It was a failure of my leadership: Smith breaks down in tears

The founder of Taiwan's Gold Apollo, Hsu Ching-Kuang denied that his company manufactured the pagers used in the explosions that occurred in Lebanon on Tuesday, resulting in at least nine fatalities and nearly 3,000 injuries.

The detonations were triggered simultaneously by pagers used by militant-group Hezbollah members across the country.

News agency Reuters reported that images of the destroyed pagers revealed a format and stickers on the back that were consistent with those produced by Gold Apollo.

A high-ranking Lebanese security official said that Hezbollah had placed an order for 5,000 pagers from the Taiwanese company.

Earlier, a New York Times (NYT) report said that pagers used by Hezbollah members that simultaneously exploded on Tuesday came from Taiwan, with Lebanon claiming that explosives packed in sometime before they arrived in Lebanon.

However, Hsu clarified that the pagers involved in the incident were manufactured by a European company called BAC, which had the right to use Gold Apollo's brand. "The product was not ours. It was only that it had our brand on it," he said, without disclosing the name of the European manufacturer. Hsu further said that Gold Apollo was also a victim in this situation.

"We are a responsible company. This is very embarrassing," Hsu said.

According to media reports, Hezbollah's fighters started using pagers believing they could avoid Israeli tracking of their locations.

Hezbollah blames Israel, vows 'punishment'

Hezbollah vowed revenge against Israel following accusations that the latter was responsible for detonating pagers throughout Lebanon.

Ziad Makary, the Lebanese information minister, denounced the detonation of the pagers, which are commonly used by Hezbollah and other groups in Lebanon for communication purposes. He labeled the incident as an "Israeli aggression". Meanwhile, Hezbollah declared that Israel would face "its fair punishment" for the explosions.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice Srishananda during a recent court hearing. Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

In a huge relief for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Haryana elections, the Supreme Court has granted him bail in the Delhi excise policy case. The AAP chief will now be released from jail, six months after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21. He was subsequently arrested by the CBI in June.

Here are some of the Supreme Court's key quotes:

•    Perception also matters and CBI must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot and must show it is an uncaged parrot. CBI should be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. 

•    "No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their application recorded reasons as to why they deemed necessary. There is no violation of Section 41A (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure," said Justice Surya Kant.

•    Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, noted, "CBI did not feel the need to arrest him (Mr Kejriwal) even though he was interrogated in March 2023 and it was only after his ED arrest was stayed that CBI became active and sought custody of Mr Kejriwal, and thus felt no need of arrest for over 22 months. Such action by the CBI raises serious question on the timing of the arrest and such an arrest by CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted in ED case."

•    Submission of additional solicitor general cannot be accepted that appellant has to first approach trial court for grant of bail. Process of trial should not end up becoming a punishment. Belated arrest by CBI is not justified.

•    Regarding building a public narrative of a case... Arvind Kejriwal shall not make any public comments about this case and be present for all hearings before trial court unless exempted.