Vijay Mallya offers to pay Rs 4000 crore by September 31

Businessman Vijay Mallya on Wednesday offered to pay Rs 4,000 crore by September 31, 2016 to a consortium of banks, led by the SBI, against an outstanding loan of Rs 9,000 crore.

Mallya offered to pay Rs 2,000 crore upfront and remaining Rs 2,000 crore by September 31, 2016

Mallya's offer was made in the Supreme Court by his counsel C S Vaidyanathan.

But his counsel remained silent on the question of whether Mallya intended to return to India from London or not.

The SC allowed the consortium of banks to respond within a week's time to Mallya's proposal and posted the matter for hearing on April 7.

Mallya, promoter of long-grounded Kingfisher Airlines, had left India on March 2, presumably for London, days before the Supreme Court heard a plea of clutch of state-owned banks seeking recovery from his group firms.

During the hearing today, Mallya also accused media of running campaign against him while assuring to payback loans. On this, the SC bench observed that media is doing its job in public interest.

Mallya has also been summoned by Enforcement Directorate (ED) to make a personal appearance before its investigating officer in Mumbai on April 2 in connection with its money laundering probe in the over Rs 900 crore IDBI loan fraud case. He has sought more time from the agency to present himself on a later date instead of the scheduled time of March 18.

Sponsored link

'Dance is an art': SC raps Maha govt's terms for granting licences to dance bars

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down on Maharashtra government for putting certain conditions for granting licences to dance bars across the state like providing live CCTV feed of performances to police and segregating the dance area from the restaurant.

"Why the stage should be covered from all sides? Why there should a non-transparent partition between dance area and restaurant area? The dance is an art," a bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said. The bench was critical of some pre-requisites fixed by the state police for granting licences to dance bar owners and said the condition that there should be segregation of dance area from that of restaurant presumes that performance would be "obscene".

"Why are you imposing the condition? As long as nothing obscene is happening...why," it asked Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, appearing for Maharashtra, and told her to clarify the stand on some contentious conditions on March 1, the next date of hearing. The dance bar association, represented by senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, has red flagged certain conditions. "This licence is valid for only one stage of 10ft x 12 ft.

in size in restaurant area as per approved plan of the excise department for ... with non transparent partition between restaurant and permit room area," one of the conditions reads.

The dance bar owners would be permitted to keep only four "dancers/artists to remain present on permitted stage", another contentious condition said. The owners will not be allowed to "add or alter" anything in the premises except "without the written permission of the Competent Authority ie DCP(HQ-1) for Mumbai or concerned DCP/SP for other areas," the condition said.

Bhushan said that these are "regressive ones" and needed to be amended.

Bhushan also objected to the condition that makes it compulsory to dance bar owners to "ensure that adequate number of CCTV cameras which will live feed continuously to police control room be installed to cover the entire premises which will record the entire daily performance and the same would be monitored by a specially appointed person on a monitor/ display.

"The daily recording of last 30 days would preserved and will be made available to any competent authority as and when required for viewing." The apex court had in November last year pulled up the Maharashtra government for not complying with its October 15, 2015 order, asking it to consider granting licences of dance bars to hoteliers and had ordered it to process such pleas within two weeks.

It had also raised questions over the state government laws banning dance bars and said as to "how individual morality, perceptive morality and selective morality can merge into collective and legal morality". It had allowed Vinod Patil, president of R R Patil Foundation, to intervene in the matter. Patil had in his plea claimed that reopening of dance bars would increase crime.

On October 15, 2015, the apex court had stayed the operation of 2014 amendment in Maharashtra Police Act that had banned dance performances at bars and some other places, paving the way for reopening of dance bars across the state. The order had come on a petition filed by Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association challenging the amendment and sought contempt of court action against the Maharashtra government.

The court had noted that the provision was brought back in Maharashtra Polic

e Act in 2014 after being held ultra vires in 2013 by the top court.

Sponsored link

SC to hear contempt plea against Kanhaiya, Gilani on Monday

The students, who organised the event, also used social media platforms and "tarnished" the image of Supreme Court, it alleged.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear on Monday a plea seeking contempt action against jailed JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, former DU lecturer SAR Gilani and few others on the ground that they allegedly termed the execution of Afzal Guru as “judicial killing”.

A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices R. Banumathi and U.U. Lalit fixed the contempt plea for hearing on Monday when the plea alleged that by terming the execution as “judicial killing”, Kumar and others have committed contempt of the court which had delivered the verdict.

The plea, filed by lawyer Vineet Dhanda, refers to the apex court verdict, pronounced on August 4, 2005 in the case, by which Guru was handed down death penalty for being part of the conspiracy in the attack on Parliament.

“The so-called cultural event’s pamphlets spoke about the judicial killing of Afzal Guru. The main topic of the ’cultural event’ organised was judicial killing of Afzal Guru which outright tantamount to criminal contempt as the respondents are calling the judges of the apex court as killers who have been projected to have committed judicial killing of Afzal Guru,” the plea said.

