 
 

	7. Why else would it appear as if the gang rapes are here to stay? Why else would a spouse forward his/her life partner to the maker in violation of the seven steps taken around the holy fire? Why else would juveniles exhibit demeaning and beastly acts against a woman? Why would the ‘honour killing’ phenomenon persist? The want of fear of law and the ‘ability’ to delay trial by taking advantage of the changes of procedural law appear to contribute to the unceasing disquiet in the society. The level of ‘emboldenment’ of the perverted mindsets cannot even be imagined, if the abolition of Capital punishment were to come about.
 

	8. In my distilled view, Capital punishment must stay on statute book, atleast till our mindsets attain intellectual ‘puberty’. 
	 
	(The author is Justice SD Anand, a retired Justice of the Haryana and Chandigarh High Court.)

	 
	 
	(Image credits: Indiatimes)

Retention of Capital Punishment – A distilled view

In a major setback to the builders in <keyword id="18858" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="noida" source="Orion">Noida</keyword> and Greater Noida, the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday recalled its 2020 order, capping the interest rate at 8 per cent, for the delay in payment of land cost by builders to the authorities. A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit recalled the June 2020 order, which directed Noida and Greater Noida to cap the interest rate at 8 per cent for delays in payment of land cost by builders, instead of a steep 15-23 per cent. During the hearing, senior advocate <keyword id="224684" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="ravindra-kumar" source="Orion">Ravindra Kumar</keyword>, representing the Noida and <keyword id="821456" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="greater-noida-authorities" source="Orion">Greater Noida authorities</keyword>, had told the <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword> that the authorities will incur over Rs 7,500 crore loss if its order capping the interest rate, at around 8 per cent, for the delay in payment of land cost by builders were to sustain. Kumar had vehemently argued that this order was not based on facts and it will financially ruin the authorities and that over Rs 7,500 crore would be gone with a stroke of the pen. "Builders will get unjust enrichment of over Rs 7,500 crore," he had submitted. Emphasising the necessity of interest on land cost, the authorities had contended that in Noida city, there is no house tax, yet it is maintaining metro services and good infrastructure, and also that not one builder came to the court after the allotment, claiming the rate of interest was very high. "No reduction in the rate of interest (for the builders) would be passed on to the home buyers," Kumar had argued before the apex court. In September last year, the authorities had urged the top court to recall its order, citing that the builders have not deposited "a single paisa" to clear their dues. In its June 2020 amid the pandemic, the top court cited the bad state of the real estate sector and the need to give impetus to such housing projects, mainly considering the plight of home buyers and as pointed out by Noida and Greater Noida Authorities that 114 plots were allotted from 2005 onwards, but most of the projects are incomplete. "We direct that rate of interest on the outstanding premium and other dues to be realised in all such cases at the rate of 8 per cent per annum and let the Noida and Greater Noida authorities do a restructuring of the repayment schedule so that amount is paid and Noida and Greater Noida authorities are able to realise the same," said the top court. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/estimated-32-lakh-weddings-till-dec-14-with-a-trade-of-rs-3-75-lakh-cr/articleshow/95352679.cms">Estimated 32 lakh weddings till Dec 14 with a trade of Rs 3.75 lakh cr</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/customer-protection-guiding-light-of-revamped-microfinance-regulations-says-rbi-deputy-governor/articleshow/95352941.cms">Customer protection 'guiding light' of revamped microfinance regulations, says RBI deputy governor</a>

Now Noida, Greater Noida builders have to pay up, as SC reverses order capping interest rates

The Supreme Court on Friday held former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh guilty of contempt of court for violating its order asking them not to divest their shares in Fortis Healthcare . The apex court earlier asked the Singh brothers to give it a plan as to how they would honour the arbitral award of Rs 3,500 crore granted by a Singapore tribunal against them and in favour of Japanese drug manufacturer <keyword id="85190" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Daiichi-Sankyo">Daiichi Sankyo</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta held the former Ranbaxy promoters guilty of contempt of court and said that they had violated its earlier order by which the sale of their controlling stakes in Fortis Group to Malayasian firm IHH Healthcare was put on hold. The apex court said that they would hear the Singhs on the quantum of sentence later. The Japanese firm had filed contempt petition against the former Ranbaxy promoters alleging that execution of their arbitral award had been in jeopardy as the Singh brothers disposed of their controlling stakes in Fortis Group to the Malaysian firm.

Malvinder and Shivinder Singh held guilty of violating Supreme Court order

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday came down heavily on two members of <keyword id="6396355" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="nclat" source="Orion">NCLAT</keyword> who were issued contempt notice for defying an order of the apex court. After going through the relevant CCTV footage of the NCLAT proceedings from October 13, a bench headed by <keyword id="6363345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji" source="Orion">CJI</keyword> D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that there exists a "clear intention" to breach the directions passed by the Supreme Court. In view of the unconditional apology tendered by Member (Technical) Dr Alok Srivastava, the bench decided to put an end to contempt proceedings. During the hearing, the top court was apprised by senior advocate P.S. Patwalia that Member (Judicial) Rakesh Kumar -- who was part of the contentious bench of NCLAT -- has tendered his resignation to the Chairman of the appellate tribunal. Senior advocate Patwalia, who represented Member (Judicial) Rakesh Kumar, said that members of the bench had no intention to defy the orders passed by the apex court and there is no affront or ego involved. At this, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud said: "There is no denial of the fact that the lawyers did point out (before NCLAT bench) that an order was passed by the Supreme Court." In its order, the apex court directed <keyword id="227293" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="deepak-chhabria" source="Orion">Deepak Chhabria</keyword> and the scrutiniser to deposit costs of Rs 1 crore and Rs 10 lakh, respectively, in the Prime Minister Relief Fund for misusing the process of law. Earlier on October 18, the Supreme Court had issued contempt notice to two members for "wilfully" defying directions passed by it. The top court had also set aside the judgment passed by the two-member bench of the NCLAT saying that parties cannot take recourse to "devious" means to obviate compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court. On October 13, the top court ordered the Chairperson of the NCLAT to conduct an inquiry into the working of a bench of the appellate tribunal which allegedly defied an order of the Supreme Court. It had said that it is passing the order in "extraordinary circumstances" where the two-member bench of the NCLAT proceeded to pronounce the judgment despite the clear mandate of the order passed by the Supreme Court asking the appellate tribunal to declare "its judgment in the pending appeal after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the Annual General Meeting has been declared". Senior advocates <keyword id="106922" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="abhishek-manu-singhvi" source="Orion">Abhishek Manu Singhvi</keyword> and N.K. Kaul had apprised the top court that the bench consisting of Rakesh Kumar and Dr Alok Srivastava of the NCLAT proceeded to deliver the order despite request made by the petitioner before the appellate tribunal to not deliver the judgment until the report of the scrutiniser is made available. "If what is stated is correct, this will clearly constitute the defiance of the order of this court by the NCLAT," the Supreme Court had said, noting that its order was uploaded at 1.55 p.m. while the scrutiniser's report was stated to be uploaded at 2.40 p.m.

You Searched For "apex court" and got 8 results

Patanjali ads case: Supreme Court asks Ramdev, Balkrishna to issue public apology; says not letting them off hook yet

PTI

Beneficiaries of welfare schemes don’t need to have Aadhaar, rules Supreme Court

BI India Bureau

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

IANS

Nitish Katara murder case: SC reduces sentences of Yadav brothers to 25 years

BI India Bureau

Retention of Capital Punishment – A distilled view

Guest Author

Now Noida, Greater Noida builders have to pay up, as SC reverses order capping interest rates

IANS

Malvinder and Shivinder Singh held guilty of violating Supreme Court order

PTI

SC closes contempt proceedings against NCLAT bench after one member apologises, other resigns

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides