Nasheman

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

You are here: Home / Archives for Supreme court

‘Are we useless?’: Supreme Court slams centre during drought hearing

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Centre today confronted a furious Supreme Court after its lawyer did not show up for a hearing on drought. “Show some seriousness…are we useless?” the judges berated as the Centre requested more time saying the Additional Solicitor General was busy in another courtroom.

“Is this like cattle or something? Go here, go there. This is not your priority? Two judges are sitting here. You expect us to do nothing and just keep looking at the watch waiting for time to pass?” the judges questioned angrily.

Soon after the rebuke, Additional Solicitor General Pinki Anand came rushing in and said she was ready to argue. The court said: “Don’t argue for 15 minutes and leave. Our time is also precious.”

The court is hearing a petition by former Aam Aadmi Party leader Yogendra Yadav’s organization Swaraj Abhiyaan, which asks for relief for farmers at a time 10 states have declared drought.

On Wednesday, the court had told the government that it can’t turn a blind eye to the crisis in nearly a dozen states and asked for a report on its performance in drought relief.

The petition alleges that the Centre has “squeezed the jobs guarantee scheme MNREGA virtually dry” by starving states of funds, with a huge backlog of wage payments from last year yet to be cleared.

“People are migrating due to distress because they don’t have jobs. This is forced migration,” said senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

The Centre has said it will release almost 8,000 crore by the weekend to clear pending wage dues and also give another 3000 crore to states for new works under the job scheme.

(Agencies)

Supreme Court asks BCCI to fall in line with Lodha panel recommendations

by

The apex court said the recommendations are “straight, rational and understandable” and “deserve respect”.

bcci

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday gave a stern message to BCCI asking it to “fall in line” with the recommendations of Justice R M Lodha Committee which has suggested a massive restructuring of the country’s apex cricket body.

The apex court said the recommendations are “straight, rational and understandable” and “deserve respect” and “there is no reason to disagree with the committee” which has the most “illuminated and respected members of the legal community”.

While four weeks time was granted to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to respond on the implementation of the recommendations of the Lodha Committee, the court made it clear that since ample opportunity was given to all stakeholders over a long period and their views were taken into consideration before preparing the final report, there should not be any difficulty in accepting the recommendations.

The remarks by a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur came after senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, representing BCCI, said there was a need to consult the 30-odd members of the Board on the recommendations and in view of its legal committee’s meeting on February 7, four weeks be allowed to respond.

However, the bench said, “They all have been heard and have given their views to the Committee. Ask your client to take a strict view of the recommendations. You can’t jump the gun.

You must see the recommendations. These recommendations deserve respect. They have come from the most illuminated and respected members of the legal community. They had invited people and have done extensive deliberations with all stakeholders. The recommendations are straightforward, understandable and rational.”

“The best thing is to fall in line and follow the suggestions to save the trouble,” the bench, which also comprised Justice F M I Kalifulla, said.

“Ultimately any transition and change has to come with whatever problems it has,” the bench said while accepting the Committee’s report which also exonerated former Chief Operating Officer of IPL Sunder Raman of all charges.

The BCCI had submitted that it should not be seen as “obstructionist” and it would come back with “concrete suggestions” after the meeting of the legal committee.

However, the bench said “decks must be cleared for complete reform”.

When Naphade said several technical problems would arise in implementing the recommendations of the committee as BCCI is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the bench said it would give the solution for following the suggestions.

“We will find an easy solution. We have simple solutions.

We will accept all recommendations. We will say that since BCCI has difficulties and impediments in respecting and implementing the recommendations, we will direct the same committee to push all recommendations. They will tell you where to get the registration. We will ask the judges (in the committee) to help BCCI in implementing the recommendations.

“We don’t want or intend or dictate a lengthy order. We want and we would end by directing that committee to steer the BCCI in implementation of the recommendations,” the bench said.

Realising the tough stand taken by the bench, Naphade said “I can see the writing on the wall.”

The bench said there was not much complication in the recommendations and if BCCI found any anomaly it can be looked into.

“There is no reason to disagree with the committee,” the bench said while making it clear that some people are going to be affected by the implementation of the Justice Lodha Committee’s recommendations.

The bench, which was hearing the plea filed by Aditya Verma, Secretary of Cricket Association of Bihar, on whose petition N Srinivasan was asked by the apex court to step down as the BCCI President for conflict of interest, posted the matter for further hearing on March 3.

