Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

Delhi HC greenlights the transplanting of 26 trees for Supreme Court expansion, mandating CPWD to plant 260 new trees; balancing development with environmental care.

Delhi HC Approves Tree Transplant for SC Expansion

The Delhi High Court has permitted the transplantation of 26 trees for the Supreme Court building's expansion, coupled with compensatory planting, emphasizing a responsible approach to developmental projects in the capital.

Delhi HC greenlights the transplanting of 26 trees for Supreme Court expansion

Delhi HC allows CPWD to transplant 26 trees for Supreme Court expansion; mandates planting 260 trees to compensate.

The Delhi High Court has allowed the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to transplant 26 trees for the expansion of the Supreme Court building.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said of the 26 trees to be transplanted within the top court's premises, 16 would be transplanted along the periphery of its garden whereas the rest would go near the administrative buildings complex.
The CPWD also made a compensatory plantation of 260 trees in Sundar Nursery, the judge said.
"Given that the proposed project pertains to the expansion of the Supreme Court building to accommodate additional courtrooms, including a dedicated constitutional court, as well as chambers for judges and essential facilities for lawyers and litigants, the present application needs to be allowed," the court said on March 26.
The order came on a plea filed by the CPWD seeking permission to transplant the trees.
While dealing with cases pertaining to preservation and protection of trees in the capital, the court in 2023 ordered no permission for felling of trees would be granted in the capital.
The court clarified that its permission was subject to certain conditions, including the filing of an affidavit within two weeks by a responsible CPWD officer on the aspect of the status of the 26 transplanted trees and the 260 trees planted in Sundar Nursery.
The court sought a site-specific transplantation report and a yearly affidavit indicating the survival rate and the health of the transplanted trees aside from the compensatory plantation.
The CPWD would furnish photographs of the transplanted trees to enable the amici curiae appointed in the matter to see their upkeep and maintenance, it added.
The bench said every year, pruning of the 26 trees would be ensured in a scientific manner to ensure their rejuvenation, as the past transplantation of trees showed that there was heavy pruning of trees which resulted in the trees becoming "mere logs of wood incapable of rejuvenating".
The court asked the department to obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities concerned to see if more trees could be planted on the road leading to the Supreme Court, which was "enveloped with fully grown trees" until the expansion of Sundar Nagar Road.

Delhi HC Judge Yashwant Varma was removed amidst a burnt cash scandal at his home. The Supreme Court is conducting an inquiry, uncovering potential conspiracy claims. Varma's proposed transfer is not linked to this incident, says SC, focusing on transparency.

Judge Varma Removed in Burnt Cash Scandal

Amidst the shocking discovery of burnt cash, Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma faces suspension. The incident sparked a probe by the Supreme Court, with suggestions of conspiracy. Despite allegations, his transfer is unrelated, focusing on transparency.

Judge Yashwant Varma removed amid burnt cash scandal

Delhi High Court Judge Varma was removed after burnt cash was found at his residence. The Supreme Court is probing through a special committee. Varma denies the cash is his, alleging a conspiracy. His proposed transfer was not linked to the cash investigation.

In a dramatic turn of events, Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma has been removed from active duty with immediate effect, barring further orders, after a pile of burnt cash was found at his residence during Holi.
This decision was announced by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on Monday morning.
Justice Varma, who was appointed in October 2021, currently presides over a division bench that deals with sales tax, goods and services tax, and company appeals, as per the Delhi High Court's website.
This suspension follows the Supreme Court's formation of a three-member committee, which includes the chief justices of the Punjab and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka High Courts, to probe the matter.
Last week, Justice Varma claimed neither he nor his family stored any cash in the outhouse, which he described as "disconnected from the main residence," and noted it remains unlocked and accessible to outsiders.
Declaring himself "truly shocked," he suggested a "conspiracy" against him. He also asserted that all family cash withdrawals are well-documented through regular banking channels, UPI applications, and cards.
The controversy initially erupted when reports of the cash surfaced and the Supreme Court Collegium considered transferring Justice Varma back to the Allahabad High Court.&nbsp;
This proposed transfer prompted calls for an exhaustive inquiry, including from senior advocate Harish Salve, who criticized the Collegium system as ill-equipped to handle such matters. Salve advocated the transfer be suspended until the facts are confirmed.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court clarified that Justice Varma's 'transfer' had no relation to the cash inquiry, dismissing it as "misinformation" and "rumours," and declared an in-house investigation.
In an extraordinary gesture to promote transparency, the Supreme Court released a report by the Delhi High Court, including photographs and videos, although some portions were redacted for confidentiality.
The discovery of the burned money also led to further confusion after Delhi Fire Services chief Atul Garg denied making any statements about the cash, stating he had clarified the situation with media outlets reporting false information.

Delhi High Court orders removal of videos alleging misconduct by Isha Foundation. The ruling highlights the tension between freedom of expression and protection against defamation, crucial in the digital age.

Court Orders Removal of Defamatory Isha Videos

Delhi High Court mandates the takedown of defamatory content against Isha Foundation. The ruling underscores the delicate balance between free expression and reputation protection.

Delhi High Court orders removal of defamatory videos against Isha Foundation

Delhi High Court orders removal of defamatory content against Isha Foundation by YouTuber Singh over unverified claims.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ordered pulling down from online platforms videos and content published by YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh against spiritual guru Sadhguru's Isha Foundation.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said the continuous circulation of the YouTube video, having a "clickbait" title, was likely to cause harm to the trust's reputation, and restrained Singh from further publishing his allegations.
The judge, in an interim order on Isha Foundation's lawsuit, directed X (formerly Twitter), Meta and Google to remove the alleged defamatory content against the foundation of Jagadish "Jaggi" Vasudev aka Sadhguru.
The court prima facie said Singh chose to make the video based on "entirely unverified material" and restrained members of the public from uploading sharing it on social media platforms till the next hearing in May.
Before uploading the video, he published tweets and posts to promote the same, the court said.
"Till now more than 9 lakh views have already been garnered on the said video and more than 13,500 comments have been received. What is more interesting is that the title of the video is 'Sadhguru EXPOSED: What's happening in Jaggi Vasudev's Ashram?'" The order added, "The title is a clickbait and this court is of prima facie opinion that the said title has been given only to attract attention." While restraining Singh from publishing further, the court ordered the social media platforms to bring down the defamatory video and all content emanating from it.
Isha Foundation's counsel said the video uploaded on February 24 showed Singh make "false, reckless, baseless and per se defamatory" allegations against the trust, including sexual abuse against children, without any basis.
He argued Singh claimed the basis of his video were certain emails sent by persons associated with the Foundation, but their veracity was not authenticated.
"We said the emails were fabricated and false. Reputation built over decades can't be dismantled like this," the counsel said.
Reputation was an integral part of the dignity of each individual, the court said, and there was a need to strike a balance between freedom of speech, freedom of expression vis-a-vis the right to reputation.
"If the video is not taken down immediately, the complainant/trust will suffer loss of reputation which cannot be compensated monetarily," it added.

The Delhi High Court refuses a fast-track plea in a case regarding alleged election violations by political parties, opting to address the matter post-elections.

Delhi High Court declines urgent hearing on plea alleging election law violations over freebies

Ahead of the Delhi elections, the High Court chooses not to expedite a case on alleged election law violations. The decision indicates a potential ruling post-election.

Delhi High Court rejects urgency in a case alleging election law violations by parties promising incentives. The court aims to handle it post-election, maintaining neutrality about the petition's merit.

Court refuses to expedite case challenging political parties' pre-poll promises, says impact already made ahead of February 5 elections.
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing to a plea alleging violations of election laws by political parties ahead of the Delhi Assembly polls. The bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the matter would be heard in due course as per standard procedure.
&nbsp;Court Rejects Urgent 2 PM Listing Request
The petitioner&rsquo;s counsel sought an immediate listing at 2 PM, arguing that political parties had breached election norms by announcing freebies to sway voters. However, the court rejected the request, stating:
"Why 2 PM? You are challenging the actions of political parties in announcing freebies. Tomorrow is the last day for electioneering or maybe today. Whatever impact the freebies were to have has already happened," the bench remarked.
&nbsp;Freebies Debate Ahead of Delhi Elections
The petition objected to political parties announcing free incentives during the election campaign, arguing that the practice violates Supreme Court guidelines on maintaining fairness in electoral processes. However, the Delhi HC bench clarified that its decision did not reflect any stance on the merit of the case.
With Delhi going to polls on February 5 and results set for February 8, the court&rsquo;s refusal to expedite the hearing suggests that any decision on the matter will come after voting concludes.

Delhi HC dismisses a plea seeking the deregistration of AAP over alleged non-disclosure of criminal backgrounds. The petitioner can appeal to the Supreme Court, reflecting ongoing concerns about transparency and accountability in election processes.

Delhi HC refuses to direct ECI after plea seeks to cancel AAP registration 

The Delhi High Court rejected a request to cancel AAP's registration due to alleged non-disclosure of criminal records, stating the Supreme Court’s guidelines do not allow for de-recognition in such cases. Transparency in electoral processes remains a key issue.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition to unregister AAP over alleged non-disclosure of candidates' criminal records. The court found non-disclosure doesn't de-recognize parties. The petitioner may appeal to the Supreme Court, raising transparency concerns.

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking the cancellation of the Aam Aadmi Party&rsquo;s (AAP) registration, alleging the party failed to disclose criminal antecedents of its candidates in the upcoming assembly elections.
The petition, filed by Ashwin Mudgal, argued that AAP&rsquo;s non-disclosure of its alleged involvement in the liquor scam violated Supreme Court directives. The SC mandates that political parties and candidates must publish their criminal antecedents.
Mudgal's counsel claimed AAP, accused in the liquor scam, had not disclosed its status in the case, which goes against transparency norms outlined by the apex court. The petitioner sought directions to the Election Commission of India to cancel the party&rsquo;s registration.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, refused to entertain the plea. The court clarified that the SC&rsquo;s directive did not include a provision to de-recognise political parties for such violations.
Following the court&rsquo;s remarks, the petitioner withdrew the plea but was granted the liberty to approach the Supreme Court on the matter.
The case highlights ongoing concerns over transparency and accountability in electoral processes as political parties face scrutiny for adhering to mandated disclosure norms. &nbsp;

A petition submitted to the Delhi High Court demands the release of CAG reports before the Delhi Assembly elections, advocating for transparency.

 Delhi HC petition demands public access to CAG reports before Assembly Elections

The Delhi High Court is reviewing a petition filed by Brij Mohan demanding public release of CAG reports before Delhi Assembly elections for transparency.

A petition in Delhi HC seeks public access to CAG reports ahead of assembly polls, citing voters&rsquo; &ldquo;right to know.&rdquo; The court questioned the CAG on withholding reports and set the next hearing for Jan 24, stressing transparency in democracy.

A petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking directives to ensure Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports are made publicly accessible ahead of the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections.
The petitioner, Brij Mohan, a retired Senior Administrative Grade officer of the Indian Audit &amp; Accounts Department (IA&amp;AD), urged the Central Government, Lt. Governor, and the CAG to publish these reports on government portals, enabling voters to assess Delhi&rsquo;s financial health.
Citing Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea argued that withholding CAG reports violates the electorate&rsquo;s fundamental &ldquo;right to know&rdquo; and termed it a &ldquo;fraud on the Constitution.&rdquo; It emphasised the CAG's pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability, especially during elections.
The Delhi High Court has sought clarification from the CAG, questioning why these reports cannot be released before being tabled in the assembly. The petitioner further argued that even if the assembly session is not convened, the reports should still be accessible to voters to support informed decision-making.
The petition highlighted the importance of transparency in upholding democratic values, stating that any delay in releasing the reports undermines the electorate&rsquo;s right to information and the constitutional mandate.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for January 24.
In a separate plea by LoP Vijender Gupta and six BJP MLAs, the High Court earlier criticised the Delhi government over delays in presenting CAG reports, calling the situation &ldquo;unfortunate.&rdquo;

The controversy arose after Rajat Sharma was accused of abusing Congress leader Ragini Nayak on national television during a debate on his show on June 4.

 Delhi HC orders Cong leaders to remove social media posts targeting journalist Rajat Sharma

The controversy arose after Rajat Sharma was accused of abusing Congress leader Ragini Nayak on national television during a debate on his show on June 4.

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of social media posts by Congress leaders Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera and Ragini Nayak alleging that veteran journalist Rajat Sharma used "abusive language" during his show on the Lok Sabha election result day.
The court said an irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff's reputation if the videos and posts on X were allowed to remain in the public domain.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said it is prima facie evident from the footage of the TV debate played in the court that plaintiff Sharma had "barely intervened for a few seconds and no abusive language was used" against Nayak.
The social media posts berating the journalist are an "over-sensationalisation", the court said.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an over-sensationalisation and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said in its 18-page order passed on Friday and uploaded on its website on Saturday.
The court said the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff as by making these videos private or injuncting them from being available on public platforms, no infringement on the rights of defendants will be caused.
However, the inconvenience that would result from these videos and X posts continuing to remain in the public domain may not be compensated by damages in future, it said.
"It is directed that the X posts/tweets which have not been removed be removed within seven days by defendants in terms of the Intermediary Guidelines.
"It is further directed that the videos which are in the public domain be made private by defendant No.2 (Google India) and (are) not to be put in the public domain, without the orders of this court," the court stated.
It also issued summons to the defendants including the three Congress leaders, X Corp, Google India and Meta Platforms in the lawsuit and listed it for further hearing on July 11.
Sharma's counsel had urged the court to grant ex-parte relief by ordering removal of the alleged offensive posts and videos against him on social media and restraining the political leaders from making allegations against him.
The controversy arose after Nayak accused Sharma of abusing her on national television during a debate on his show on June 4.
Sharma, the chairman and editor-in-chief of Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV), was also present in the court during the hearing on Friday.
Sharma's counsel had said while the debate was happening on the channel on the evening of June 4, the Congress leaders started tweeting only on June 10 and 11.
He had contended that a clip of the show was being circulated in which an abuse had been inserted whereas the original footage does not contain any such content.
"There is no abuse. Six days after the live show, they tweet that this anchor has used (an) abuse against this lady. They held a press conference on June 11. On June 4, she did not say there was any abuse. She did not hear it on that day," the senior lawyer had submitted.
The high court said in its order that while the threshold of public criticism and alleged defamatory X posts and YouTube videos on intermediary platforms is much higher, the individual dignity and honour of a person cannot be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of the right to free speech and expression.
"No harm would be caused to the defendants if the material is restrained from remaining in public domain till the suit is adjudicated on merits, while these tweets have a potential of bringing disrepute to the plaintiff in future with practically no reparation to the damage to his reputation," it said.&nbsp;
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/karnataka/petrol-diesel-to-get-costlier-in-karnataka-as-govt-hikes-sales-tax-on-fuel-1718466403860">Petrol, diesel to get costlier in Karnataka as govt hikes sales tax on fuel</a>

The court observed that five accused allegedly conspired to commit terrorist acts in India, but there was no finding against them that they actually committed any such act.

Delhi High Court quotes Dostoevsky to reduce sentence of 5 terror accused 

The court observed that five accused allegedly conspired to commit terrorist acts in India, but there was no finding against them that they actually committed any such act.

The Delhi High Court on Monday reduced to 10 years the life term awarded to allegedly highly-radicalised "over ground workers" of terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in a case lodged under the anti-terror law probed by the NIA.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that the five appellants, who had pleaded guilty before the trial court, allegedly conspired to commit terrorist acts in India but there was no finding against them that they actually committed any such act.
The court said there was nothing on record that would compel the awarding of life term under section 121A (conspiracy to commit offences against State) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on "enhanced penalties", adding that the appellants were very much desirous of reforming themselves and joining the mainstream.
The court's order came on appeals filed by Bilal Ahmad Mir, Sajad Ahmad Khan, Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, Mehraj Ud Din Chopan and Ishfaq Ahmad Bhat against the trial court's order on their sentence passed in November 2022, after they were convicted for the commission of various offences under the IPC and the UAPA.
"The man who has a conscience suffers whilst acknowledging his sin. We refer to a quote by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the author of 'Crime and Punishment'. In chapter 19, Dostoevsky writes that 'if he has a conscience, he will suffer for his mistake; that will be punishment as well as the prison'," the bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, said.
"Keeping in mind the gravity of the matter, though the appellants did not deserve any unjustifiable leniency, at the same time, considering their candid confession at the first opportunity, their relatively clean antecedents, inclination for reformation and their young age, the life sentence was not warranted either," the court said.
It said the trial court's approach should have been to "reform" and "it is a fit case where the sentence awarded under section 121A, IPC and section 23, UAPA needs to be reduced".
The court remarked that it would be hazardous to assume that merely because of their "despicable past", the appellants have no future, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that they were beyond redemption.
It also took into account that the socio-economic reports of the appellants, who were of "young age", revealed that the economic condition of their families was "very modest" and there was no other conviction to their credit.
"They do need to be given a 'ray of hope'. In the case in hand, we are fully cognizant of the fact that the appellants had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, without any expectation. India has shown enough progression in all spheres and our justice delivery system is no exception. One can always condemn the sin, but not the sinner," the court observed.
"We do feel that in the present case, ends of justice would be met if instead of a maximum of life sentence, the appellants are punished with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years," the court concluded.&nbsp;

The court further noted that this conflict is not between the central government and Kejriwal but between ED and Kejriwal.

