Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / Archives for Supreme court

SC quashes extension of OBC reservation to Jats

by

Supreme Court India

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the March 4, 2014, notification by the then UPA government extending OBC reservation to Jats in nine states, ignoring the recommendation of the National Commission for Backward Classes to the contrary.

An apex court bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said: “We can’t agree that politically organised Jats are backward class so as to be entitled to OBC reservation.”

“Inclusion of politically organised class such as Jats… can’t be affirmed,” said Justice Gogoi pronouncing the judgment.

The court said that inclusion of politically organised castes like Jats in the OBC list is not good for other backward classes.

The UPA government had announced reservation for Jats in 2014 by including them in the OBC category on the eve of the Lok Sabha elections. However, a group of petitioners claimed that Jats were politically and socially advanced and that the decision to extend reservation to them was electorally motivated.

(IANS)

Justice Amitava Roy sworn in as Supreme Court judge

by

Supreme Court India

New Delhi: Justice Amitava Roy was Friday sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court.

With the elevation of Roy, who was chief justice of the Orissa High Court, the strength of the apex court has gone up to 29 against a sanctioned strength of 31 judges.

Justice Roy will have a tenure of three years.

Coming from a family of lawyers and judges from Kolkata, Justice Roy, born March 1, 1953, started practice in the district courts in Dibrugarh and Tinsukia in Assam from 1976 to 1981, before shifting to the Gauhati High Court.

He was elevated as judge in the high Court Feb 4, 2002 and elevated as chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court Jan 2, 2013 and shifted to the Orissa High Court in the same capacity Aug 6, 2014.

(Agencies)

SC slams Centre: 100 Crore for R-Day parade, but no compensation to farmers

by

Make in India tableau

New Delhi: The Supreme Court slammed the Union government today for spending crores on the Republic Day parade but delaying the payment of compensation to farmers for land acquired from them.

“You spend Rs. 100 crores on Republic Day parade but when it comes to payment of compensation to farmers, you file appeals,” Chief Justice HL Dattu told the Centre.

The court’s observation came during a hearing of the Defence Ministry’s appeals relating to compensation to farmers on land acquisition in cantonment areas in Punjab.

The Punjab and Haryana high court had awarded a substantial compensation to farmers and the ministry had appealed against it.

But the Supreme Court declined to interfere, saying, “farmers are deprived of reasonable compensation”. The government, the court said, spends “so much money on litigations” but “takes a different stand” when it comes to paying farmers.

The Chief Justice also criticised the Union government for not creating enough infrastructure for the functioning of tribunals. “If you are unable to provide accommodation, why create such tribunals?” the court said.

Justice Dattu said recently, a retired Supreme Court Judge who was appointed on a tribunal, was not provided accommodation.

“I am anguished that you are pushing them (Judges) to Commonwealth village. Why different treatment for them? You must create infrastructure before creating tribunals,” the court said.

(Agencies)

Election to be quashed if crimnal record not disclosed: SC

by

Supreme Court India

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that suppression or non-disclosure of information about serious crimes by a candidate at the time of filing nomination interferes with the voters’ right to make an informed choice and the election of such a candidate is liable to be set aside.

When there is non-disclosure of the offences pertaining to heinous or serious offence or offences relating to corruption or moral turpitude at the time of filing of nomination paper, it creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter, said a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant.

“As a candidate has the special knowledge of the pending cases against him where cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed and there is non-disclosure on his part, it would amount to undue influence. Therefore, election is to be declared null and void by the Election Tribunal under Section 100(1)(b) of the 1951 Act,” the court said.

“Concealment or suppression of this nature deprives the voters to make an informed and advised choice as a consequence of which it would come within the compartment of direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote by the electorate, on the part of the candidate,” Justice Misra said pronouncing the judgment.

Making it clear that disclosure of criminal antecedents by a candidate was a statutory obligation, the court said: “Disclosure of criminal antecedents of a candidate, especially, pertaining to heinous or serious offence or offences relating to corruption or moral turpitude at the time of filing of nomination paper as mandated by law is a categorical imperative.”

“The question whether it materially affects the election or not would not arise in a case of this nature,” said the court as it dismissed an appeal by Krishnamurthy who was elected as the president of Thekampatti panchayat in Mettupalayam taluka of Tamil Nadu’s Coimbatore Oct 13, 2006. Krishnamurthy involved in eight cases relating to embezzlement.