(PTI)

SC refers curative plea on homosexuality to five-judge bench

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear curative petitions seeking re-examination of its verdict criminalising sexual activity between same sex consenting adults under section 377 of IPC.

 

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices A R Dave and J S Khehar said that since important issues concerning the Constitution were involved in the matter, it would be appropriate to refer the issue to a five-judge Constitution bench.

The bench said that the larger bench would be constituted in the future. The bench was told there were eight curative petitions seeking re-examination of the order on the review petition and the December 11, 2013 judgement by which the Delhi High Court verdict de-criminalising section 377 (unnatural sexual offences) of the IPC was set aside. The bench was also informed that the churches of northern India and All India Muslim Personal Law Board were against decriminalising homosexuality.

At the outset, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, arguing for decriminalising section 377 of IPC, submitted that huge constitutional issues are involved in the matter. A battery of senior lawyers appeared in the case.

He submitted the issue concerns the “most private and the most precious” part of life that is right to sexuality within the four corners of your domain which has been held as unconstitutional. “By this judgement, you have bound the present and future generations to dignity and stigma,” he submitted.

Further, he said that human sexuality should not be stigmatised.Hearing his brief arguments, the bench said such an important issue needs to go to a Constitution Bench of five judges. The bench was informed that the high court judgement was not challenged by the Centre which had left it for the apex court to take a call on the issue.

However, when the high court judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court, the Centre had preferred the review petition which was dismissed.

The bench was hearing the curative petition filed by gay rights activists and NGO Naz Foundation against the apex court’s December 11, 2013 judgement upholding validity of section 377 (unnatural sexual offences) of IPC and the January 2014 order by which it had dismissed a batch of review petitions.

A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for redressal of grievances in court which is normally decided by judges in-chamber. In rare cases, such petitions are given an open court hearing.

The petitioners, including the NGO, which has been spearheading the legal battle on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, had contended that there was an error in the judgement delivered on December 11, 2013 as it was based on an old law.

The apex court had earlier dismissed a batch of review petitions filed by the Centre and gay rights activists against its December 2013 verdict declaring gay sex an offence with punishment upto life imprisonment.

While setting aside the July 2, 2009 verdict of the Delhi High Court, the apex court had held that Section 377 of IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and that the declaration made by the high court was legally unsustainable.

(Agencies)

SC declines PIL on uniform civil code

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a public interest petition seeking direction to parliament to enact a uniform civil code to put an end to alleged discrimination being faced by Muslim women.

An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur said that it is for parliament to take a call on the issue and it was not in the realm of the apex court to issue a direction on this.

Chief Justice Thakur, in a disapproving note, told senior counsel Gopal Subramaniam that if such petitions were filed without regard to the law, the court will come down very heavily.

The court asked why none of those who are being allegedly discriminated against have come forward for redressal.

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had filed the PIL.

(Agencies)

Govt says hate speech must be punished, supports prosecution of Subramanian Swamy

by

subramanian swamy

New Delhi: The Centre has sought in the Supreme Court the dismissal of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s plea challenging the constitutional validity of penal provisions on speeches and writings that could cause enmity and hatred among communities.

“That the challenge of the constitutionality of section 153A of the IPC on the ground that it violates the guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression must be rejected because the section seeks to punish only (a) such acts which have the tendency to promote enmity or hatred between different classes (b) such as which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the harmony between different classes and which have tendency to disturb public tranquillity.

“These acts are clearly calculated to disturb public order and show the limitation imposed by section 153A are in the interest of public order. Article 19(2) would, therefore, save section 153A as being within the scope of permissible legislative restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a),” said the affidavit filed by an Under Secretary in the Home Ministry.

The affidavit has also referred to a book written by the BJP leader.

“The petitioner has written a book named Terrorism in India where he has made hate speeches against the community of India. The book-its theme, its language, innuendos, similes it employs and the moral of its story, if any–in order to ascertain whether the offending passages read in the context of the book as a whole fall within the mischief of section 153A. “The book (is) to be considered in all its aspect as it contains matter which “promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India.” Therefore, the petitioner has violated the sections of IPC,” the MHA said in its affidavit.

Swamy, who is facing a court case in Karimganj in Assam for allegedly delivering an inflammatory address at Kaziranga University, sought relief from the apex court in the case. He also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier, on May 21, a judge of the apex court had recused from hearing his plea challenging the validity of some penal provisions relating to “hate speech”.

The apex court was hearing Swamy’s plea against the order of an Assam trial court issuing an NBW against him for failing to appear before it on March 19 in a case of alleged hate speech. The NBW was issued on June 1 by a court in Karimganj on a complaint accusing him of allegedly delivering an inflammatory address on March 15 at Kaziranga University. The Karimganj court had ordered that the arrest warrant be complied with on or before June 30. Proceedings in the case have been stayed in the Assam court.

(PTI)

Scrap quota in higher education institutions: SC

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that national interest requires doing away with all forms of reservation in institutions of higher education and urged the Centre to take effective steps “objectively”.

Despite several reminders to the central and state governments to make merit the primary criteria for admissions into super-specialty courses, the ground reality remains that reservation often holds sway over merit, observed a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant.

“The fond hope has remained in the sphere of hope… The said privilege remains unchanged, as if (it is) to compete with eternity,” the bench remarked.

(Agencies)

Supreme Court stays ban on dance bars in Maharashtra

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today stayed the operation of 2014 amendment in the Maharashtra Police Act that had banned dance performances at bars and some other places, paving the way for reopening of dance bars across the state.

Referring to the brief history of judicial pronouncement in the case and subsequent amendment in the state law, a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla Chandra Pant said “We think it appropriate to stay the provisions section 33 (A)(1) of the Maharashtra Police (second amendment) Act.”

The court however added a rider to its interim order and allowed the licensing authorities in the state to regulate indecent dance performances at bars and other places.

“However, we have a rider that no performance of dance will be remotely expressive of any kind of obscenity…the licensing authority can regulate such dance performances so that individual dignity of woman performer is not harmed,” the bench said.

The apex court has now fixed the petition filed by Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association for final hearing on November 5 and said that the matter pertaining to the similar issue had already been decided by this court in 2013.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra said at the outset that interim relief may be granted to the Association and added that 2014 amendment in the Act is distinct by its nature.

The Maharashtra government had brought an amendment in 2005 — the Bombay Police Act — which was challenged in high court by an association representing restaurants and bars.

The Bombay High Court on April 12, 2006 had quashed the government’s decision and declared the provision as unconstitutional saying that it is against Article 19(1)(g) (to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the constitution.

However, the state government had moved the apex court against the high court’s order that same year.

On July 16, 2013, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court verdict quashing the state government’s order and had said that the ban violated the constitutional right to earn a living.

(Agencies)

SC rejects plea of sacked IPS officer Bhatt for SIT probe

by

Sanjiv Bhatt

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today dismissed the plea of sacked Gujarat cadre IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking a court-monitored SIT probe in relation to the two FIRs lodged against him for allegedly forcing his subordinate to file an affidavit in a 2002 riots case and hacking email of a law officer.

The bench comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra also said the trial in these two cases be conducted “expeditiously.”

Bhatt, who had earlier sought a CBI inquiry into the two FIR, later changed his prayer and sought a court-monitored SIT probe on the ground that now the persons against whom he has certain grievances, are now running the government at Centre.

The former IPS officer had also sought impleadment of BJP president Amit Shah, the then MoS Home in the state government and RSS functionary S Gurumurthy as parties in his petition which was also rejected.

The IPS officer, dismissed from service on August 18 this year, had filed the petitions in the apex court in 2011 against the lodging of FIRs against him by the Gujarat Police.

On September 23, the apex court had reserved its verdict after Gujarat government had rubbished the claim of Bhatt that he was present at a meeting to discuss law and order situation during the 2002 communal violence at residence of the then Chief Minister.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Bhatt, had alleged collusion among top state government functionaries, the then Additional Advocate General, the then minister of state for home and some lawyers for the accused and sought court-monitored SIT probe into Bhatt’s claims.

Jaising had argued that a SIT probe, instead of seeking CBI investigation, was needed to inquire into the “collusion of the highest order” as the then Chief Minister is now the Prime Minister and the then AAG is now the Additional Solicitor General of India.

Senior advocate L Nageshwar Rao, appearing for then Additional Advocate General Tushar Mehta, had alleged that Bhatt was trying to revive whatever happened since 2002.

Earlier, the counsel for Bhatt had also alleged that he was victimised and targeted by the state government, whose strategy was to shoot the messenger for his bold speaking on the handling of law and order situation during the 2002 riots.