Arvind Kejriwal's arrest in liquor policy case valid: Delhi High Court

The court further noted that this conflict is not between the central government and Kejriwal but between ED and Kejriwal.

The Delhi High Court on April 9 dismissed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest in the liquor policy case. The court held that the arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the case is valid.&nbsp;
The Aam Aadmi Party chief questioned the timing of the arrest but the court said that judges are bound by law and not by politics.&nbsp;
The court further noted that this is not conflict between the central government and Kejriwal but between ED and Kejriwal.
"The court is of the view that the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal was not in contravention of legal provisions. The remand can't be held to be illegal," said Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while delivering the verdict.
Besides his arrest, Kejriwal, who is currently in judicial custody, also challenged his subsequent remand in ED custody in the case.
The matter pertains to alleged corruption and money laundering in formulating and executing the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22 that was later scrapped.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the federal anti-money laundering agency.
He was sent to judicial custody in the case on April 1 after he was produced in the trial court on expiry of ED custody.
(With PTI inputs)

Akhoondji mosque, believed to be over 600 years old, was declared an illegal structure and demolished on January 30.

Delhi High Court refuses to allow Ramzan, Eid prayers at Akhoondji mosque site in Mehrauli

Akhoondji mosque, believed to be over 600 years old, was declared an illegal structure and demolished on January 30.

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow offering of prayers during the month of Ramzan and on Eid at the demolished &lsquo;Akhoondji mosque&rsquo; site in Mehrauli.
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan directed that an appeal by Muntazmia Committee Madarsa Behrul Ulum and Kabarstan, challenging a single judge&rsquo;s order dismissing its plea seeking permission for devotees to access the mosque for Ramzan and Eid prayers, be listed along with a related matter on May 7.
The court observed that the single judge passed the order on the basis of another order refusing to allow prayers on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat, and a separate appeal challenging this order is coming up for hearing in May.
The counsel for the petitioner urged the court to pass an order, saying that the period of Ramzan as well as Eid would be over by then, but the bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora, said no interim order can be passed in the matter at this stage, especially when the single judge had refused to grant the relief nearly a month ago.
&ldquo;Appeal will have to be heard along with that appeal. Impugned order is of March 11. You waited for so long to get your matter listed. Today, we are on April 8,&rdquo; the court remarked.
&ldquo;This will have to be heard along with that appeal on May 7. There can be no interim order,&rdquo; added the court.
The appellant&rsquo;s counsel said the committee was not trying to get any &ldquo;back-door entry&rdquo;. Relying on the Babri Masjid case and Gyanvapi case, he added that constitutional courts have earlier respected religious beliefs and permitted offering of prayers pending legal disputes in relation to shrines.
&ldquo;If Eid prayers are permitted for an hour, heavens will not fall&hellip;A message will go to the people of India, Muslims in particular, that courts are equally enthusiastic about protecting rights of Muslims,&rdquo; the lawyers argued.
On March 11, the single judge had refused to allow prayers during the month of Ramzan at the &lsquo;Akhoondji mosque&rsquo;, while noting that the high court had earlier refused to permit entry of devotees at the site on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat and there was no justification to take a different view.
The single judge had recorded that the land in question was now in the possession of the DDA and it has already passed an order for maintenance of status quo while dealing with the issue of legality of the demolition.
The appellant had urged the single judge bench to issue directions to allow unhindered entry into the site of Masjid Akhoondji to those who wanted to offer the Tarawih prayers during the month of Ramzan Shareef, beginning the sunset of March 11 till Eid-ul-Fitr.
The &lsquo;Akhoondji mosque&rsquo;, believed to be over 600 years old, as well as the Behrul Uloom madrasa there were declared as illegal structures in Sanjay Van and demolished by the DDA on January 30.

Singhvi asserted that it is preposterous to say that the chief minister of Delhi would be involved in hawala transactions.

Delhi High Court reserves order in Arvind Kejriwal's plea against arrest

Singhvi asserted that it is preposterous to say that the chief minister of Delhi would be involved in hawala transactions.

The Delhi High Court on April 3 reserved its order in Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate.
The ED opposed Kejriwal's plea saying that criminals and undertrials cannot evade arrest just because elections are coming.
&ldquo;Criminals and undertrials have no business to say that we will commit a crime and will not be arrested because elections are here,&rdquo; said Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.
&ldquo;This is completely ridiculous. It will give license to criminals to roam around freely. Aam aadmi has to go behind bars if he has committed a crime but because you are a chief minister you can't be arrested? You will loot the country but no one can touch you because the elections are coming? You say your arrest will infringe on basic structure? What type of basic structure is this?&rdquo; he added.
Appearing for Kejriwal, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi told the court that there is no evidence linking the proceeds of crime to the Aam Aadmi Party chief.
Singhvi asserted that it is preposterous to say that the chief minister of Delhi would be involved in hawala transactions.

Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in the Delhi liquor policy case

No relief for Arvind Kejriwal from Delhi HC

No relief for Arvind Kejriwal from Delhi HC
Kejriwal had challenged his arrest by ED
HC asks ED to file a reply by April 2

Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in the Delhi liquor policy case

&nbsp;The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the arrest of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case linked to the excise policy 'scam'.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice on the AAP leader's petition challenging his arrest and the subsequent remand to the ED's custody, and asked the agency to file its response to it as well as his plea for interim relief of release before April 2.
The judge, in the order, clarified the matter would be taken up for final disposal on April 3 and no adjournment shall be granted.
"This Court deems it appropriate to issue notice of the main writ petition as well as application for grant of interim relief, returnable on 03.04.2024," the court said.
"The Directorate of Enforcement will ensure that replies are filed to the main petition as well as the application for interim release of the petitioner by 02.04.2024 and copies of the same are provided in digitized form as well as hard copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner," ordered the court.
Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 and subsequently remanded to the ED's custody till March 28 by a Delhi court, sought his immediate release on the ground that the arrest was illegal.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, contended the arrest of a sitting chief minister on the cusp of elections was against the basic structure of the Constitution.
"Object of the arrest was not to find material but to disable me and my party. My prayer is, release me now," he argued.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, said the "bulky" petition was served upon them only on Tuesday, and time should be given to bring their stand on record.
For interim relief as well, appropriate time should be given to respond, he said.
On Friday, the trial court had remanded Kejriwal to the ED's custody till March 28 "for his detailed and sustained interrogation".
The ED arrested Kejriwal hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the anti-money laundering probe agency.
The case pertains to the alleged corruption and money laundering in formulating and executing the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22 that was later scrapped

Delhi High Court has turned down Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging the release and custody in the liquor scam case.