The validity of Krishnamurthy’s election was challenged on the ground that he had filed a false declaration suppressing the details of criminal cases pending trial against him and, therefore, his nomination deserved to be rejected by the returning officer.

The Election Tribunal after examining all the material set aside his election holding that Krishnamurthy’s nomination papers should have been rejected and he could not have contested. It also ordered re-election for the post of the president of Thekampatti panchayat.

Hearing Krishnamurthy’s appeal, the Madras High Court agreed with the ultimate conclusion of the tribunal but for a different reason.

The apex court, while dismissing the appeal by Krishnamurthy, said: “Ex consequenti, the appeal, being sans substance, stands dismissed with costs, which is assessed at Rs.50,000.”

(IANS)

SC says Gurunath Meiyappan was involved in betting, tells Srinivasan to choose between CSK and BCCI top job

by

Supreme Court, reading out a 130-page order, has said that BCCI functions are public functions, amenable to judicial law. N. Srinivasan has to choose between his IPL team Chennai Super Kings and BCCI president’s post.

File photo of Gurunath Meiyappan.

File photo of Gurunath Meiyappan.

by Soumitra Bose, NDTVSports

After almost 18 months of deliberations on the 2013 Indian Premier League betting and match-fixing scandal, the Supreme Court has said that N. Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra of Rajasthan Royals were involved in betting. However, it also said that Srinivasan was not guilty of cover-up and “charges against him, at best, be regarded as suspicion.” It also said that “BCCI functions are public functions, amenable to judicial law.”

However, the top court has said that conflict of interest issues remain and Srinivasan has to choose between his IPL team Chennai Super Kings and the cricket Board. Srinivasan is also the first chairman of ICC.

Srinivasan is seeking a re-election as BCCI president and Thursday’s order will be a shot in the arm. In the wake of the IPL probe, Srinivasan was stood down last year by the top court from his position as Board chief. The BCCI has already postponed its Annual General Meeting and elections twice. As per its constitution, the AGM should have been held by September 30 last year. Srinivasan is seeking another term, this time as a candidate backed by the BCCI’s East Zone units.

The Supreme Court-appointed probe committee, led by Justice Mukul Mudgal, had in its first report indicted Meiyappan of betting and sharing team information. Srinivasan had mentioned that Gurunath was a mere ‘cricket enthusiast.’ Srinivasan was earlier charged with conflict of interest and not taking adequate action against involved in ‘misdemeanours.’

The case dates back to June 2013 when Aditya Verma, secretary of the Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB), raised charges of a conflict of interest in the BCCI’s original two-member inquiry panel for the IPL corruption issue.

A Bombay High Court ruling later termed the probe panel “illegal”. The BCCI and the CAB filed petitions in the Supreme Court against this order, with the CAB contending that the Bombay High Court could have suggested a fresh mechanism to look into the corruption allegations.

The Supreme Court then appointed a three-member committee, headed by former High Court judge Mukul Mudgal and comprising additional solicitor general L Nageswara Rao and Nilay Dutta to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of corruption against Srinivasan’s son-in-law and Chennai Super Kings official Gurunath Meiyappan, India Cements, and Rajasthan Royals team owner Raj Kundra, as well as with the larger mandate of allegations around betting and spot-fixing in IPL matches and the involvement of players.

(With inputs from A. Vaidyanathan)

Venting anger against authorities online no crime, says SC

by

facebook

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has yet again come to the rescue of common people who give vent to their anguish against official apathy on social networking sites as it said such adverse comments were not a crime under the law.

A Bench of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and R. Banumathi said the couple were well within their rights to air their grievances on a public forum like Facebook. “The page created by the traffic police on Facebook was a forum for the public to put forth their grievances. In our considered view, the appellants might have posted the comment online under the bona fide belief that it was within the permissible limits,” the 10-page judgment observed.

The couple’s car had hit an autorickshaw, resulting in injuries to a passenger. They paid due compensation to the injured person and took care of the hospital charges. But Ms. Jawa, who drove the car, was summoned to the Pulakeshi Nagar Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru city, where the police allegedly misbehaved with her.

The couple vented their anger on the police’s Facebook page. The police reacted by lodging a criminal complaint against the couple.

