Delhi police file FIR against JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh, 19 others

New Delhi, Jun 24: A litre of diesel on Wednesday was more expensive than a litre of petrol after the price of the former was hiked by 48 paise on the 18th successive day of fuel price revisions. While petrol price remained unchanged for the first time since June 7, diesel prices maintained upward trajectory to touch new highs.

It is for the first time in Delhi that diesel has become more expensive than petrol. A litre of the fuel now costs ₹79.88 as against ₹79.76 for a litre of petrol, as per a report in news agency ANI.

While surging fuel prices may generate much-needed revenue for governments, it would also have a detrimental impact on household budgets. The spike in diesel prices also has a wider impact on the transport and agricultural sectors which are largely dependent on the fuel.

The widest gap between the prices of the two fuels was on June 18 of 2012 when a litre of petrol was at ₹71.16 in Delhi while diesel was at ₹40.91. On June 28, the gap between the two fuels was 31.17 per litre in Mumbai. Around that time, there was a spurt in sales of diesel passenger vehicles while demand for such vehicles has come down significantly in current times. This has also led many manufacturers to ditch diesel engines completely.

The current trend of fuel price hikes are unlikely to do demand for petrol vehicles much good either.

Daily price revisions of the two fuel had been temporarily halted for 83 days till it was resumed on June 7.

India's demand for fuel doubled in May and has been steadily rising in June with the easing of restrictions. Indian refineries have already scaled up crude processing with Indian Oil Corp, the country's top refiner, looking to operate its plants at about 90% capacity in June.

The rising fuel prices, however, have resulted in political uproar with Congress leading the charge against the central government and accusing it of penalising consumers by imposing high taxes. A demand for including fuel prices under Goods and Services Tax (GST) has also been renewed by many but it is highly unlikely that it would happen. With oil companies looking to cut back on their previous loses and governments - central as well as states - aiming to generate revenue after tumultous weeks of lockdown, fuel price hikes are likely to stay till at least the end of June.

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, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".