Begging prohibited in Hyderabad ahead of Ivanka Trump's visit

New Delhi, Jan 10: The Supreme Court while hearing petitions challenging restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir on Friday stated that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

"It is no doubt that freedom of speech is an essential tool in a democratic setup. The freedom of Internet access is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution," a two-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana stated while reading out the judgment.

The top court said that Kashmir has seen a lot of violence and that it will try to maintain a balance between human rights and freedoms with the issue of security.

It also directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the region within a week. “The citizens should be provided highest security and liberty,” the apex court added.

The top court made observations and issued directions while pronouncing the verdict on a number of petitions challenging the restrictions and internet blockade imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 in August last year.

The Supreme Court had on November 27 reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions challenging restrictions imposed on communication, media and telephone services in Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to revocation of Article 370.

The court heard the petitions filed by various petitioners including Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin.

The petitions were filed after the central government scrapped Article 370 in August and bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region.

The government had, however, contended that it has progressively eased restrictions.

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

New Delhi, May 4: Rebutting the Congress' criticism, the BJP said on Monday that the railways has subsidised 85 per cent of ticket fare for special trains being run for migrant workers and the state governments have to pay the remaining 15 per cent.

The ruling party also accused the Congress of promoting indiscriminate movement of people which, it said, would lead to "faster spread" of coronavirus infection "just like we saw in Italy", and asked if this is what Sonia Gandhi wants.

The counter-charge from BJP leaders, including its spokesperson Sambit Patra and information technology department in-charge Amit Malviya, came after Congress president Sonia Gandhi hit out at the central government for making migrants pay for their train fare and asked her party's state units to pick the tab.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also took a swipe at the railways, saying, on one hand, it is seeking ticket fare from people stranded in various states while on the other it is donating Rs 151 crore to the PM-CARES Fund.

Responding to him, Patra said, "Rahul Gandhi ji, I have attached guidelines of MHA which clearly state that 'No tickets to be sold at any station'. Railways has subsidised 85% & state govt to pay 15%. The state govt can pay for the tickets (Madhya Pradesh's BJP govt is paying). Ask Cong state govts to follow suit," Patra tweeted.

The BJP leader further clarified that for each 'Shramik Express', special trains being run for migrants to take them back to their native places during the lockdown, about 1,200 tickets to the destination are handed by the railways to the state government concerned.

State governments are supposed to clear the ticket price and hand over the tickets to workers, he said.

He said the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh is doing so and asked Rahul Gandhi to tell the Congress-ruled states to follow suit.

Hitting out at Sonia Gandhi, Malviya tweeted, "Congress is obviously upset at how well India has handled Covid. They would have ideally wanted a lot more people to suffer and die. Promoting indiscriminate movement of people would lead to faster spread of infection, just like we saw in Italy. Is this what Sonia Gandhi wants?"

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy claimed that migrant workers returning home will not have to pay money as the rail travel will be free from now onwards.

"Talked to Piyush Goyal office. Govt will pay 85% and State Govt 15%. Migrant labour will go free. Ministry will clarify with an official statement," he tweeted.

BJP Congress Coronavirus COVID-19 Coronavirus lockdown Italy Sonia Gandhi Rahul Gandhi Sambit Patra Amit Malviya Subramanian Swamy Piyush Goyal