The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) held that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status must follow a “fair, lawful and reasoned” process, as it set aside a batch of Gauhati High Court judgments upholding orders that declared the appellants to be foreigners and remanded the cases to the concerned Foreigners Tribunals for fresh adjudication.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while the State has a legitimate interest in identifying foreigners, “the determination of such status must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and reasoned.”

What is the case about?

The case arose out of proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals in the State of Assam and, in certain cases, before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. In all these matters, the appellants had been declared foreigners, and the said opinions had been affirmed by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh at Guwahati.

The common grievance before the Supreme Court was that these declarations had been made through ex parte proceedings or proceedings that had effectively become ex parte, and the statutory determination of their status was made without a full and meaningful opportunity for the appellants to contest the allegations against them.

The principal question before the Court was whether an ex parte or effectively ex parte proceeding can result in a mechanical declaration of foreigner status without the Tribunal satisfying itself that the minimum requirements of lawful and fair adjudication had been met, including a meaningful examination of the service of notice, the opportunity of hearing, the material forming the basis of the reference, and the evidence adduced by the State.

What was the ruling?

The Court held that even where the proceeding is ex parte, the Tribunal is still required to perform an adjudicatory function. The non-appearance of the proceedee may deprive him or her of the opportunity to lead evidence, but it does not relieve the Tribunal of the obligation to examine whether the reference is supported by the material produced by the State.

The Court observed that the appellants had been declared foreigners without any effective contest before the Tribunal and remanded the matters to the concerned Tribunals for fresh adjudication so that the appellants may produce their material, the State may adduce its evidence, and the Tribunal may return a fresh opinion in accordance with law.

Referring to Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 the Court observed: “The statutory scheme, therefore, has two complementary features. The first is that the proceedee carries the burden of proving that he or she is not a foreigner. The second is that the Tribunal must ensure a fair procedure, meaningful notice, consideration of material, and a reasoned opinion. These features are not in conflict. They operate together. The burden under Section 9 of the 1946 Act arises and is discharged within the procedural safeguards of Paragraph 3 of the 1964 Order.”

How did the court reach this conclusion?

The Court relied on various precedents, including Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam and Others (2024). The Court explained that the burden under Section 9 is not to be understood as permitting the authorities to proceed on a bare allegation or unsupported suspicion. The authority must possess some material basis for initiating the proceeding, and the proceedee must be informed of the substance of the case he or she is required to meet.

The Court also discussed the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

“Article 14 of the Constitution uses the expression ‘any person’. Article 21 of the Constitution uses the expression ‘no person’. Neither provision is confined to citizens. The protection of equality before law, equal protection of laws, life and personal liberty is, therefore, available to every person within the territory of India. A person proceeded against before a Foreigners Tribunal may ultimately fail to establish Indian citizenship, but the process by which such determination is made must still satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness,” the Court said.

The Court also reiterated the principle in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), where it rejected the contention that persons whose citizenship was disputed could be denied constitutional protection. The Court observed that foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further observed that the procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable” and cannot be “fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”. This principle is directly attracted where a statute creates a mechanism for determining whether a person is a foreigner, the Court said, relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

What are the implications?

The Court clarified the limited scope of the judgment. “We have not examined the merits of the claim of citizenship set up by any of the appellants. We have not expressed any opinion on the genuineness, admissibility, relevance or sufficiency of any document relied upon by them. Those questions must be decided by the concerned Tribunals independently, on the basis of the evidence which may be produced before them and in accordance with law.”

The Court said that citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of high constitutional and legal significance. Article 11 of the Constitution preserves the power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

Separately, the 1946 Act and the 1964 Order provide the statutory mechanism through which questions of whether a person is foreigner are referred to and determined by the Tribunal. The State has a legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship do not secure such status through misuse of process, false claims or procedural delays.

Published – July 15, 2026 11:09 am IST

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. FIle
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

New Delhi:

Switzerland has taken a unilateral stand after the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in the Nestle case. It has revoked the ‘Most Friendly Nation’ or MFN status accorded to India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or DTAA treaty.

Switzerland’s move marks a significant shift in bilateral treaty dynamics and will result in a big impact on Indian companies operating in Switzerland as well as on Swiss investments in India.

In its official statement on December 11, the Swiss finance department named the Supreme Court of India and cited its 2023 ruling as the reason for its decision to remove India’s MFN status. In its order, the Supreme Court had said that the MFN clause between two nations does not apply automatically when a country joins the OECD, especially if the Indian government already had a prior tax treaty with that country before joining the grouping.

The OECD or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was established in 1961 and is headquartered in Paris. It calls itself a forum and knowledge hub for data, analysis, and best practices in public policy to build stronger, fairer, and cleaner societies – helping to shape better policies for better lives. It works closely with policy makers, stakeholders and citizens to establish evidence-based international standards and to find solutions to social, economic and environmental challenges.

A HISTORY TO THE CASE

India had signed tax agreements with Lithuania and Colombia under which the tax rates on certain types of income were lower than the rates it provided to OECD countries. Both countries later joined the OECD.

Under the OECD, the effect of an MFN clause is that one country obligates itself to its treaty partner with respect to offering it a ‘more favourable’ tax treatment.

Switzerland assumed that Colombia and Lithuania joining the OECD meant a 5 per cent rate for dividends would apply to the India-Switzerland tax treaty under the MFN clause, instead of the 10 per cent which was mentioned in it.

But the Supreme Court ruling meant otherwise — that the MFN clause between two nations does not apply automatically when a country joins the OECD, and that the prior tax treaty takes precedence, unless the MFN clause is specifically mentioned in a ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.

WHAT THIS MEANT FOR THE NESTLE CASE

According to the statement by Switzerland’s finance department, in 2021, the Delhi High Court while hearing the case against Nestle, upheld the applicability of the residual tax rates after taking into account the MFN clause under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. This was in line with how Switzerland had interpreted it.

However, in a ruling dated October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the high court’s judgement and stated that, the applicability of the MFN clause was not triggered automatically. The top court ruled that the MFN clause “was not directly applicable in the absence of ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act” – a ruling that impacted Nestle and in-turn went against what Switzerland had hoped for.

SWITZERLAND’S RESPONSE

Switzerland has now responded by unilaterally revoking India’s MFN status and squarely named the “Indian Supreme Court” as the reason for its decision.

This means that from January 1, 2025, Switzerland will levy a 10 per cent tax (instead of the current 5 per cent) on dividends payable to Indian tax residents and entities who claim refunds for Swiss withholding tax and for Swiss tax residents who claim foreign tax credits.

The Swiss Finance Department released a statement in which it announced “Suspension of the application of the MFN clause of the protocol to the agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.”

The statement cited the “2023 ruling by Indian Supreme Court” in a case relating to Nestle for its decision to withdraw the MFN status.

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

Some see Switzerland’s move as a retaliatory measure to the Supreme Court ruling, while others see this as a measure of reciprocity.

Nangia Andersen M&A Tax Partner Sandeep Jhunjhunwala called Switzerland’s move unilateral and said “This suspension may lead to increased tax liabilities for Indian entities operating in Switzerland, highlighting the complexities of navigating international tax treaties in an evolving global landscape.”

“It also underscores the necessity of aligning treaty partners on the interpretation and application of tax treaty clauses to ensure predictability, equity, and stability in international tax framework,” Mr Jhunjhunwala told news agency Press Trust of India.

AKM Global Tax Partner, Amit Maheshwari, said that “The main reason behind the decision to withdraw MFN is of reciprocity, which ensures that taxpayers in both countries are treated equally and fairly.”

“Swiss authorities announced in August 2021 that based on the MFN clause between Switzerland and India, the tax rate on dividends from qualifying shareholdings would be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, effective retroactively from July 5, 2018. However, the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 2023 contradicted the same,” Mr Maheshwari told PTI.

He added that “This could impact Swiss investments in India as dividends would be subject to higher withholding now and income accruing on or after January 1, 2025, may be taxed at the rates provided for in the original double taxation treaty between Switzerland and India, regardless of the MFN clause.”

JSA Advocates & Solicitors Partner Kumarmanglam Vijay said “This would especially impact Indian companies having ODI (overseas direct investment) structures with subsidiaries in Switzerland and will raise the Swiss withholding tax on dividends from 5 per cent to 10 per cent from January 1, 2025.”

(Inputs from PTI)
 

New Delhi:

Switzerland has taken a unilateral stand after the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in the Nestle case. It has revoked the ‘Most Friendly Nation’ or MFN status accorded to India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or DTAA treaty.

Switzerland’s move marks a significant shift in bilateral treaty dynamics and will result in a big impact on Indian companies operating in Switzerland as well as on Swiss investments in India.

In its official statement on December 11, the Swiss finance department named the Supreme Court of India and cited its 2023 ruling as the reason for its decision to remove India’s MFN status. In its order, the Supreme Court had said that the MFN clause between two nations does not apply automatically when a country joins the OECD, especially if the Indian government already had a prior tax treaty with that country before joining the grouping.

The OECD or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was established in 1961 and is headquartered in Paris. It calls itself a forum and knowledge hub for data, analysis, and best practices in public policy to build stronger, fairer, and cleaner societies – helping to shape better policies for better lives. It works closely with policy makers, stakeholders and citizens to establish evidence-based international standards and to find solutions to social, economic and environmental challenges.

A HISTORY TO THE CASE

India had signed tax agreements with Lithuania and Colombia under which the tax rates on certain types of income were lower than the rates it provided to OECD countries. Both countries later joined the OECD.

Under the OECD, the effect of an MFN clause is that one country obligates itself to its treaty partner with respect to offering it a ‘more favourable’ tax treatment.

Switzerland assumed that Colombia and Lithuania joining the OECD meant a 5 per cent rate for dividends would apply to the India-Switzerland tax treaty under the MFN clause, instead of the 10 per cent which was mentioned in it.

But the Supreme Court ruling meant otherwise — that the MFN clause between two nations does not apply automatically when a country joins the OECD, and that the prior tax treaty takes precedence, unless the MFN clause is specifically mentioned in a ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.

WHAT THIS MEANT FOR THE NESTLE CASE

According to the statement by Switzerland’s finance department, in 2021, the Delhi High Court while hearing the case against Nestle, upheld the applicability of the residual tax rates after taking into account the MFN clause under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. This was in line with how Switzerland had interpreted it.

However, in a ruling dated October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the high court’s judgement and stated that, the applicability of the MFN clause was not triggered automatically. The top court ruled that the MFN clause “was not directly applicable in the absence of ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act” – a ruling that impacted Nestle and in-turn went against what Switzerland had hoped for.

SWITZERLAND’S RESPONSE

Switzerland has now responded by unilaterally revoking India’s MFN status and squarely named the “Indian Supreme Court” as the reason for its decision.

This means that from January 1, 2025, Switzerland will levy a 10 per cent tax (instead of the current 5 per cent) on dividends payable to Indian tax residents and entities who claim refunds for Swiss withholding tax and for Swiss tax residents who claim foreign tax credits.

The Swiss Finance Department released a statement in which it announced “Suspension of the application of the MFN clause of the protocol to the agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.”

The statement cited the “2023 ruling by Indian Supreme Court” in a case relating to Nestle for its decision to withdraw the MFN status.

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

Some see Switzerland’s move as a retaliatory measure to the Supreme Court ruling, while others see this as a measure of reciprocity.

Nangia Andersen M&A Tax Partner Sandeep Jhunjhunwala called Switzerland’s move unilateral and said “This suspension may lead to increased tax liabilities for Indian entities operating in Switzerland, highlighting the complexities of navigating international tax treaties in an evolving global landscape.”

“It also underscores the necessity of aligning treaty partners on the interpretation and application of tax treaty clauses to ensure predictability, equity, and stability in international tax framework,” Mr Jhunjhunwala told news agency Press Trust of India.

AKM Global Tax Partner, Amit Maheshwari, said that “The main reason behind the decision to withdraw MFN is of reciprocity, which ensures that taxpayers in both countries are treated equally and fairly.”

“Swiss authorities announced in August 2021 that based on the MFN clause between Switzerland and India, the tax rate on dividends from qualifying shareholdings would be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, effective retroactively from July 5, 2018. However, the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 2023 contradicted the same,” Mr Maheshwari told PTI.

He added that “This could impact Swiss investments in India as dividends would be subject to higher withholding now and income accruing on or after January 1, 2025, may be taxed at the rates provided for in the original double taxation treaty between Switzerland and India, regardless of the MFN clause.”

JSA Advocates & Solicitors Partner Kumarmanglam Vijay said “This would especially impact Indian companies having ODI (overseas direct investment) structures with subsidiaries in Switzerland and will raise the Swiss withholding tax on dividends from 5 per cent to 10 per cent from January 1, 2025.”

(Inputs from PTI)
 

New Delhi:

Switzerland has taken a unilateral stand after the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in the Nestle case. It has revoked the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ or MFN status accorded to India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or DTAA treaty.

Switzerland’s move marks a significant shift in bilateral treaty dynamics and will result in a big impact on Indian companies operating in Switzerland as well as on Swiss investments in India.

In its official statement on December 11, the Swiss finance department named the Supreme Court of India and cited its 2023 ruling as the reason for its decision to remove India’s MFN status. In its order, the Supreme Court had said that the MFN clause between two nations does not apply automatically when a country joins the OECD, especially if the Indian government already had a prior tax treaty with that country before joining the grouping.

The OECD or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was established in 1961 and is headquartered in Paris. It calls itself a forum and knowledge hub for data, analysis, and best practices in public policy to build stronger, fairer, and cleaner societies – helping to shape better policies for better lives. It works closely with policy makers, stakeholders and citizens to establish evidence-based international standards and to find solutions to social, economic and environmental challenges.

A HISTORY TO THE CASE

India had signed tax agreements with Lithuania and Colombia under which the tax rates on certain types of income were lower than the rates it provided to OECD countries. Both countries later joined the OECD.

Under the OECD, the effect of an MFN clause is that one country obligates itself to its treaty partner with respect to offering it a ‘more favourable’ tax treatment.

Switzerland assumed that Colombia and Lithuania joining the OECD meant a 5 per cent rate for dividends would apply to the India-Switzerland tax treaty under the MFN clause, instead of the 10 per cent which was mentioned in it.

But the Supreme Court ruling meant otherwise — that the MFN clause between two nations does not apply automatically when a country joins the OECD, and that the prior tax treaty takes precedence, unless the MFN clause is specifically mentioned in a ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.

WHAT THIS MEANT FOR THE NESTLE CASE

According to the statement by Switzerland’s finance department, in 2021, the Delhi High Court while hearing the case against Nestle, upheld the applicability of the residual tax rates after taking into account the MFN clause under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. This was in line with how Switzerland had interpreted it.

However, in a ruling dated October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the high court’s judgement and stated that, the applicability of the MFN clause was not triggered automatically. The top court ruled that the MFN clause “was not directly applicable in the absence of ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act” – a ruling that impacted Nestle and in-turn went against what Switzerland had hoped for.

SWITZERLAND’S RESPONSE

Switzerland has now responded by unilaterally revoking India’s MFN status and squarely named the “Indian Supreme Court” as the reason for its decision.

This means that from January 1, 2025, Switzerland will levy a 10 per cent tax (instead of the current 5 per cent) on dividends payable to Indian tax residents and entities who claim refunds for Swiss withholding tax and for Swiss tax residents who claim foreign tax credits.

The Swiss Finance Department released a statement in which it announced “Suspension of the application of the MFN clause of the protocol to the agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.”

The statement cited the “2023 ruling by Indian Supreme Court” in a case relating to Nestle for its decision to withdraw the MFN status.

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

Some see Switzerland’s move as a retaliatory measure to the Supreme Court ruling, while others see this as a measure of reciprocity.

Nangia Andersen M&A Tax Partner Sandeep Jhunjhunwala called Switzerland’s move unilateral and said “This suspension may lead to increased tax liabilities for Indian entities operating in Switzerland, highlighting the complexities of navigating international tax treaties in an evolving global landscape.”

“It also underscores the necessity of aligning treaty partners on the interpretation and application of tax treaty clauses to ensure predictability, equity, and stability in international tax framework,” Mr Jhunjhunwala told news agency Press Trust of India.

AKM Global Tax Partner, Amit Maheshwari, said that “The main reason behind the decision to withdraw MFN is of reciprocity, which ensures that taxpayers in both countries are treated equally and fairly.”

“Swiss authorities announced in August 2021 that based on the MFN clause between Switzerland and India, the tax rate on dividends from qualifying shareholdings would be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, effective retroactively from July 5, 2018. However, the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 2023 contradicted the same,” Mr Maheshwari told PTI.

He added that “This could impact Swiss investments in India as dividends would be subject to higher withholding now and income accruing on or after January 1, 2025, may be taxed at the rates provided for in the original double taxation treaty between Switzerland and India, regardless of the MFN clause.”

JSA Advocates & Solicitors Partner Kumarmanglam Vijay said “This would especially impact Indian companies having ODI (overseas direct investment) structures with subsidiaries in Switzerland and will raise the Swiss withholding tax on dividends from 5 per cent to 10 per cent from January 1, 2025.”

(Inputs from PTI)
 

New Delhi:

The Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and legal process should not prejudge guilt of an accused, the Supreme Court said today, taking a tough stand on the issue of ‘bulldozer justice’ and laying down guidelines for carrying out demolition.

The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered its judgment on petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes. This trend, which caught on in several states, is referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’. State authorities have, in the past, said only illegal structures were demolished in such cases. But several petitions were filed before the court, flagging the extrajudicial nature of the action.

Justice Gavai said it is the dream of every family to have a house and an important question before the court was whether the Executive should be allowed to take away someone’s shelter. “The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic government… the issue relates to fairness in the criminal justice system, which mandates that legal process should not prejudge guilt of accused,” the bench said.

“We have considered the rights guaranteed under the Constitution that provide protection to individuals from arbitrary State action. The rule of law provides a framework to make sure individuals know property will not be taken away arbitrarily,” it added.

On the separation of powers, the bench said adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary and the “Executive cannot replace the Judiciary”. “We have referred to the doctrine of public trust and public accountability. We have concluded that if Executive demolishes the house of person arbitrarily merely because he is accused, it violates principle of separation of powers,” Justice Gavai said.

The court said accountability must be fixed on public officials who take law into their hands and act in a high-handed manner. “State and its officials can’t take arbitrary and excessive measures. If any officer of the State has abused his power or acted in total arbitrary or malafide manner, he cannot be spared,” it added.

Justice Gavai pointed that when a particular structure is chosen for demolition suddenly and similar other properties are not touched, then the presumption could be that the real motive was not razing the illegal structure, but “penalising without trial”.

“For an average citizen, construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way,” the bench said.

The court also questioned if authorities can demolish a house and deprive its residents of shelter if only one person residing there is an accused.

Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for demolitions. It said no demolition should be carried out without a showcause notice. The person this notice is served to can respond within 15 days or the time provided in local civic laws, whichever is later.

This notice must have information of the nature of unauthorised construction, details on the specific violation and the grounds for demolition, the court said. The authority concerned must hear the accused and then pass a final order, it added. The house owner will be given a 15-day period to remove the illegal structure and authorities will proceed with a demolition only if an appellate authority doesn’t pause the order.

Violation of the court’s directions would lead to contempt proceedings, the bench warned. Officers should be told that if a demolition exercise is found to be in violation of norms, they will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property, the court said. The cost for this, the court said, would be recovered from the officials’ salary.

The court said all local municipal authorities must set up a digital portal within three months that has details of showcause notices served and final orders on illegal structures.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday stressed on having “uniform standards” to the extent possible to ensure safety and security of students studying at coaching centres.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a matter related to the deaths of three civil service aspirants at a coaching centre in the national capital in July due to the flooding in the building’s basement.

On July 27, the three students drowned in the basement library of Rau’s IAS Study Circle in Delhi’s Old Rajinder Nagar area after it was flooded following heavy rains.

The top court was informed by senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who is assisting the top court as an amicus curiae, about the broad areas that required attention.

Dave referred to the aspects of fire safety, fee regulation, student to classroom area ratio, student to teacher ratio, installation of CCTVs, medical facilities, mental health care and counselling for those studying at coaching centres.

He suggested that all states be impleaded as parties in the matter.

The amicus further referred to the legislation dealing with coaching institutes in seven states. When Dave suggested some sort of an oversight, the bench said it should be permanent.

“It can’t be that an unfortunate incident occurs and then suddenly one become aware of everything,” the bench observed.

The top court pointed out the need to have uniform standards on the issue.

The respondent authorities were asked to offer suggestions to the amicus on the desirability of a comprehensive policy for coaching institutes, initially with respect to the National Capital Region (NCR).

The matter will be heard after two weeks.

While hearing the matter on September 20, the top court had directed a Union government-appointed committee probing the three deaths to submit an interim report about the measures it wanted to be taken to prevent recurrence of such incidents.

The top court had also asked the Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi governments to apprise it of the policy and legislative and administrative changes made to prevent such incidents in future.

It had said uniform initiatives should be taken in the entire NCR to prevent another Old Rajinder Nagar-type incident from happening.

The top court had said the panel could consider intervention at the legislative, policy, and administrative levels, apart from eliciting views of all the stakeholders before making its recommendations.

The top court had also said it would be covering the “wider canvas” and would examine the issue at pan-India level to ensure such incidents did not occur again elsewhere.

On August 5, the top court had observed that coaching centres had become “death chambers” and were playing with the lives of students.

It had taken cognisance of the matter while hearing a petition filed by an association of coaching centres challenging a December 2023 Delhi High Court order which directed the city’s fire services and the civic body to inspect all coaching centres to ascertain if they were complying with fire safety norms.

The high court had transferred the probe into the death of the three students from Delhi Police to the CBI “to ensure the public has no doubt over the investigation”.

The three UPSC aspirants who drowned were Shreya Yadav (25) of Uttar Pradesh, Tanya Soni (25) of Telangana and Nevin Delvin (24) of Kerala.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has reconstituted its Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee.

“In exercise of powers conferred by Clause 4(2) of the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 and all enabling provisions in this behalf, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has been pleased to re-constitute the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee,” an office order said.

The 12-member committee is headed by top court judge Hima Kohli, who is the chairperson.

The panel also comprises Justice B V Nagarathna, Additional Registrar Sukhda Pritam and senior advocates Meenakshi Arora and Mahalakshmi Pavani.

Advocate and representative of the Supreme Court Bar Association, as stipulated under Clause 4(2)(c), Soumyajit Pani, advocate-on-record Anindita Pujari, advocate Madhu Chauhan, professor Shruti Pandey, senior advocates Jaideep Gupta and Menaka Guruswamy and Leni Chaudhuri, executive director, University of Chicago Centre in India, are the other members of the committee.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)