One of the Bhatt’s petitions pertains to an FIR lodged by Gujarat Police-constable K D Panth in Ahmedabad alleging that Bhatt had pressurised him to sign an affidavit testifying that the IPS officer had participated in a high-level meeting after the Godhra carnage.

In another FIR, he has been accused of allegedly hacking then state’s Additional Advocate General Tushar Mehta’s e-mail account.

The apex court had earlier stayed criminal proceedings against the officer.

Bhatt in his plea had also sought fresh investigation against him in all cases with a plea for direction to Internet service providers to preserve all data he has put in the applications.

(Agencies)

SC suspends beef ban in J&K for two months, asks high court to form bench

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today suspended for two months a controversial court order for enforcing ban on the sale of beef in Jammu and Kashmir while asking the Chief Justice of J-K High Court to set up a three-judge bench to decide on two conflicting orders on the issue.

A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu directed that the September 8 order of the Jammu bench of the High Court, by which it had ordered enforcement of ban on sale of beef in the state in pursuance of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) provisions, be kept in abeyance for two months.

The bench also referred to the order passed by another division bench of high court at Srinagar in which the state was given liberty to amend the RPC provision in question.

The bench, also comprising Justice Amitava Roy, said, “Since there are conflicting expressions given by two division benches of the high court, we request the learned Chief Justice to constitute a bench of three learned judges to take a decision on the writ petitions.”

Asking the apex court registry to intimate its counter part about the order “forthwith”, the court further said that the Chief Justice of the high court will be at liberty to decide the place where the larger bench will hear and decide together the two writ petitions.

The bench disposed of the petition filed by the state government which had said that the inconsistent views of the two benches of the high court were being “misused” to disturb peace and communal harmony in the state.

While the Jammu bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court had ordered enforcement of the bar on the sale of beef in the state under the RPC, the Srinagar bench agreed to hear a separate plea seeking scrapping of the provision that bars slaughter of bovine animals.

The order asking the police to enforce the beef ban had led to strong protests in the state and forced a three-day internet shutdown during the Eid festival to avert any flare-ups.

The state, in its plea, had said, “Vide impugned orders of Jammu & Srinagar Benches of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court… have passed two mutually conflicting orders which have grave ramifications for the law and order situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as orders are being misused and interpreted in a manner so as to disturb peaceful fabric of the State.”

It had said that the apex court should “ensure there is uniformity and consistency in judicial pronouncements and no scope to exploit the present situation by disrupting communal harmony, amity and peace in the state and thereto alienating people of the State from national mainstream.”

In its order, the Jammu bench had said, “The Director General of Police is directed to ensure that appropriate directions are issued to all the SSPs/SPs, SHOs of various police districts so that there is no sale of beef anywhere in the State of J&K and strict action is taken in accordance with the law against those who indulge in it.”

On the other hand, the Srinagar bench, on September 16, issued notice on a plea that had sought striking down of the RPC provision banning slaughter of bovine animals.

It was alleged in the plea before the Srinagar bench that the RPC provision was “ultra-vires” as the bar constituted an “unreasonable infringement” on fundamental rights of citizens.

The Srinagar bench had also said that the pendency of the plea before it will not operate “as a bar” if the state wants to do away with the provision.

“…We would like to make it clear that if the State or Legislature contemplates or takes steps for scrapping or amending the provisions as are under challenge, the pendency of this writ petition shall not operate as a bar,” it had said.

(PTI)

Meat ban can’t be forced down people’s throats: Supreme Court

by

Supreme Court

New Delhi: Refusing to interfere with a Bombay High Court order limiting the ban on the sale of meat on Thursday, the Supreme Court said it is not an issue that could be forced down people’s throats.

“Matters like these must be handled with tolerance and compassion,” the apex court said while rejecting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a Jain group challenging the Mumbai High Court’s decision to stay the ban on sale of meat on Thursday.

“If the Maharashtra government has any objection to the High Court order, it must approach the Supreme Court,” the ruling said.

On Monday, the Bombay High Court had granted a stay on the controversial ban on sale of meat in Mumbai on September 17, but declined to lift the bar on animal slaughter. The court was hearing a PIL filed by Bombay Mutton Dealers’ Association challenging the ban imposed in the wake of Jain community’s Paryushan festival of fasting.

A similar ban has been imposed in the adjoining Mira-Bhayander and Navi Mumbai municipal corporations in Thane district, but the High Court said it was not concerned about it as nobody from there has challenged the ban in those cities.

(Agencies)

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives