Jayalalithaa finally released from Bangalore jail

New Delhi, Mar 16: Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde on Monday said that rules for preventing overcrowding in the courts to avoid the spread of coronavirus cannot be relaxed for journalists alone on the basis of profession.

"Can't make an exception on the basis of profession," CJI Bobde said while asking journalists to share information and notes and suggesting that a system can be put in place to facilitate daily media briefing by Secretary-General.

Video conferencing facility being contemplated may be brought into place but not sooner than one week from now and reporters may take turns to attend hearings, CJI Bobde said.

He said that the court does not wish to prevent any reportage.

Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Chief Justice of India about the crowded corridors on account of restricted entry inside courtrooms.

CJI Bobde said that he himself wishes to assess and take stock of the situation and may do so tomorrow at 10.30 am.

This comes after the top court introduced several precautionary measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus and allowed only restricted entry of lawyers, litigants, and journalists in the courtroom.

Thermal-screening of the lawyers, litigants, and media persons were also conducted in the Supreme Court on Monday amid coronavirus fears.

Lucknow , May 13: Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday took a jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over announcing Rs 20 lakh crore special economic package to boost the economy saying that the Centre is again making "false promises to 133 crore Indians".

"Earlier, you promised Rs 15 lakh and now Rs 20 lakh crore. You have made false promises 133 times with 133 crore Indians. How can someone trust you this time? People now are not asking how many zeroes there are but how many false promises have been made," he tweeted (translated from Hindi).

Yesterday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced a Rs 20 lakh crore economic stimulus package for the country fighting COVID-19, stating that it will give a new impetus and a new direction to the self-reliant India campaign.

The Prime Minister had also announced that the fourth phase of lockdown will be completely redesigned with new rules and will commence from May 18.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.