Delhi Liquor scam: high court denies Kejriwal's plea for early release 

Delhi High Court has turned down Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging the release and custody in the liquor scam case.

Delhi High Court has denied Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging the arrest and custody in the liquor scam case.
Rejecting the Delhi chief minister's plea for early listing, the court said it would hear the matter on 27th March, the first working day after the two holidays for Holi. Kejriwal was sent to ED custody till 28th March.
In his plea seeking, Kejriwal had termed his arrest and the remand order illegal and claimed that he was entitled to be released from custody immediately.
The AAP supremo was sent to six-day custody by the Rouse Avenue court in Delhi on 22nd March.
The AAP chief is in ED custody till March 28, following his arrest on May 21st evening by the agency in connection with a money-laundering case linked to Delhi's now-scrapped excise policy.
During the hearing, the ED pressed for his custodial interrogation for 10 days while accusing the AAP leader of being "involved in the entire conspiracy of the Delhi liquor scam, in drafting and implementation of the policy, for favouring and benefiting the quid pro receiving kickbacks and eventually using part of the proceeds of crime generated out of the scheduled offence in the election campaign for Goa Assembly election".
"Accused is hereby remanded to the custody of ED till March 28 for the purposes of his detailed and sustained interrogation with respect to his role and to unearth the remaining proceeds of crime and for confronting him with data retrieved from digital devices and material seized during investigation," the court said.
Taking note of the evidence, the court also said that the provisions under section 19 (power of arrest) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have been "substantially complied with".
Special judge for Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases Kaveri Baweja ordered the ED to bring Kejriwal back to court on March 28 at 2 pm.
It also noted the prosecution's allegations that "the totality of facts and circumstances pointed towards the involvement of accused Arvind Kejriwal in the entire conspiracy of Delhi liquor scam." "On the basis of the material placed before the court, it has been sought to be submitted that AAP is the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in Delhi liquor scam and part of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs 45 crores was raised for the election campaign in Goa Assembly election in 2021&shy;-22 and accordingly in this manner, AAP has committed offence of money laundering through accused Arvind Kejriwal," the court said.
The arrest, the first of a sitting chief minister, came hours after the Delhi High Court refused to grant protection to the AAP national convenor from any coercive action by the agency.
Also read | <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/arvind-kejriwal-moves-delhi-hc-against-ed-custody-1711196276365">Arvind Kejriwal moves Delhi HC against 'illegal' arrest in liquor excise scam</a>

The bench suspended the sentence of Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar till the pendency of their appeals.
&nbsp;

HC grants bail to four life convicts in Soumya Vishwanathan murder case

The bench suspended the sentence of Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar till the pendency of their appeals.

The bench suspended the sentence of Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar till the pendency of their appeals.
&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted bail to four convicts serving life imprisonment in the murder case of TV journalist Soumya Vishwanathan.
A bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain suspended the sentence of Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Singh Malik and Ajay Kumar till the pendency of their appeals challenging their conviction and sentence.
The bench noted that the convicts have been in custody for 14 years.
The high court had on January 23 asked the Delhi Police to respond to the appeals filed by the four convicts.
Vishwanathan, who worked with a leading English news channel, was shot dead in the early hours of September 30, 2008, on Nelson Mandela Marg in south Delhi while she was returning home from work in her car.
A special court had on November 26, 2023, awarded two life terms to Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(i) (committing organised crime resulting in the death of any person) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The court had made it clear that the sentences will run "consecutively".
The fifth convict, Ajay Sethi, was handed down three years of simple imprisonment under section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC.
It, however, set off the three-year sentence against the time Sethi had already served, noting he remained in custody for more than 14 years and underwent incarceration during the trial for offences under the IPC and MCOCA for conspiring to abet, aid, or knowingly facilitate organised crime and receiving proceeds of organised crime.
Kapoor's counsel had submitted that he has been in custody for the last 14 years and nine months and urged the court to suspend his sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
A similar prayer for suspension of sentence was also made by advocate Amit Kumar, who represented Shukla, Malik and Ajay Kumar.
While sentencing Kapoor, Shukla, Malik and Kumar to double life imprisonment, the trial court had also imposed a fine of Rs 1.25 lakh on each of them. It had imposed a fine of Rs 7.25 lakh on Sethi.
Recently, the high court denied parole to Kapoor, considering the gravity of the offences committed by him.
Out of the four convicts, Kapoor, Shukla and Malik were also convicted of killing IT professional Jigisha Ghosh. The trio later confessed to police they were also behind Vishwanathan's murder, and the weapon used for killing her was recovered from their possession.
The Delhi Police had said the motive behind Vishwanathan's killing was robbery.
The trial court had awarded the death penalty to Kapoor and Shukla and sentenced Malik to life imprisonment in the 2009 Jigisha Ghosh murder case.
However, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the high court. The high court upheld Malik's life sentence.
According to the prosecution, Kapoor shot Vishwanathan with a country-made pistol while chasing her car to rob her. Shukla, Kumar and Malik were also with Kapoor.
Police recovered the car used in the murder from Sethi alias Chacha.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recalled its earlier order allowing a woman, who lost her husband in October last year, to terminate her 29-week-old foetus.

Delhi HC reverses abortion nod after Centre 'right to life' plea

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recalled its earlier order allowing a woman, who lost her husband in October last year, to terminate her 29-week-old foetus.

The Delhi High Court has recalled its earlier order that allowed a woman to terminate her 29-week-old foetus.
The recalled order was passed by the High Court on January 4 on the grounds that the woman, whose husband died in October 2023, was suffering from depression and the continuation of the pregnancy could affect her mental health. It observed that the right to reproductive choice also includes the right not to procreate.
Tuesday's order cancelling the abortion permission came after the Centre filed a petition saying that the child has a fair chance of survival and the court should consider protecting the right to life of the unborn child.
Accepting Centre's argument, Justice Subramonium Prasad said the 26-year-old woman, now already at 32 weeks of gestation, can go to AIIMS or any other central or state government hospital for delivery, and if she is subsequently inclined to give the newborn in adoption, the Centre shall ensure that the process takes place smoothly and at the earliest. It added that the respective government would bear all medical and incidental expenses in the process of delivery.
The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where the woman was medically examined, also claimed that it was advisable that the pregnancy be continued for another two-three weeks for the betterment of the health of the mother and the child.
In its order, the court took note of the reports filed by AIIMS as well as its interaction with the doctors on the medical board and observed that the contention of the petitioner's lawyer that AIIMS must be directed to go ahead with the feticide cannot be accepted.
It stated that the psychological assessment report of the petitioner, a graduate, indicated that she was suffering from depression associated with stress due to life events and not any psychotic features, and that there was no suggestion that the ongoing pregnancy or delivery would cause such a grave injury to her mental health that would necessitate termination of pregnancy.
The medical board, the court added, also opined that since the foetus did not show any abnormality, feticide was neither justified nor ethical and a preterm induction of labor has a high chance of failure, leading to serious implications on her future pregnancies as well as physical and mental deficiencies in the newborn.
Justice Prasad further said that the court tried its best and made its sincere efforts to persuade the petitioner, who was present in the proceedings, to go through the pregnancy keeping in mind the reports received from AIIMS hospital.
The court opined that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in 2017, issued guidelines for termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks in certain cases like those of minor rape victims and in the present case there were not such circumstances.

Saying that such allegations merit dissolution of marriage, the judge upheld a family court order granting divorce to the husband.

Falsely projecting husband as womaniser extreme cruelty: Delhi HC

Saying that such allegations merit dissolution of marriage, the judge upheld a family court order granting divorce to the husband. 

Saying that such allegations merit dissolution of marriage, the judge upheld a family court order granting divorce to the husband.

Making unsubstantiated allegations of extramarital relationship against a husband and portraying him as a womaniser in public space are acts of extreme cruelty that merit dissolution of marriage, the Delhi High Court has held.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while upholding a family court order granting divorce on the husband's plea of cruelty, said a spouse expects his partner to respect him and "act as a shield of protection" in times of need, and "constant nagging" on other person's character and fidelity leads to mental agony.
Any successful marriage, the court said in a recent order, is built on mutual respect and faith and, if either is compromised beyond a level, the end of the relationship is inevitable.
"Unfortunately, here is a case where the husband himself is being publicly harassed, humiliated and verbally-attacked by his wife, who had gone to the extent of levelling allegations of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womanizer in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent/husband," said the bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing the wife's appeal against the divorce order.
"Casting aspersions of the alleged extramarital relationship with another married lady who was the wife of his friend, would lead to the inevitable conclusion of cruelty... such reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other spouse, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty," the court said.
The court noted that the wife claimed her husband was impotent and compelled him to undergo a potency test which found him fit. Such allegations, it observed, caused mental cruelty him.
The wife also alienated their child from the husband which also amounted to mental cruelty, it added.
"Nothing more can be more painful than experiencing one's own flesh and blood i.e., the child, rejecting him or her. Such wilful alienation of the child by a parent amounts to mental cruelty to the other parent. In the present case as well, the child has not only been totally alienated, but has also been used as a weapon against the father," stated the court.
"All these acts which happened in a span of about six years that they spent together, proved that the respondent was subjected to cruelty and harassment which is sufficient to create mental agony and trauma in his mind to the extent that he at times even thought of committing suicide. The acts of the appellant (wife), as proved, can only be termed as acts of cruelty towards the respondent (husband)," it said.
The court, however, said certain alleged acts of the wife, such as her being unable to complete an English speaking course, did not amount to cruelty to the husband.
It also said her complaints to her teachers and classmates about alleged ill-treatment by her mother-in-law and husband, by which she "may have shared her stresses in matrimonial life", was not an act targeted towards humiliating the husband.&nbsp;

Delhi High Court has remarked that insulting a woman is not equal to outraging her modesty

Insulting woman, being rude not outraging modesty: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court has remarked that insulting a woman is not equal to outraging her modesty

Insulting a woman or being rude to her and not behaving in a chivalrous manner will not amount to outraging the modesty of a woman, the Delhi High Court has held while setting aside an order putting a man on trial for calling a woman &lsquo;gandi aurat&rsquo;.
The high court also said gender-specific laws are not meant to be "anti-opposite gender" but to serve the purpose of addressing unique issues faced by a particular gender.
It said the fact that a piece of legislation is gender-specific should not be misconstrued to mean that the role of a judge also changes from being neutral to tilting towards a particular gender, and irrespective of the gender-specific nature of a law, the judicial duty fundamentally requires unwavering neutrality and impartiality.
&ldquo;Gender-specific legislation exists to address the unique concerns and challenges faced by particular genders within society. However, this does not imply that the judge is to be influenced or swayed by gender-related factors when administering justice unless specific presumptions are legislated in favour of a particular gender in law.
&ldquo;In essence, judicial neutrality is an indispensable cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that all parties, regardless of gender, are treated fairly and equitably,&rdquo; Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The high court made the observations while setting aside a trial court&rsquo;s order framing a charge under section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC, saying a prima facie case was made out against the man.
The prosecution&rsquo;s case was that the complainant woman and the accused were working in the same organisation and the man was her senior.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/crime-news/on-cam-drunk-woman-slapped-pushed-abused-police-while-being-arrested-say-cops-1693209475410">On cam: Drunk woman slapped, pushed, abused police while being arrested, say cops</a>
It was alleged that he used foul language against the woman when she refused to give him Rs 1,000 and called her &lsquo;gandi aurat&rsquo; (dirty woman).
The high court said the word &lsquo;gandi aurat&rsquo;, if read in isolation, without context, without any preceding or succeeding words indicating intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, will not bring these words within the ambit of Section 509 IPC.
&ldquo;Had there been any mention of any other words used, context given or any other gesture etc. made accompanying, succeeding or preceding these words, reflecting criminal intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, the outcome of the case would have been different,&rdquo; it said.
The high court said in India, the criminal justice system is adversarial in nature, however, it cannot be seen as adversarial between men and women per se.
&ldquo;Instead, it should solely revolve around two individuals: one being the complainant and the other being the accused irrespective of the gender, however, at the same time, while adjudicating the cases firmly remembering and appreciating the social context and situation of a particular gender who may be in a lesser advantageous situation than the other,&rdquo; it said.
After examining the act attributed to the man, the high court said it becomes evident that he lacked the requisite intention or knowledge to conclude that the alleged use of the term 'gandi aurat' would meet the criteria for outraging the modesty of a woman by the reasonable person's standard.
&ldquo;Insulting a woman or being rude to her and not behaving with her as she would have expected you to behave in a chivalrous manner will not be covered under the definition of outraging the modesty of a woman, depending on facts and circumstances of each case,&rdquo; Justice Sharma said.
The court said there is no evidence of any behaviour on the part of the man indicating that he persisted in any unwanted social conduct, but it is at best a case of vexatious comments which may reasonably be taken as unwelcome by the complainant.
&ldquo;The language used is not profane or vulgar or sexually coloured but may hinge on harsh, derogatory language,&rdquo; it said.
The court said, &ldquo;The mere fact that legislation is designed to address specific gender-related concerns should not be misconstrued as being inherently biased against the opposite gender or being anti-men wherever applicable.&rdquo; It said section 509 of IPC does not inherently introduce a presumption in favour of women and it is for the courts to apply the principles of charge and discharge objectively, without being unduly influenced by the fact that this section is gender specific, however, without forgetting the intent behind its enactment.
&ldquo;The court should approach cases under Section 509 IPC with a neutral and impartial stance, treating and testing them in accordance with long-established criminal legal principles of law and procedure. Every court of law has to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and objectivity in its proceedings, regardless of the gender-specific nature of the law in question,&rdquo; it added.&nbsp;

100 years ago, the first country in the world criminalised marital rape. It was the Soviet Union in 1922 and 150 nations followed suit. A brief global timeline of when other nations criminalised marital rape is as follows:     
Poland: 1932     Australia: 1976     Canada: 1983     UK: 1991     USA: 1993       South Africa: 1993     Zimbabwe: 2001     Thailand: 2007   
In majority of nations marital rape is a crime and punishments range from life imprisonment to 50 years in jail. India has ratified two UN conventions that declare spousal rape as an act of violence against women. However, by virtue of the fact that India did not sign the optional convention which gives UN the powers of persecution against the member states, India cannot be held legally accountable for not complying. 
In a legacy passed down by the British colonisers, India shares its criminal code with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka where marital rape is also not a crime. Our rape laws very clearly exempt marital sexual offences provided the wife’s age is above 18. The exemption dates back to the remarks of British judge Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, who said that women are the contractual property of their husbands. This point of view became a part of the English common law that was enforced in all its colonies. 
Centuries later, this remark dressed as an exemption continues to impact India’s criminal code.Also watch - Marital rape debate: Why rape charge order against a husband by Karnataka HC is significant One may have the perception that marital rape being punishable is a western notion but look at our neighbourhood. India’s tiny neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan, who share a similar socio-economic fabric as us, have outlawed spousal rape- the only two in the Indian subcontinent. In Nepal, an accused could get between 5-15 years of prison if the charges are proved. Bhutan makes no mention of gender in its rape laws. However, it must be noted the punishment for marital rape is lesser than what is for other sexual crimes. Recently, a two-bench Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict. On the bench was judge Rajiv Shakdher, who noted that it was a tragedy that even after 162 years, a married woman’s call for justice could not be heard. His co-chair judge Hari Shankar went on to observe that is valid to expect sex from one’s spouse as that is what sets marriage apart from all other relationships.   
Also watch - Criminalisation of marital rape could open floodgates of false cases: CentreIn the court, it was the government of India’s unwillingness to take a stand that too made the headlines. While the government’s lawyer claimed that the previous stand opposing the criminalising of marital rape was under review, he at the same time sought time to consult state governments about their stand. Despite the dissenting verdict, Judge Shakdher remarked that all stakeholders need to bite the bullet and come to a decision.

'Marital Rape Clause': India's global standing | The Issue 

100 years ago, the first country in the world criminalised marital rape. It was the Soviet Union in 1922 and 150 nations followed suit.  A brief global timeline of when other nations criminalised marital rape is as follows:       Poland: 1932     
Australia: 1976     
Canada: 1983     
UK: 1991     
USA: 1993       
South Africa: 1993     
Zimbabwe: 2001     
Thailand: 2007   

In majority of nations marital rape is a crime and punishments range from life imprisonment to 50 years in jail. India has ratified two UN conventions that declare spousal rape as an act of violence against women. However, by virtue of the fact that India did not sign the optional convention which gives UN the powers of persecution against the member states, India cannot be held legally accountable for not complying. 

In a legacy passed down by the British colonisers, India shares its criminal code with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka where marital rape is also not a crime. Our rape laws very clearly exempt marital sexual offences provided the wife’s age is above 18. The exemption dates back to the remarks of British judge Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, who said that women are the contractual property of their husbands. This point of view became a part of the English common law that was enforced in all its colonies.  

