<ul><li>The Supreme Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to extend ₹250,000 as compensation money to <keyword id="490253" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Unnao-rape-case">Unnao rape case</keyword> survivor. </li><li>It has asked <keyword id="76600" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Central-Reserve-Police-Force">Central Reserve Police Force</keyword> (CRPF) Raebareli unit to provide protection. </li><li>The justice bench headed by CJI <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> also directed the transfer of of the five Unnao cases to Delhi.</li></ul>The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide ₹250,000 as interim compensation to Unnao rape case survivor. "We will be failing in duty if we don't grant a compensation," the court <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/unnao-rape-case-sc-directs-compensation-to-survivor-fixes-7-day-deadline-for-truck-accident-probe/articleshow/70479013.cms">said</a>. The apex court also directed the state government to ensure security to the girl, and her lawyer. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Raebareli unit was asked to provide protection. The rape survivor, two of her aunts and her lawyer were injured in a road accident on Sunday. The Central Bureau of Investigation, on Wednesday filed a case against BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and eight others on murder charges, alleging that the accident was planned, India Today reported. Sengar was accused of rape by the victim, a year back. The King George Medical University hospital said that the condition of the injured rape survivor is critical. Both the survivor and her lawyer are on ventilator. Both the aunts succumbed to injuries. At a hearing on Wednesday, the SC offered the rape survivor’s family to shift her to AIIMS in Delhi for treatment. The bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi also <a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-unnao-case-hearing-live-updates-1575940-2019-08-01">transferred </a>the all the five Unnao cases — rape of the 19-year-old girl, case on her father under Arms Act, a case on the custodial death of the father, murder case against Kuldeep Sengar, and finally the accident — to Delhi. The Supreme Court asked the bench to conclude all the judicial proceedings within 45 days. In a letter she wrote to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the girl had mentioned the possibility of a threat. Unfortunately,<a href="https://www.news18.com/news/india/didnt-receive-letter-from-unnao-rape-survivors-kin-says-cji-gogoi-seeks-report-from-sc-registry-on-delay-2252495.html"> the message reached CJI Ranjan Gogoi</a> on Tuesday, two days after she met with an accident. In April 2018, a four-time MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was <a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/unnao-rape-case-fir-against-victim-kin-for-falsely-claiming-she-is-a-minor-1418061-2018-12-27">accused</a> for raping the minor at his place in Makhi village. He is currently in judicial custody. <div type="image" title="g1" tempid="117753" msid="70483134" hostid="261"></div>

 <div type="image" title="g2" tempid="117757" msid="70483135" hostid="261"></div>

India’s apex court directs UP state government to grant ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to Unnao rape survivor

<ul><li>The SC on Tuesday held that no additional restrictions other than those prescribed under Article 19(2).</li><li>Restrictions under Article 19(2) are exhaustive.</li><li>The case originated from a statement made by <keyword id="6355085" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="azam-khan" source="Orion">Azam Khan</keyword>, then UP minister, about gang-rape case victims. </li></ul>The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday held that no additional restrictions other than those prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution can be imposed on the right to free speech of a citizen, and emphasized that restrictions under Article 19(2) are exhaustive. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. <keyword id="853181" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="ramasubramanian" source="Orion">Ramasubramanian</keyword>, and B.V. <keyword id="620466" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="nagarathna" source="Orion">Nagarathna</keyword>, delivered the verdict. However, Justice Nagarathna delivered a separate judgment. Justice Ramasubramanian, reading the majority judgment, said no additional restrictions against free speech can be imposed except those mentioned under the Article 19(2) of the Constitution. "The grounds...in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive... additional restrictions not found in Article 19 (2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 (1) (a)", said Justice Ramasubramanian. The top court said a minister's statement can't be vicariously attributed to the government and the minister is liable for the statement himself. The constitution bench judgement delivered the verdict on whether restrictions can be imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expression of a public functionary. Justice Nagarathna said hate speech strikes at the root of equality and fraternity and added that fundamental duties could be used to check disparaging speeches and promote harmony among citizens. Justice Nagarathna said the court cannot impose any greater/ additional restrictions on the fundamental right of free speech of such public functionaries. The case originated from a statement made by Azam <keyword id="6355601" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="khan" source="Orion">Khan</keyword>, then Uttar Pradesh minister, about gang-rape case victims. The top court was hearing a plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter was allegedly gang-raped in July 2016 on a highway near <keyword id="84674" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="bulandshahr" source="Orion">Bulandshahr</keyword> seeking a transfer of the case to Delhi. The plea also sought lodging of a case against Khan in connection with his controversial statement that the gang rape case was a "political conspiracy". In October 2017, a three-judge bench referred the matter to the constitution bench to decide various issues, which included whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/no-second-covid-19-booster-dose-required-govt-sources/articleshow/96701441.cms">No second Covid-19 booster dose required: Govt sources</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/indias-new-covid-cases-jump-to-2582-in-last-24-hours/articleshow/96701599.cms">India's new Covid cases jump to 2,582 in last 24 hours</a>

Additional restrictions can't be imposed on freedom of speech of lawmakers: SC

<ul><li><keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> of India rejects the review petition of Akshay Singh, one of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya rape and murder case. </li><li>The Supreme Court today upheld the 2017 judgement saying that it found no error in the verdict given by a fast-track court. </li><li> Two years back, four of the six accused in the horrific rape case were sentenced to death. </li></ul> The Supreme Court today upheld the 2017 judgement saying that it found no error in the verdict given by a fast-track court. Two years back, four of the six accused in the horrific rape case were sentenced to death. In a review petition, Akshay Kumar Singh — one of the accused said that no CBI probe was conducted and that the real culprits are still out. He also argued that six people cannot possibly rape a girl in 21 minutes. He also presented a book by Sunil Gupta — that talks about yet another accused Ram Singh’s death in Tihar jail. Ram Singh had committed suicide in jail. One of the bizarre arguments by Akshay Kumar Singh was about Delhi’s bad air quality he said, “People are already dying so why give a death penalty.” The horrific <keyword id="1501541" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Nirbhaya-case">Nirbhaya case</keyword> In 2012, a 23-year-old paramedical student was gangraped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17 inside a moving bus. Later, she was thrown out at an isolated place by the accused. Due to the brutality inflicted on her, she died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Police had arrested all the six accused in the case. Ram Singh, one of them allegedly committed suicide in jail. A juvenile who also convicted was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. As many cases and petitions were filed after the fast track court verdict. In fact, in 2017, Supreme Court upheld capital punishment and so did the Delhi High Court. Thousands of people marched on the street across the country to protest against the judicial system. The case lead to the government setting up Nirbhaya Fund — a Rs 10 billion corpus which helps state governments facilitate women safety services. The government also introduced a Nirbhaya Act on April 3, 2013 that mandates strict punishments for sex crimes. The government also expanded the definition of rape and involved forced penetration, oral, vaginal or anal, with any foreign object in it. It also recognised stalking and voyeurism as an offence. The law also stated that certain offence will be dealt separately under IPC such as acid attack (Sec 326A), attempt to acid attack (Sec 326B), sexual harassment (Sec 354A), act with intention to disrobe a woman (Sec 354B), voyeurism (Sec 354C), and stalking (Sec 354D). In 2019, two rape cases <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/unnao-rape-case-delhi-high-court-convicts-ex-bjp-mla-kuldeep-singh-sengar/articleshow/72751775.cms?utm_source=copy-link&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=Click_through_social_share">shocked the nation when both the victims were burnt to death</a>. The first was the rape and murder of a 27-year old doctor in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/hyderabad-rape-case-accused-shot-dead-in-a-police-encounter/articleshow/72393351.cms">Hyderabad which culminated into an encounter where all the accused were shot by Telangana police</a>. Yet another rape victim of Unnao died a horrific death as the 23 year old girl was stabbed and set on fire as she was on her way to a court hearing. This week, a Delhi Court<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/unnao-rape-case-delhi-high-court-convicts-ex-bjp-mla-kuldeep-singh-sengar/articleshow/72751775.cms?utm_source=copy-link&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=Click_through_social_share"> convicted former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar for kidnapping</a> and raping a minor girl in Unnao in 2017. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/hyderabad-rape-case-accused-shot-dead-in-a-police-encounter/articleshow/72393351.cms">Hyderabad rape case accused shot dead in an encounter and magisterial probe is ordered</a>

Nirbhaya case: Supreme Court rejects review petition and upholds death penalty

<ul><li>The Supreme Court has declared that its willing to go live during its proceedings. </li><li>Attorney general KK Venugopal has been asked to submit a draft of necessary guidelines for a live-stream proceeding. </li><li>The Jury says that if it works well in the SC, live stream can be extended to other courtrooms in India. </li></ul>On Monday, the Supreme Court (SC) took the <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/court-takes-first-step-to-live-stream-proceedings/articleshow/64924977.cms">first step </a>towards live streaming proceedings by declaring its willingness to initiate the process. The court had rejected the idea many times before, however, it has now asked attorney general KK Venugopal, who supported petitioner Indira Jaising’s plea for live streaming, to submit a draft of necessary guidelines. The next hearing for the matter will take place on 23 July. The bench, headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> and comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said that the court was conceptually an ‘open court’ and everyone is allowed to watch the hearings. It further added that a litigant must be entitled to know how their lawyers are dealing with their cases, even if the litigant is not physically present there and going live would make it happen. The SC pointed out that this live streaming would be most beneficial for people from far away places of <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/live-streaming-of-court-proceedings-can-be-undertaken-centre-tells-sc/story-wEpA5SpbfwVpFuUgss7CHI.html">South India</a>, who otherwise have to travel all the way to the Capital to hear the proceedings. The supporters also believe that it would lead to increased transparency. Last year the court had taken another huge step in transparency by allowing installation of CCTV cameras, recording both video and audio, across <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-favours-live-streaming-of-court-proceedings/article24370456.ece">trial rooms</a> and tribunals of all states. The number of people crowding courtrooms during important judgements will also go down once the live streaming facility is activated. They will be able to watch it all sitting at home, much like the way it happens in England. While, the right to information is strongly being asserted in support of this matter, the fundamental right to privacy comes under threat. The litigants’ right to privacy is at risk if courts discuss all cases live for all to watch. Apprehensions are being raised regarding national security cases, rape cases, matrimonial disputes etc that are far too sensitive to be put in front of an indiscrete public. The court had been waiting since 3 May for a response from the Centre on the issue of live streaming. The government mooted the possibility of a separate television channel for the live stream, similar to what exists for streaming discussions that take place in the <keyword id="48510" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rajya-Sabha">Rajya Sabha</keyword> and the Lok Sabha. Jaising has mentioned in her request that if it (the streaming) is to be done, the live broadcast must be non-commercial and reproduction of the stream must remain unauthorised. If it works well in the SC, the jury says, the decision can be extended to other courtrooms in the country.

You Searched For "sc judgement on unnao rape case" and got 4 results

India’s apex court directs UP state government to grant ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to Unnao rape survivor

Prerna Sindwani

Additional restrictions can't be imposed on freedom of speech of lawmakers: SC

IANS

Nirbhaya case: Supreme Court rejects review petition and upholds death penalty

Preeti Soni

Now watching: Supreme Court of India may go live during proceedings

BI India Bureau