Kafeel Khan’s wife fears threat to his life in prison

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, Jun 13: India's COVID-19 tally on Saturday witnessed its highest-ever spike of 11,458 cases, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).

A total of 386 deaths have been reported due to the infection during the last 24 hours.

The total number of coronavirus cases in the country now stands at 3,08,993 including 1,45,779 active cases 1,54,330 cured/discharged/migrated and 8,884 deaths.

COVID-19 cases in Maharashtra continue to soar with the number reaching 101141. Tamil Nadu's coronavirus count stands at 40,698 while cases in Delhi reached 36,824.

Mumbai, Feb 18: A group of citizens on Tuesday demanded a thorough inquiry into the death of special CBI judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya in 2014.

The group has written a letter to Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, seeking a time-bound probe into the death of Loya.

Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case of Gujarat, died of a cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

Social activist Ashok Pai, addressing a press conference on behalf of the group, also demanded proper compensation for the judge's family, saying he was on an "official" tour.

Pai said on Tuesday he met NCP president Sharad Pawar, whose party is a key constituent of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government in Maharashtra, and raised these demands with him.

Pawar assured to look into the demands, he said at the press conference at the Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh.

"We have handed over a letter to Maharashtra Assembly speaker Nana Patole and dispatched a copy of the letter to Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray (seeking a probe into Loya's death)," Pai said.

As the matter relates to "mysterious" death of a sitting judge of the CBI, all facts about it must be made public after a detailed and time-bound probe, Pai said.

The Loya death case had reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had held that Loya had died of "natural causes" and had rejected PILs seeking an SIT probe into the death, questioning their motive.

The SC had held that petitions were moved by political rivals to settle scores which was a serious attempt to scandalise the judiciary and obstruct the course of justice through a "frontal attack" on its independence.