Pay 50% tax on unaccounted deposits, or 85% if caught: Govt

New Delhi, Feb 17: The Supreme Court said on Monday that people have a fundamental right to protest against a law but the blocking of public roads is a matter of concern and there has to be a balancing factor.

Hearing pleas over the road blocks due to the ongoing protests at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said its concern is about what will happen if people start protesting on roads.

Democracy works on expressing views but there are lines and boundaries for it, the bench said.

It asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde and advocate Sadhana Ramachandran to talk to Shaheen Bagh protestors and persuade them to move to an alternative site where no public place is blocked.

The matter has been posted for next hearing on February 24.

People have a fundamental right to protest but the thing which is troubling us is the blocking of public roads, the bench said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said Shaheen Bagh protestors should not be given a message that every institution is on its knees trying to persuade them on this issue.

The apex court said that if nothing works, we will leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.

Protestors have made their made their point and the protests have gone on for quite some time, it said.

Restrictions have been imposed on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and the Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15 last year due to the protests against CAA and Register of Citizens.

The top court had earlier said the anti-CAA protesters at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh cannot block public roads and create inconvenience for others.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by advocate Amit Sahni, who had approached the Delhi high court seeking directions to the Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15.

While dealing with Sahni's plea, the high court had asked local authorities to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order.

Separately, former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg has filed a petition in the apex court seeking directions to the authorities to remove the protestors from Shaheen Bagh.

One of the pleas has sought laying down of comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protests or agitations leading to obstruction of public place.

In his plea, Garg has said that law enforcement machinery was being "held hostage to the whims and fancies of the protesters" who have blocked vehicular and pedestrian movement from the road connecting Delhi to Noida.

State has the duty to protect fundamental rights of citizen who were continuously being harassed by the blockage of arterial road, it said.

"It is disappointing that the state machinery is muted and a silent spectator to hooliganism and vandalism of the protesters who are threatening the existential efficacy of the democracy and the rule of law and had already taken the law and order situation in their own hand," the plea had said.

In his appeal, Sahni had sought supervision of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting on protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.

Sahni has said in his plea that protests in Shaheen Bagh has inspired similar demonstrations in other cities and to allow it to continue would set a wrong precedent.

New Delhi, May 27: As per the prediction from the IMD, severe heatwave conditions continued in several parts of north India with Delhi recording the country’s second-highest temperature at 47.6 degrees Celsius. On the other hand, Churu in Rajasthan sizzled at 50 degrees Celsius, reporting the highest temperature in the country. Also Read - Delhi Temperature: Heatwave to Continue, IMD Issues Alert, Mercury Rises to 46 Degrees

In Delhi, the mercury soared to 47.6 degrees Celsius in Palam area and most places recorded their maximum temperatures six notches above normal. The Safdarjung Observatory, which provides representative figures for the city, recorded a maximum of 46 degrees Celsius.

The last time when the mercury at the Safdarjung weather station touched the 46-degrees-Celsius mark was on May 19, 2002.

The IMD said the weather stations at Lodhi Road and Aya Nagar recorded their respective maximum at 45.4 degrees and 46.8 degrees Celsius.

In its earlier forecast, the IMD has said that dust storm and thunderstorm with winds gusting up to 60 kilometres per hour is likely over the National Capital Region on Friday and Saturday.

On the other hand, severe heatwave conditions prevailed in several parts of Rajasthan on Tuesday, with the mercury touching 50 degrees Celsius in Churu district.

The IMD said this is the second-highest maximum temperature recorded in Churu district in the month of May in the last 10 years.

Other areas such as Bikaner, Gangangar, Kota and Jaipur recorded maximum temperatures of 47.4 degrees Celsius, 47 degrees Celsius, 46.5 degrees Celsius and 45 degrees Celsius, respectively.

In the adjoining areas of Chandigarh, the severe heatwave condition continued in Haryana, Punjab with Hisar being the hottest place in the region at 48 degrees Celsius.

New delhi, Feb 10: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, and said a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other member of the bench, said in a concurring verdict that every citizen needs to treat fellow citizens equally and foster the concept of fraternity.

Justice Bhat said a court can quash the FIR if a prima facie case is not made out under the SC/ST Act and the liberal use of anticipatory bail will defeat the intention of Parliament.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.