Centuries later, this remark dressed as an exemption continues to impact India’s criminal code. 

One may have the perception that marital rape being punishable is a western notion but look at our neighbourhood. India’s tiny neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan, who share a similar socio-economic fabric as us, have outlawed spousal rape- the only two in the Indian subcontinent. In Nepal, an accused could get between 5-15 years of prison if the charges are proved. Bhutan makes no mention of gender in its rape laws. However, it must be noted the punishment for marital rape is lesser than what is for other sexual crimes. 

Recently, a two-bench Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict. On the bench was judge Rajiv Shakdher, who noted that it was a tragedy that even after 162 years, a married woman’s call for justice could not be heard. His co-chair judge Hari Shankar went on to observe that is valid to expect sex from one’s spouse as that is what sets marriage apart from all other relationships.   

In the court, it was the government of India’s unwillingness to take a stand that too made the headlines. While the government’s lawyer claimed that the previous stand opposing the criminalising of marital rape was under review, he at the same time sought time to consult state governments about their stand. Despite the dissenting verdict, Judge Shakdher remarked that all stakeholders need to bite the bullet and come to a decision.


Only 36 countries in the world have not criminalised marital rape, India is one of them. Are efforts being made in the country to change the colonial-era law? Find out in this episode of 'The Issue'&nbsp;

100 years ago, the first country in the world criminalised marital rape. It was the Soviet Union in 1922 and 150 nations followed suit. A brief global timeline of when other nations criminalised marital rape is as follows: &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
Poland: 1932 &nbsp; &nbsp; Australia: 1976 &nbsp; &nbsp; Canada: 1983 &nbsp; &nbsp; UK: 1991 &nbsp; &nbsp; USA: 1993 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; South Africa: 1993 &nbsp; &nbsp; Zimbabwe: 2001 &nbsp; &nbsp; Thailand: 2007 &nbsp;&nbsp;
In majority of nations marital rape is a crime and punishments range from life imprisonment to 50 years in jail. India has ratified two UN conventions that declare spousal rape as an act of violence against women. However, by virtue of the fact that India did not sign the optional convention which gives UN the powers of persecution against the member states, India cannot be held legally accountable for not complying.&nbsp;
In a legacy passed down by the British colonisers, India shares its criminal code with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka where marital rape is also not a crime. Our rape laws very clearly exempt marital sexual offences provided the wife&rsquo;s age is above 18. The exemption dates back to the remarks of British judge Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, who said that women are the contractual property of their husbands. This point of view became a part of the English common law that was enforced in all its colonies.
Centuries later, this remark dressed as an exemption continues to impact India&rsquo;s criminal code. Also watch - <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/local/why-rape-charge-order-against-a-husband-by-karnataka-hc-is-significant-marital-rape-debate-1648101630072">Marital rape debate: Why rape charge order against a husband by Karnataka HC is significant&nbsp;</a> One may have the perception that marital rape being punishable is a western notion but look at our neighbourhood. India&rsquo;s tiny neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan, who share a similar socio-economic fabric as us, have outlawed spousal rape- the only two in the Indian subcontinent. In Nepal, an accused could get between 5-15 years of prison if the charges are proved. Bhutan makes no mention of gender in its rape laws. However, it must be noted the punishment for marital rape is lesser than what is for other sexual crimes. Recently, a two-bench Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict. On the bench was judge Rajiv Shakdher, who noted that it was a tragedy that even after 162 years, a married woman&rsquo;s call for justice could not be heard. His co-chair judge Hari Shankar went on to observe that is valid to expect sex from one&rsquo;s spouse as that is what sets marriage apart from all other relationships. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Also watch - <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/criminalisation-of-marital-rape-could-open-floodgates-of-false-cases-centre-1643471968014">Criminalisation of marital rape could open floodgates of false cases: Centre</a> In the court, it was the government of India&rsquo;s unwillingness to take a stand that too made the headlines. While the government&rsquo;s lawyer claimed that the previous stand opposing the criminalising of marital rape was under review, he at the same time sought time to consult state governments about their stand. Despite the dissenting verdict, Judge Shakdher remarked that all stakeholders need to bite the bullet and come to a decision. <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/marital-rape-clause-the-history-the-issue-1662112424090">Part 1 - 'Marital Rape Clause': The History</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/marital-rape-clause-the-concept-of-consent-the-issue-1662112818238">Part 3 - 'Marital Rape Clause': The concept of consent</a>

The proceeds from the book will go to Justice Anish Dayal's village libraries initiative for children in Uttarakhand.

Delhi HC judge writes 'Can It Get Verse?' poetry book; money will go to...

The proceeds from the book will go to Justice Anish Dayal's village libraries initiative for children in Uttarakhand.

A Delhi High Court judge has written a poetry book for children titled 'Can It Get Verse?'.
The proceeds from the book will go to Justice Anish Dayal's village libraries initiative for children in Uttarakhand.
Dayal, before he was appointed to the High Court, wrote the collection of 9 poems when he had broken his ankle and was confined to his bed.
The quirky poems in the book include 'Which Witch Is Which', 'Attack of Polygons', and 'Abracadabra', as per a Bar and Bench report.

A two-judge bench said that it found no reason to interfere with the scheme.

Delhi High Court on Agniveer military recruitment: petitions challenging Agnipath scheme dismissed

A two-judge bench said that it found no reason to interfere with the scheme.

The Delhi High Court on 27 February 2023 dismissed petitions challenging the Narendra Modi government's Agnipath scheme for military recruitment.
The court reportedly said that the scheme for Agniveer recruitment was introduced in national interest, and to ensure that the armed forces are better equipped.
A two-judge bench said that it found no reason to interfere with the scheme.
The Agnipath recruitment system was unveiled in June 2022, to recruit those aged between 17-and-a-half and 23 years, for an initial tenure of 4 years.

delhi high court

Categories