“Afzal and Yakub Memon were no martyrs as projected by the group of students of JNU. The Supreme Court has already passed a detailed judgement in both cases after giving due consideration as per law after going through the evidence,” it further said.

Pamphlets were allegedly distributed during the “so-called” cultural event held at JNU on February 9 that termed death sentence to Guru and Maqbool Bhatt as “judicial killing”, the plea said.

The students, who organised the event, also used social media platforms and “tarnished” the image of Supreme Court, it alleged.

Besides Kanhaiya and Gilani, the plea has sought contempt action against Umar Khalid, Lenin Kumar, Anirban Bhattacharya, Shehla Rashid Shora and Ali Javed.

Sponsored link

Journalists and teachers join JNU protests, govt tries to douse fire

The government said it was willing to discuss in Parliament a police crackdown against a controversial meeting of Jawaharlal Nehru University students, but protests continued on Tuesday in a row that has also seen attack on journalists and teachers by right wing activists.

“The government is ready to walk the extra mile to ensure discussion in Parliament on all issues raised by the opposition,” said parliamentary affairs minister M Venkaiah Naidu after an all-party meeting ahead of the Budget session, during which opposition parties raised a host of issues including the protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Groups of students, journalists and teachers gathered for protests in Delhi on Tuesday after they were allegedly assaulted on Monday evening outside the Patiala House court hearing a sedition case against a JNU student.

Hundreds of JNU teachers went on strike to protest the arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, the JNU Students’ Union president who was remanded in custody at a Monday hearing, which was marked by violent scuffles outside the court where fellow students and journalists had gathered to witness his appearance.

Journalists marched till Supreme Court to protest the attacks on them outside the Patiala House Court. They shouted slogans in support of freedom of expression and alleged the Delhi Police had failed to protect them on Monday. A delegation of journalists also met home minister Rajnath Singh.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear on Wednesday plea seeking action against those involved in the violence at Patiala House.

At JNU, teachers joined students in boycotting classes to press for Kumar’s release.

‘Kick them out’: HT journalist recounts mob attack in a Delhi court

“The teachers went on strike today. Some 500 teachers have gathered near the university’s administrative block with banners to show their solidarity with the students,” said Om Prasad of the All India Students Association (AISA).

“They are demanding the immediate release of Kanhaiya and withdrawal of all the cases,” he told AFP.

Academics at foreign universities extended support. “As teachers, students, and scholars across the world, we are watching with extreme concern the situation unfolding at JNU and refuse to remain silent as our colleagues (students, staff, and faculty) resist the illegal detention and autocratic suspension of students,” said a statement posted on a blog run by academics and signed by 455 scholars, many of them JNU alumni of Indian descent.

Outside the university, scores of people demanded the demanded the arrest of those who shouted anti-India slogans at an event on the campus last week. The protestors--said to belong to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal--also demanded the shutdown of what they said was “anti-national” administration of the varsity.

Carrying saffron flags and shouting slogans like ‘JNU prashasan bandh karo (Shut down JNU administration)’, the protestors said those who raised anti-India slogans at an event organised on February 9 to commemorate the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru should be arrested.

“Arrest those ant-national elements,” shouted one of the protestors as he tried to break through a barricade at the university entrance.

“Our protest is in favour of the nation,” he told IANS.

Sponsored link

Adani One Of India's Most Powerful Entrepreneurs, Says Supreme Court

New Delhi:  The country's top environmental court has been given six weeks to decide whether a port being developed by the Adani Group in Kerala should be cancelled.

The Supreme Court, which had stopped the National Green Tribunal or NGT from hearing petitions against the project in January 2015, today lifted that restriction. It had stayed the hearings while it decided which bench of the green court would handle the case.

The Vizhinjam port, near Kerala's capital of Thiruvananthapuram, will provide key access to major international shipping routes, and is being jointly developed by the Adani conglomerate and the Kerala government at a reported cost of Rs. 6,600 crore.

It has been challenged by different groups including local fishermen who contend that the construction and development will cause irreversible damage in an environmentally-fragile area.  They had asked for the case to be transferred from Chennai to the NGT in Delhi.  The Kerala government had opposed that arguing that the matter was under the jurisdiction of the Chennai bench of the NGT and so should be heard there.

"We can understand if a poor person objects to coming to Delhi from Chennai.  But here, it is Adani, one of the most powerful entrepreneurs in the country," the Supreme Court said today, ordering the case to be heard in the capital.

 The Kerala government has also argued that the green court cannot cancel a project cleared by the union Environment Ministry.

Gautam Adani, who runs the vast business empire which has mining, power and shipping interests, is known for his proximity to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, in the past, has been seen using the group's aircraft.  The relationship is cited often by the opposition including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi as a glaring example "crony capitalism", a charge the PM's party denies.

