New Delhi: Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde could not have been sworn in as the chief minister of Maharashtra if the assembly speaker was not restrained from deciding the disqualification petitions pending against 39 MLAs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said.

The Shinde faction told the top court that even if 39 MLAs would have been disqualified from the assembly, Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government would have fallen because it had lost majority and the then chief minister Uddhav Thackeray had resigned before the floor test.

The Thackeray faction had earlier told the top court that the formation of a new government in Maharashtra under Shinde was the “direct and inevitable result” of two orders of the apex court dated June 27, 2022 (restraining the speaker from deciding the pending disqualification petitions) and June 29, 2022 (allowing the trust vote to be held) and had “disturbed the co-equal and mutual balance” between judicial and legislative organs of the State.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud told senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Shinde bloc, “They (Uddhav faction) are right to this extent that Eknath Shinde was sworn in as chief minister by the governor and was able to prove his majority because the speaker was not able to proceed with the disqualification proceedings against him and other MLAs.”

Kaul said that just after June 29, 2022, Thackeray had resigned because he knew that he did not have a majority and in the floor test held on July 4, last year, his coalition had got only 99 votes as 13 of MVA legislators had abstained from voting.

On July 4, last year, Shinde had won the crucial floor test in the state assembly with the support of BJP and independents. In the 288-member House, 164 MLAs had voted for the motion of confidence, while 99 voted against it.

Kaul said, “They (Thackeray faction) knew that they did not have a majority and even his 13 MLAs, who were earlier supporting them had abstained from voting in floor test. Shinde and other MLAs could not have been disqualified as the 2016 Nabam Rebia verdict of the top court would have come into play, which said that the Speaker could not decide on the disqualification petitions, if a motion for his removal was pending. Until he is disqualified, he continues to be the member of the house.”

The bench after perusing a chart of voting in floor test given by Kaul said that even if the court assumed that 2016 Nabam Rebia verdict did not exist, the speaker would have proceeded to disqualify those MLAs but yes, even if they had been disqualified, even then the government would have fallen.

Kaul said, “Exactly. The chief minister had resigned before the floor test and the combination which came forward before the governor was asked by him to prove his majority on the floor of the house. I say, what is wrong in it? What else could he (governor) have done.”

At the outset, Kaul submitted that Shinde faction was never against Thackeray but was against the party continuing in the MVA and even their resolution dated June 21, 2022 said that there was widespread discontent among cadres.

“Our case was never that we were against the then chief minister but we were against the MVA coalition. Shiv Sena had a pre-poll alliance with BJP and after the election, we formed a government with the help of the NCP and Congress, against whom we contested the election. We said in our resolution that there was widespread discontent among party workers,” he said.

He submitted that the Uddhav faction has tried to confuse powers of three constitutional authorities – Governor, Speaker and the Election Commission – and now want that everything should be set aside including July 4, last year floor test.

“Legislative party is an integral part of the original political party. We have raised our voice in the party. The very act of filing disqualification petitions with the speaker by them (Uddhav faction) was to stifle dissent. Internal dissent within the party does not qualify for disqualification under the tenth schedule,” Kaul submitted.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on Thursday.

On Tuesday, the top court had asked the Shinde-led faction if its move to go against the Shiv Sena party’s wish to continue with the coalition in the MVA amounted to indiscipline leading to disqualification.

Defending its stand, the Shinde faction said the legislative party is an integral part of the original political party and informed that there were two whips appointed by the party in June last year and it went with the one that said it did not want to continue in the coalition.

On February 23, the Uddhav faction told the top court that the formation of a new government in Maharashtra under Shinde was the “direct and inevitable result” of two orders of the apex court that “disturbed the co-equal and mutual balance” between judicial and legislative organs of the State.

A political crisis had erupted in Maharashtra after an open revolt in the Sena and, on June 29, 2022, the apex court refused to stay the Maharashtra governor’s direction to the 31-month-old MVA government to take a floor test in the assembly to prove its majority.

