Supreme Court Verdict Today LIVE Updates: The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition on its Rafale judgment. The court held that there was no ground to launch an enquiry into the defence deal.

Auto refresh feeds

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved its decision on February 6 after hearing various parties including those seeking re-consideration of the 28 September, 2018 judgment.

However, a bunch of petitions were submitted to the court to urge it to review its verdict in the case. The apex court will deliver its judgement on as many as 65 petitions -- including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas -- which were filed after its verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.

The apex court, by a majority verdict of 4:1, on 28 September, 2018, had lifted the ban that prevented women of menstruating age from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Kerala and had held that this centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph had on 10 May reserved the judgment. Gandhi, who was then the President of the Congress Party, had told the bench that he has already tendered unconditional apology for wrongly attributing the remarks relating to the Prime Minister to the apex court.

Gandhi had made the remarks on April 10, the day the apex court had dismissed the Centre's preliminary objections over admissibility of certain documents for supporting the review petitions against the December 14 last year verdict in the Rafale case.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on the criminal contempt plea filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his "chowkidar chor hai" remark in Rafale case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved its decision on 6 February after hearing various parties including those seeking re-consideration of the 28 September, 2018 judgment.

The Supreme Court on Thursday, will deliver its judgment on as many as 65 petitions – including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas – which were filed after its verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.

"There will be peaceful protest & prayer protest. The Jallikattu model will be followed," Easwar told news channel.

Rahul Easwar,who has been spearheading the fight against the judgment in the Sabarimala temple, told CNN-News18 that if today's verdict isn't "favourable" peaceful protests will be planned and a recourses sought in terms of an ordinance. He said the devotees will hold peaceful protests, Pallikattu on the lines of Jallikattu protests by Tamil Nadu residents, when the courts had earlier tried to interfere in their faith.

The southern state had witnessed high drama and protests by devotees and right wing activists last year against the CPM-led LDF government's decision to implement the top court's order.

Political parties, right wing outfits and devotees in Kerala are keeping their fingers crossed as the Supreme Court is set to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on pleas seeking review of its decision to allow entry of women of all age groups in the Sabarimala Temple.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, among others, were unsatisfied with this ruling and urged the apex court to review its earlier judgment after a series of documents on the deal were leaked by a whistleblower from the defence ministry and were published by The Hindu.

In December 2018, the Supreme Court had declined a CBI investigation into the corruption allegations in the purchase of 36 jets from France’s Dassault Aviation at a cost of Rs 59,000 crore. The court held that it does not see any sign of corruptions that would mandate a further enquiry into the acquisition of fighter jet planes.

However, a month later, on 10 April, the court ruled that the classified documents could be placed on the record, thus dismissing the government’s objection.

During proceedings, the court on 14 March, 2019, had also reserved its order on the review petitions with regards to the limited question of whether leaked documents could be placed on the record. The review petitioners had placed reliance on documents leaked by the media to make their arguments for the suppression of information from court by the government.

In a series of articles published starting February, the newspaper had reported that the defence ministry had in 2015 objected to “parallel negotiations” conducted by the Prime Minister’s Office with France. It had also quoted from a dissent note written by three senior defence ministry officials who were the domain experts on the seven-member Indian negotiating team.

However, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has said that a legislation preventing women’s entry at Sabarimala temple, bypassing the Supreme Court judgment, is impossible, as the judgment deals with the issue as one regarding fundamental rights.

One of the key arguments being made by orthodox section of the Lord Ayyappa devotees — who oppose women's entry — is that they will root for the legislative route to overturn any unfavourable SC judgment.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi started reading the judgment in the Sabarimala case. Gogoi said that the petitioner's attempt was to reignite the debate on what is religion and what can be held as an integral part of the religion.

"There is yet another seminal issue as to the power of the court to determine if the constitutional court can interfere in such integral parts of the religion," CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.

The Sabarimala case will now be heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench after the incumbent chief justice remits office and Justice Bobde replaces him.