However, in a column for ndtv.com, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, who represents Kerala in parliament, wrote in favour of the Adani project.

"We (Kerala) failed to secure a viable bid to build and operate the port in the last 25 years. The current winning bid (from Adani) , in the fourth bid process over the last decade or so, is the last chance for Vizhinjam," Mr Tharoor wrote, adding,  "Since Vizhinjam would be built from scratch, it has the ability to deploy "best in class" equipment without being burdened by legacy facilities. It can be highly mechanized and have world-class efficiency (given the right operator). Vizhinjam could handle the largest ships in the world as efficiently as Singapore, Hong Kong or Rotterdam for decades to come."

Adani's mining ventures in Chhattisgarh and the Hazira port developed at Surat in Gujarat have also been scrutinized for alleged environmental malpractices.

Sponsored link

SC refers gay sex ban matter to 5-judge bench; LGBT activists cheer

he Supreme Court on Tuesday reopened the debate over a colonial-era ban on homosexuality, referring eight curative petitions challenging its earlier verdict to a five-judge bench.

The SC said the case involves important constitutional issues. “It is definitely a step forward,” lawyer Anand Grover said as activists gathered outside the courtroom cheered.

“This is a progressive step in the right direction; it is a corrective measure,” LGBT activist Mohnish said after the hearing. “For today, this is good news,” another activist, Elena, said.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur had earlier agreed to hear the curative petition against the apex court’s December 2013 judgment which had upheld the validity of section 377, which criminalises sexual activities considered “against the order of nature”, arguably including the homosexual acts, and a January 2014 order by which it had dismissed a bunch of review petitions.

“Whoever voluntarily has carnal inter¬course against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine,” the Section 377, which came into force in 1862, says.

The petitioners include the NGO Naz Foundation which works for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community.

The plea had stated that the judgement was reserved on March 27, 2012, but a verdict was delivered after around 21 months and a lot of changes took place during this period, including amendment in laws which were not considered by the bench which delivered the judgement.

The gay rights activists had said that thousands of men and women disclosed their sexual identity during the past four years after the Delhi high court decriminalised gay sex in 2009, and they were now facing the threat of being prosecuted.

The Delhi HC had decriminalised consensual homosexual acts in private by declaring a part of Section 377 that criminalises unnatural sex as unconstitutional, saying “the section denies a gay person a right to full personhood…”

The apex court chose to reverse the verdict in 2013 by upholding the constitutional validity of Section 377 and had put the ball in Parliament’s court, saying it was for the legislature to take a call on the desirability of the controversial provision.

sponsored link

Should Gay Sex Ban Stay Or Go? Big Day For Activists in Supreme Court

Three seniormost judges including Chief Justice TS Thakur will hear in open court a curative petition against the Supreme Court's verdict in December 2013 restoring a colonial era ban on gay sex.

The curative petition is the last legal resort and is usually heard by judges in chambers. The Supreme Court had rejected a review petition in 2014.

Gay rights activists, an NGO Naz Foundation and others including filmmaker Shyam Benegal have challenged the Supreme Court's verdict confirming the validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that makes gay sex a crime for which the punishment can be a life term.

In 2009, the Delhi High Court exempted gay sex between consenting adults from Section 377 and said the law was against the right of privacy, personal liberty and equality.

The Supreme Court reversed the landmark ruling in 2013, ending four years of decriminalisation that had helped bring homosexuality into the open in largely conservative India. The court said only Parliament can remove or change laws.

The decision shocked activists who had expected the court to rubber-stamp the earlier ruling. It also drew comments from across the world expressing dismay.

Section 377, the 1860 law which is widely interpreted to refer to homosexual sex, bans "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal."

The Congress appealed against the Supreme Court decision and had pledged to remove the law if it came to power, but it lost to the BJP in the 2014 election.

Since the BJP came to power, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has backed calls for changing the law and ending the ban. "When millions of people world over are having alternative sexual preferences, it is too late in the day to propound a view that they should be jailed. The Delhi High Court's view appears more acceptable," Mr Jaitley said at an event last year.

In December, Congress parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor failed to introduce his bill seeking to amend the law on gay sex, with 74 members in the Lok Sabha voting against the bill and only 21 backing it, making even a debate impossible.

sponsored link

Supreme Court Asks Centre To Set Up Panel To Look Into Nurses' Grievances

New Delhi:  The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to set up within four weeks an expert committee to look into the grievances pertaining to service conditions of nurses employed with private hospitals and private nursing homes across the country.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave also asked the Centre to consider making a law based on the recommendations which would be given to it by the expert committee on the issue.

The bench also comprising Justices Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, then disposed of the petition filed by a nurses' body seeking various reliefs to ensure welfare of nurses working with private medical care institutions.

sponsored links