On August 23, 2022, a three-judge bench of the top court headed by then chief justice N V Ramana had formulated several questions of law and referred to the five-judge bench petitions filed by the two Sena factions which raised several constitutional questions related to defection, merger and disqualification.

Hyderabad: A 16-year-old student allegedly died by suicide here even as his family accused the college management and some members of the teaching faculty of harassing him and held them responsible for his death, police said on Wednesday.

A suicide note purportedly written by the teenager was found in which the boy also mentioned that the principal and some teaching faculty were inflicting mental torture on him.

The student, studying first-year intermediate at a private college in Narsingi near here, was found hanging in the classroom of the residential educational institute on Tuesday night by some students after they did not find him in the hostel room, they said.

The students said they carried him, took a lift and rushed him to a nearby hospital, where the doctors declared him brought dead.

In the suicide note, the boy apologised to his parents, elder brother over the act (suicide) and asked them to take serious action against those who harassed him.

Telangana Education Minister P Sabita Indra Reddy asked the officials concerned to enquire into the incident and submit a report, official sources said.

The latest incident is the third such one involving students ending their lives that were reported in Telangana over the past few days over different reasons, after a woman post-graduate medical student and a woman engineering student allegedly died by suicide in separate incidents in Warangal district.

In the latest instance, the boy’s family members, relatives and some students organisations held protests at different locations today alleging that the college management was responsible for his death and that he was mentally harassed.

The boy’s elder brother told media that one teaching faculty used to regularly beat his brother.

The protesters were seen squatting on the road and raising slogans “We want justice”.

The boy’s father, in a complaint lodged with police, said on Tuesday evening, he met his son at the college hostel, spoke to him and gave some medicines as his son was suffering from skin allergy.

The complainant further stated that his son was reprimanded and beaten by two teachers and a warden for not “studying well”, though he had told his son to keep those things aside and to study well.

Late on Tuesday night, the complainant received information that his son took the extreme step following which he lodged a complaint against the college management, principal and some others of causing abetment to commit suicide after which a case was registered under relevant Indian Penal Code sections and took up investigation, police said.

Chandigarh: The Haryana government has justified the parole granted to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, saying he does not fall under the definition of a “hardcore prisoner” and cannot be termed a serial killer.

The dera chief, who is serving a 20-year jail term for raping two disciples, was granted 40-day parole on January 20. He has also been convicted in two murder cases.

The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) recently challenged the parole order in Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In its reply through the superintendent of the Rohtak’s Sunaria Jail, where the Sirsa-based sect chief is serving out his sentence, the state government said no illegality was committed by granting parole.

According to the state government submission, the petitioner projected before the court that after having been convicted in two murder cases, Gurmeet Ram Rahim is now covered under the definition of a “convicted hardcore prisoner” under section 2(1)(g) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.

The SGPC also argued that his conviction in two murder cases amounted to “serial killings” under that Act.

The dera chief and four others were convicted in 2021 for hatching a conspiracy to kill Ranjit Singh, a dera manager. In 2019, he and three others were convicted for the murder of a journalist 16 years ago.

The state government rejected the SGPC argument.

His conviction in two different murder cases cannot be termed “serial killings” as he was not an assailant and had not executed the actual murders, it said.

The contention is “factually incorrect and without any basis”, the government said.

“He has been held guilty for hatching criminal conspiracies with the co-accused for these killings. He has been punished under section 302 IPC only with the aid of section 120-B,” it said referring to the “independent section” relating to criminal conspiracy.

The charges under this section are framed independently and in case of conviction, the sentencing of this section is to be read with the actual offence committed,” it submitted.

The government said the dera chief has already been on parole and furlough on three different occasions as granted by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, and during his temporary release no untoward incident took place.

About 1,000 convicts from jails in the state have already availed the benefit of temporary release on parole and furlough under the Haryana Act, the government said.

The main purpose of the provision is to give convicts a chance to solve their personal and family problems, and maintain links with society, it said.

It described parole and furlough a “rehabilitation tool”.

The G20 Foreign Ministers meet should  signal the need for unity of purpose and unity of action, said Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, on Thursday.

PM Modi said that the past few years reflected the failure of global governance which post second world was was meant to prevent wars and foster international cooperation.

“The architecture of global governance created after the Second World War was to serve two functions. First to prevent wars by balancing competing interests and second to foster international cooperation on issues of common interests,. The global governance has failed in both its mandates as there is financial crisis, climate change, terrorism and wars,’’ PM Modi said.

I hope the meeting today will reflect this spirit of coming together, for achieving common and concrete objectives,  PM Modi said adding that the voice of the Global South needs to be heard.

“No group can claim global leadership without listening  to those most affected by its decisions. As you meet in the land of Gandhi and Buddha, I pray you draw inspiration from India’s civilizational ethos -to focus not on what divides us but what unites us,’’ PM Modi added.

Meanwhile, Exterrnal Affairs Minister, Dr S Jaishankar, began the meet by observing a minute of silence for those who lost their lives in Turkey and Syria due to the earthquake.

“Let us remind ourselves that this grouping bears an exceptional responsibility. We may not be of one mind, infact there are some matters of sharp differences of opinions of views, yet we must find common ground and provide direction, because that is what the world expects of us,’’ said Dr Jaishankar adding that the future of multilateralism depends on our ability to strengthen it in a changing world.

The EAM also said that though the number of members of the United Nations has quadrupled it neither reflects todays politics, nor economics, demographies and aspirations. He also spoke about reforms in the UN.

“The agenda for the meet includes challenges of food, fertilizer and fuel security,’’ Dr Jaishankar added.

India has taken development projects in 78 countries and has encouraged exchanges and capacity building.

“We must ensure demand driven and sustainable development cooperation based on country ownership and transparency. Respect for soverignity and territorial integrity,’’ Dr Jaishankar added.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its order on a batch of PILs on the recent Adani Group shares crash triggered by the Hindenburg Research’s fraud allegations.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala is likely to deliver its verdict over setting up of a panel of domain experts for strengthening existing regulatory measures for stock markets.

While reserving its order, the top court on February 17 had refused to accept in a sealed cover the Centre’s suggestion on a proposed panel of experts.

Observing that it wanted full transparency for protection of investors, the top court had also ruled out the possibility of any sitting judge overseeing the functioning of the proposed panel.

Stressing that statutory bodies like market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) are fully equipped and are on job, the central government had expressed apprehension that any unintentional message to the investors that regulatory bodies in India needed monitoring by a panel may have some adverse impact on the flow of money into the country.

The Centre had told the bench that it wanted to provide details such as names and the scope of the panel’s mandate in a sealed cover .

Stock market regulator SEBI, in its note filed in the top court, had indicated it is not in favour of banning short-selling or sale of borrowed shares, and said it is investigating allegations made by a tiny short-seller against the Adani Group as well as its share price movements.

Till now, four PILs have been filed in the top court on the issue by lawyers M L Sharma, Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Mukesh Kumar, who claims to be a social activist.

Tiwari, in his PIL, sought a direction to the Centre to constitute a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to inquire into the Hindenburg Research report which has made a slew of allegations against the business conglomerate led by industrialist Gautam Adani.

Another PIL filed by advocate M L Sharma sought prosecution of short-seller Nathan Anderson of the US-based Hindenburg Research and his associates in India and the US for allegedly exploiting innocent investors and the “artificial crashing” of the Adani Group’s stock value in the market.

Congress leader Thakur, in his plea, has sought an investigation under the supervision of a sitting apex court judge against the Adani Group of companies in light of the allegations.