Supreme Court says the entry of women into places of worship is not limited to this temple. It is involved in the entry of women into mosques.

Justices Rohinton Nariman and DY Chandrachud have authored dissenting judgment in the case. "Compliance with the Supreme Court judgments is not optional, hold Justices Chandrachud and Rohinton Nariman."

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition on its Rafale judgment. The court held that there was no ground to launch an enquiry into the defence deal.

Supreme Court has closed a contempt case against Rahul Gandhi, which was filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi after the then Congress president wrongly attributed his 'Chowkidaar Chor Hai' jibe to the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court has said, "Mr Rahul Gandhi needs to be more careful in future" for attributing to the court his remarks. The court, however, accepted his unconditional apology tendered earlier and closed the case against him.

The Supreme Court has said that the judiciary cannot get into officiating an enquiry into a government-to-government like the one that has been signed in the Rafale defence deal. The court has, in essence, dismissed the Rafale review Petition for want of merit, stating that the plea for registering of an FIR on charges of perjury is "not fair". It however, left the CBI free to pursue any aspect of the deal if sufficient evidence comes to light.

Sabarimala thantri (chief priest) Kandararu Mohanaru welcomed the verdict saying that it will lead to a right decision on the belief and customs of the Sabarimala temple. He said that it will strengthen the confidence of the devotees.

"It is unfortunate that without any verification certain remarks were made by the contemnor (Rahul Gandhi) against the prime minister," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said.

Lord Ayyappa Karma Samiti leader Rahul Easwar viewed the five-judge constitution bench verdict on the review petitions positive. However, he reiterated that the Hindu organisationss will continue to protest if women between the ages of 10 and 50 try to enter the temple. He said that the Karma Saamiti will peacefully resist such attempts.

A five Judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana with Justices SK Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant assembles to begin hearing in the challenge to abrogation of Article 370 assembled to hear a bunch of petitions challenging the shutdown and curfew-like restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir for over close to three months now.

After senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan urged the court to hear the matter before it breaks for winter break, the court agree to defer the case to 10 December. Dhavan had argued that since the state already stands bifurcated, a later date for hearing may mean that some aspects of the case like division of property between the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will become too entangled to overturn.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre in two fresh petitions filed in relation to abrogation of Article 370, one filed by PUCL and another by Srinagar Bar Association noting that petitions raise some pertinent issues. The court had earlier barred the filing of any fresh petition in the issue.

Kerala opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala has welcomed the majority-judge bench decision on the Sabarimala issue. He asked the government not try to spoil the coming season by facilitating the entry of women citing the lack of stay in the judgement. Even if the court has not specified about the stay, the government should desist from implementing the September 28 verdict in the light of the court decision to refer the issue to a larger bench.

Supreme Court has closed a contempt case against Rahul Gandhi, which was filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi after the then Congress president wrongly attributed his 'Chowkidaar Chor Hai' jibe to the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court has said, "Mr Rahul Gandhi needs to be more careful in future" for attributing to the court his remarks. The court, however, accepted his unconditional apology tendered earlier and closed the case against him.

The Supreme Court has said that the judiciary cannot get into officiating an enquiry into a government-to-government like the one that has been signed in the Rafale defence deal. The court has, in essence, dismissed the Rafale review Petition for want of merit, stating that the plea for registering of an FIR on charges of perjury is "not fair". It however, left the CBI free to pursue any aspect of the deal if sufficient evidence comes to light.

Sabarimala thantri (chief priest) Kandararu Mohanaru welcomed the verdict saying that it will lead to a right decision on the belief and customs of the Sabarimala temple. He said that it will strengthen the confidence of the devotees.

"It is unfortunate that without any verification certain remarks were made by the contemnor (Rahul Gandhi) against the prime minister," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said.

Lord Ayyappa Karma Samiti leader Rahul Easwar viewed the five-judge constitution bench verdict on the review petitions positive. However, he reiterated that the Hindu organisationss will continue to protest if women between the ages of 10 and 50 try to enter the temple. He said that the Karma Saamiti will peacefully resist such attempts.

A five Judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana with Justices SK Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant assembles to begin hearing in the challenge to abrogation of Article 370 assembled to hear a bunch of petitions challenging the shutdown and curfew-like restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir for over close to three months now.

After senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan urged the court to hear the matter before it breaks for winter break, the court agree to defer the case to 10 December. Dhavan had argued that since the state already stands bifurcated, a later date for hearing may mean that some aspects of the case like division of property between the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will become too entangled to overturn.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre in two fresh petitions filed in relation to abrogation of Article 370, one filed by PUCL and another by Srinagar Bar Association noting that petitions raise some pertinent issues. The court had earlier barred the filing of any fresh petition in the issue.

Kerala opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala has welcomed the majority-judge bench decision on the Sabarimala issue. He asked the government not try to spoil the coming season by facilitating the entry of women citing the lack of stay in the judgement. Even if the court has not specified about the stay, the government should desist from implementing the September 28 verdict in the light of the court decision to refer the issue to a larger bench.

Supreme Court Verdict Today LATEST Updates: The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition on its Rafale judgment. The court held that there was no ground to launch an enquiry into the defence deal.

The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 judgment, has referred the crucial Sabarimala case to a larger Constitution Bench. The constitution of the larger bench will be decided by the new Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court is on a spree of clearing landmark cases with much larger implications than the involved parties as the current Chief Justice's term draws to an end. From centuries-old Ayodhya dispute to deciding the case of disqualified Karnataka MLAs that gives further clarification on rights and powers of Assembly Speakers, the court has had a packed schedule.

Today, the court scheduled to pronounce its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age group in Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.

It is also scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on the criminal contempt plea filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his "chowkidar chor hai" remark in Rafale case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Verdict on petitions seeking a review of its judgement giving a clean chit to the Modi government in the Rafale fighter jet deal with French firm Dassault Aviation will also come out today

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi upheld the 2010 Delhi High Court verdict and dismissed the three appeals filed by Secretary General of the Supreme Court and the Central Public Information officer of the apex court. Cautioning that RTI cannot be used as tool of surveillance, the top court held that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi held that the office of the chief justice of India (CJI) should be under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it is a public office.

Other members of the bench are Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna. The notice regarding the pronouncement of the judgment was made public on the apex court's official website on Tuesday afternoon.

The Supreme Court will pronounce on Wednesday its verdict on petitions challenging the Delhi High Court decision bringing the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court will also decide the schedule for several important cases that are due to be heard on Thursday.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce the judgement at 2 pm. Other members of the bench are Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna. The notice regarding the pronouncement of the judgement was made public on the apex court's official website on Tuesday afternoon.

The court will also give its verdict in two important cases: disqualification of 17 Karnataka MLAs, and the constitutional validity of the Finance Act, 2017.

A five-judge Constitution bench had on 4 April reserved its verdict on the appeals filed in 2010 by the Supreme Court secretary general and its central public information officer against the high court and the central information commission's (CIC's) orders.

The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency.

"Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you can't destroy the institution."

In a landmark verdict on January 10, 2010, the Delhi High Court had held that the CJI's office comes within the ambit of the RTI, saying judicial independence was not a judge's privilege, but a responsibility cast upon him. The 88-page judgement was then seen as a personal setback to the then CJI, KG Balakrishnan, who has been opposed to disclosure of information relating to judges under the RTI Act.

The high court verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah (since retired) and Justices Vikramjit Sen and S Muralidhar. The bench had dismissed a plea of the Supreme Court that contended bringing the CJI's office within the RTI Act would "hamper" judicial independence. Justice Sen retired as the judge of the apex court, while Justice Murlidhar is a sitting judge of the high court.

The move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist S C Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the apex court should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".

The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"

He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.