NRIs can vote through postal ballots

by

Supreme Court India

New Delhi: The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the EC’s recommendation to extend voting rights to NRIs through postal ballots have been accepted in letter and spirit.

Taking note of the submissions, a bench comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu and A K Sikri asked the Centre to inform it about “further steps taken to implement the suggestions.”

The bench posted the matter after eight weeks, asking the Centre to do the needful at the earliest.

“Since the views and recommendation have been accepted let them go ahead with the follow-up. They will have to carry out the follow—up process at the earliest,” the bench said.

The Centre’s stand was clarified by Additional Solicitor General P L Narasimha, who said certain amendments are required to be carried out and the ministry of law is working on them, taking into consideration the EC recommendations.

On November 14 last year, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to make its stand clear on the EC’s proposal for allowing NRIs to cast their votes through proxy voting and e-ballots in polls in India.

The apex court had then granted four weeks time to the government to respond to the proposal prepared by a 12-member committee led by Vinod Zutshi, Deputy Election Commissioner, for ‘Exploring Feasibility of Alternative Options for Voting by Overseas Electors.’

In the report, the committee has said it is of the view that e-postal ballot, where blank postal ballot is transferred electronically to NRIs and returned by post, can be employed after validation of the process and pilot implementation in one or two constituencies.

The report further said the process can be scaled up for Parliamentary elections, if found feasible, practicable and meeting the objectives of free and fair polls.

The committee comprising officials from the EC, Law Ministry and MEA had gathered opinion from all sections before submitting a report to the apex court.

The poll panel had contended that the move to allow NRIs to use proxy voting on the lines of defence personnel and e-ballot facility will require changes in the law and a legislative framework.

According to the provisions of the Representation of People Act, a person who is a citizen of India and who has not acquired the citizenship of any other country and is otherwise eligible to be registered as a voter and who is absent from his place of ordinary residence in India owing to employment, education or otherwise, is eligible to be registered as a voter in the constituency in which his place of residence in India, as mentioned in his passport, is located.

The court had earlier asked the EC to place before it the report of the committee set up by it to “study various available options for the purpose of NRI voting“.

The apex court was hearing a batch of PILs in which it has been contended that the existing provision which mandates NRI voter to be physically present in the constituency to exercise his vote was discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights.

The petitioners, including NRI Shamsheer VP, have submitted that over one crore people will be entitled to cast their vote if NRIs are allowed to vote from overseas.

The PILs said 114 countries have adopted external voting and among them are 20 Asian countries. It said the external voting could be held by setting up polling booths at the diplomatic mission, or by postal, proxy or electronic voting.

(PTI)

Will stay away from IPL till panel's decision: Srinivasan to SC

by

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal told a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla that Srinivasan would stay away from the governing council and its activities

srinivasan

New Delhi: N. Srinivasan, the Indian cricket board’s sidelined chief, Wednesday told the Supreme Court that if he is re-elected, he would stay away from the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council till a proposed committee decides on the larger question of conflict of between his BCCI role and his IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings.

Responding to a poser from the court Tuesday, senior counsel Kapil Sibal told a bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla that Srinivasan would stay away from the governing council and its activities and also from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) meetings related to the IPL.

Sibal said: “Mr. N. Srinivasan, further undertakes that if he is elected as president of BCCI, till the (proposed) committee suggests the procedure to deal with the issue of conflict of interest, he will not attend any IPL governing council meeting or any other IPL related discussion in ant meeting of working committee or general body meeting of the BCCI.”

This the court was told in a note on the scope of reference of the committee to be appointed by the apex court or the BCCI into the question of conflict of interest. The note said the committee could suggest “the sanctions to be imposed, in accordance with the applicable IPL rules on person prima facie found to be involved in the act of backing by the Mudgal Committee.”

The committee may also determine the liability of the franchisees for the act of backing by their “team officials and to suggest the consequential sanctions that can be imposed on them in accordance with the IPL rules.”

The note said that another term of reference for the proposed committee would be to “consider and suggest a mechanism to identify the potential conflict of interest in the BCCI and to suggest the procedure to be adopted for dealing with situations of potential conflict of interest.”

Sibal said this during the hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Cricket Association of Bihar which has sought to oust Srinivasan as BCCI president on the ground of his being in the conflict of interest situation being the president of the cricketing body and also the owner of CSK.