The fourth PIL seeks a probe by multiple central government agencies under the supervision of a panel or a former apex court judge against the Adani Group following allegations of fraud and share price manipulation.

“Direct appropriate audit (transactional and forensic audits), inquiry and investigation by appropriate agencies such as Serious Frauds Investigation Office (SFIO); Registrar of Companies (RoC); Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI); ED (Directorate of Enforcement) on money-laundering aspect; I-T (Income-Tax Department on aspects of offshore transactions and tax-havens involved and DRI( Department of Revenue Intelligence),” the fourth plea said.

Besides seeking a direction to the Centre and its agencies to render cooperation in the probe, the PIL has sought a direction to appoint a retired judge of the apex court or a committee to oversee and monitor the inquiry and investigation .

Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after the Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and elections commissioners will be done by the President on the advise of a committee comprising the prime minister, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, in a unanimous verdict, held that this norm will continue to hold good till a law on the issue is made by Parliament.

The apex court said if the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha is not there, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be in the committee to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and elections commissioners.

The bench delivered its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of election commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, stressed on purity in the election process and said democracy is intrinsically linked to the will of people.

Justice Rastogi, who concurred with the lead judgement authored by Justice Joseph, delivered a separate verdict with his reasoning.

The apex court said that election in a democracy should be undoubtedly be fair and the buck stops with the Election Commission to ensure that its purity is maintained.

It said in a democracy, the purity of election must be maintained or else it would lead to disastrous consequences.

The bench said the Election Commission must act within the constitutional framework and within the law and it cannot act in an unfair manner.

It said that an Election Commission, which does not ensure free and fair role in the process, guarantees breakdown of rule of law, which is the bedrock of the democracy.

The bench said that democracy is fragile and would collapse if “lip service” is paid to rule of law.

Mumbai: A relationship cannot be dubbed as a form of ‘love jihad’ just because the boy and the girl belong to different religions, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has said while granting pre-arrest bail to a Muslim woman and her family.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay Waghwase in the order passed on February 26 granted anticipatory bail to the accused who were denied relief by a local court in Aurangabad.

The woman’s former lover had alleged she and her family forced him to convert to Islam and undergo circumcision.

The man’s lawyer, while opposing the pre-arrest bail applications of the woman and her family members, also argued that it was a case of `love jihad’.

‘Love jihad’ is a term used by Hindu right-wing organisations to claim, without evidence, that there is a widespread conspiracy to lure Hindu women and convert them to Islam through marriage.

Here, though, the accuser was a man.

The high court rejected the love jihad argument, pointing out that the man, in the First Information Report (FIR), had admitted he was in a relationship with the woman and did not end the relationship despite having several opportunities.

“Merely because the boy and girl are from different religions, it cannot have a religious angle. It can be a case of pure love for each other,” the court said.

“It appears that now the colour has been tried to be given of love jihad, but when love is accepted then there is less possibility of the person being trapped just for converting him into the other’s religion,” it added.

As per the prosecution case, the man and the woman were in a relationship since March 2018. The man belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, but did not disclose this to the woman.

Later, the woman began insisting he should convert to Islam and marry her, after which the man disclosed his caste identity to her parents. They did not object to his caste identity and convinced their daughter to accept it.

But the relations later turned sour, following which the man lodged a case against the woman and her family in December 2022.

The HC, while granting pre-arrest bail to the woman and her family, said the probe into the case was almost over and hence their custody would not be necessary.

New Delhi: Students can face a penalty of up to Rs 20,000 and even cancellation of admission for holding dharnas or a fine of up to Rs 30,000 for resorting to violence at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, its latest rules stipulate.

As per the new rules, a student may face a fine of Rs 50,000 fine for physical violence, abuse and manhandling towards another student, staff, or faculty members.

Students and teachers of the university have condemned the new rules and termed them “draconian”. Meanwhile, the JNU Students’ Union has called a meeting of all student organisations on Thursday to discuss the new rules.

The 10-page ‘Rules of Discipline and proper conduct of students of JNU’ has laid out punishments for different kinds of acts like protests and forgery, and procedures for proctorial enquiry and recording a statement. The punishment ranges from a fine of Rs 5,000 to Rs 50,000 or rustication and cancellation of admission.

According to the document, the rules came into effect on February 3. It came after the university witnessed a slew of protests over the screening of a BBC documentary.

The rules document states that it has been approved by the Executive Council, the highest decision-making body of the university.

However, Executive Council members told PTI that the issue was brought as an additional agenda item and it was mentioned that this document has been prepared for “court matters”. They added that no proper discussion was taken place over the matter.

The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’s JNU secretary Vikas Patel termed the new rules “authoritarian (‘tughlaqi’)” while asserting that the old code of conduct was sufficiently effective. He demanded a rollback of this “draconian” code of conduct.

JNU Vice Chancellor Santishree D Pandit did not respond to texts and calls from PTI seeking her reaction.

The rules will apply to all students of the university, including part-time students whether admitted before the commencement of these rules or after, the document states.

Punishments have been listed for 17 “crimes”, including blockage, indulging in gambling, unauthorised occupation of hostel rooms, use of abusive and derogatory language and committing forgery. The rules also mention that a copy of the complaints will be sent to the parents.

Cases involving both teachers and students may be referred to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the university, school and centre level. Sexual abuse, eve-teasing, ragging, and arousing communal disharmony cases are of the purview of the chief proctor’s office.

“There were rules mentioned in the statute. However, the new rules have been formulated after a proctorial enquiry.”

He did not reveal when this proctorial enquiry started and when asked whether old rules have been modified, he replied in affirmation.

It has proposed punishments for all acts of violence and coercion such as gheraos, sit-ins or any variation which disrupt normal academic and administrative functioning and/or any act which incites or leads to violence.

The punishments include “cancellation of admission or withdrawal of degree or denial of registration for a specified period, rustication up to four semesters and/or declaring any part or the entire JNU campus out of bounds, expulsion, a fine of up to Rs 30,000 as per the old rules, One/two semesters of eviction from the hostel”.

If the matter is sub-judice, the chief proctor’s office will take action as per the order and direction of the honourable court, the rules state.

For hunger strikes, dharnas, group bargaining and any other form of protest by blocking the entrance or exit of any of the academic and/or administrative complexes or disrupting the movements of any member of the University community, a fine of up to Rs 20,000 will be levied.

According to the old rules, for gheraos, demonstrations and sexual harassment, the proposed punishments were cancellation of admission, rustication and expulsion.

This statute states the university has a proctorial system where the administration of student-related matters about all acts of indiscipline are delegated to the chief proctor. He and she are assisted by proctors. The size of the Proctorial Board is decided by the competent authority.

After receipt of a complaint, it will be scrutinized by the chief proctor who will set up a proctorial enquiry.

“Subsequently, either a one/two/three member(s) proctorial enquiry committee to conduct an in-depth investigation into the matter. Proctorial enquiry is an internal enquiry of JNU and hence, no other person except the Board members is allowed to be present during hearings.

“The accused or complainants is not allowed to be represented by a third party. Similarly, he/she cannot have an observer during the process of enquiry,” the document read.

An Executive Council member, who does not wish to be named, said the matter was not discussed at length in the EC meeting and “we were told that the rules have been created for court matters”.

Another Executive Council member Brahma Prakash Singh said: “The university might have planned to streamline the process and prepare a full document but it should have been discussed in the EC meeting properly. Some of the rules are absurd.”

The ABVP’s JNU secretary Patel said, “There is no need for this new authoritarian (‘tuglaki’) code of conduct. The old code of conduct was sufficiently effective.

“Instead of focusing on improvement of safety security and order, the JNU admin has imposed this draconian code of conduct, without any discussion with the stakeholders, especially the student community. We demand its rollback.”