Will contest next Assembly polls from Badami: Siddaramaiah

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.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar 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. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

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.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on 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.