The PIL is also seeking the cancellation of IPL franchisee CSK on the ground of Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan’s alleged involvement in betting.

(IANS)

SC notice on protecting school children from sexual, mental abuse

by

school-rape-bangalore

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday issued notice to the central and state governments and the union territory administrations on a PIL seeking the framing of “rules, regulations and the guidelines” for protection of school-children from the menace of sexual and mental abuse in the educational premises.

“It is a good cause,” said a bench of Chief Justice H.L.Dattu and Justice A.K.Sikri issuing notice on the PIL as advocate J.P.Dhanda, appearing for petitioner Vineet Dhanda, addressed the court on the issue.

Referring to numerous newspaper reports about drastic rise in cases of sexual abuse of children within the educational institutions, school transports and boarding houses, the petitioner has sought directions for the framing of strict guidelines for educational institutions to ensure the safety and protection of the students from any sort of “physical and mental abuse”.

Vineet Dhanda has also sought the laying down of the rules for penalising the educational institutions where the incidents of sexual abuse take place.

Dhanda, who is also an advocate, has also sought police intervention for safeguarding the school children from any kind of violence and abuse.

Referring to the reports of sexual abuse of children staying in boarding schools away from their parents, the petitioner said: “The more disturbing part besides the gory crime of child sexual abuse is that the educational institutions have no liabilities whatsoever fixed by law in case of such offences in their premises.”

He said that schools were charging exorbitant fees and other charges but were not discharging their elementary responsibility of securing the lives of children when they are in schools.

“Even the police administration goes out of its way to protect such educational institutions for their own vested interests,” Dhanda told the court.

The petition said that “to protect the precious lives of children from being scared as a result of such dastardly acts is the prime duty of the schools as well as prime duty of the government and administration”.

(IANS)

Eminent jurist V R Krishna Iyer passes away

by

V R Krishna Iyer

Kochi: Eminent jurist V R Krishna Iyer, a left-leaning intellectual who had stood for the rights of the downtrodden and reinterpreted bail jurisprudence as a Supreme Court judge, died today.

Justice Iyer, who turned 100 on November 13, breathed his last at a private hospital here following multiple organ failure.

He was admitted to the private Medical Trust hospital on November 24. He died at 3.30 PM, Hospital Managing Director P V Antony and Cardiologist Dr Manu R Varma, who treated him, told reporters.

“The death was due to cerebral vascular accident or stroke, worsening cardiac and renal failure and pneumonia,” Dr Manu Varma said.

Justice Iyer, born in a conservative Tamil Brahmin family in Palakad in Kerala, was attracted to communism and had served as a minister in the first democratically-elected Communist government of the world under the late EMS Namboodiripad in the state.
During his tenure as law minister, land reforms were introduced in the 1950s. As a Supreme Court Judge for seven years in the 1970s, he provided easy access to the ordinary people by relaxing the rule of locus standi.

He defined bail jurisprudence in favour of undertrials when he laid down that “bail, not jail is the rule” and was averse to preventive detentions as a general rule.

In 1975, he had put a conditional stay on the Allahabad High Court judgement that unseated Indira Gandhi as MP from Rae Bareli but it was another story that the High Court judgement led to events that culminated in the imposition of Emergency.

Eyebrows were raised when he praised Narendra Modi after he was named the Prime Ministerial candidate by BJP last year. Earlier, he was critical of him on 2002 riots.
Modi today expressed his condolences on Iyer’s death.

“My association with Justice Krishna Iyer was special. My mind goes back to our conversations & the insightful letters he would write to me,” the Prime Minister tweeted.

Justice Iyer was hospitalised due to over exertion with decreased appetite, respiratory tract infection and cardiac problem. On December 2, he suffered stroke and his left side was paralysed and there was steady downhill in his condition, culminating in his death, Dr Varma said.

He is survived by two sons. His wife had predeceased him. At the time of his death, his son Parameshwaran and daughter -in-law were by his side.

Dr Varma said until yesterday, Iyer was responding to verbal commands and from this morning, he lost consciousness.

Justice Iyer’s body will be taken to his residence ‘Satgamaya’ from the hospital later this evening.

The body will be shifted to the Rajiv Gandhi Indoor stadium at Kadavanthara tomorrow to enable the public to pay their homage. Funeral will be held at 6 PM.

(PTI)

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives