Yuva Sai Sagar

Online news channel!

Tag: chandrachud

Supreme Court won’t interfere in Gujarat counting

The Supreme Court rejected on Friday a Congress petition that had sought directions to the Election Commission to match 25 per cent of all EVM ballots with voter slips printed by Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines used in the Gujarat Assembly elections. Counting of votes will be taken up in the state on Monday.A bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra found no merit in the plea by Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal who represented the Congress.The bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, observed that it could not interfere with the poll panel’s exercise of power. Electoral process in a democracy is of utmost importance and could not be interfered with to simply allay apprehensions of a party, the bench noted.Singhvi said that plea was not against EVMs per se. “…but now that you have VVPAT with all machines, we want the sampling of voting on EVMs with the VVPAt trail be done in at least 10-15% cases if not 25%.”The top court’s move comes a day after the Congress accused the poll panel of being the “puppet” of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). A day before the final phase of polling in Gujarat, the Election Commission cracked the whip on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and certain television channels on Wednesday. They had aired his interviews even after the end of campaigning.The BJP and the Congress traded charges against each other for trying to influence the voters in the mandatory no-campaign period.Within hours of the filing of three complaints by the BJP, the EC served a showcase notice to Rahul and ordered FIR against certain Gujarati television channels.The EC asked Rahul to explain by December 18 why he violated the poll code of no campaign within 48 hours of the conclusion of the final day of polling.The EC also instructed the Gujarat Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to stop the display of such matter in districts going to the polls on December 14.Following the EC’s step, the Congress reacted sharply and called it partisan. The party demanded from the EC that an FIR be filed against BJP leaders. At the EC’s doorstep, Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala described it as an attempt to strangle the press.”In 2014 Mr Modi had given a television interview just a day before the polling, and on the day of polling, he had even displayed the BJP symbol, but EC did not act then. On December 8, a day before the first phase, the BJP finance minister released the manifesto but EC did not issue a show cause,” he said.In his first interview, Rahul said the “BJP is not scared of him but of the voice of Gujarat.””In the last three months, I have just raised the voice of Gujarat. They are not scared of me. They are scared of the voice of Gujarat. This election is not about Rahul Gandhi or Narendra Modi. This is about the voice of Gujarat,” Rahul told TV channels.He also accused the BJP of distorting his image by putting huge money.”There was no (image) makeover. BJP workers used money to distort the reality of Rahul Gandhi… a lot of money was put into this,” said Rahul.

Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>

SC to hear pleas on deportation of Rohingya Muslims in January

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear on January 31 a batch of pleas, including that of two Rohingya refugees who have approached it against the Centre’s decision to deport Rohinigya Muslims to Myanmar.A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said it would also hear on the next date the interim applications seeking to be impleaded as parties in the ongoing case.”We are not rejecting any of the impleadment application before us in this matter. We will hear it on the next date,” the bench said.On November 21, the apex court had agreed to defer the matter for hearing it on Tuesday.Two Rohingya immigrants, Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir, had approached the apex court opposing the Centre’s decision to deport over 40,000 refugees who came to India after escaping from Myanmar due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against the community there.Various other petitions, including those by former RSS ideologue and Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan leader K N Govindacharya, the CPI(M) youth wing Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the West Bengal child rights body and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, have been filed in the apex court on the matter.The top court had on October 13 said the Rohingya refugee problem was of a “great magnitude” and the state would have to play a “big role” while dealing with the contentious issue.It had earlier decided to give a detailed and holistic hearing on the government’s decision to deport Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar, observing that a balance has to be struck between national interest and human rights as the issue involved national security, economic interests and humanity.The court had suggested to the Centre not to deport these refugees, but the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta had urged that it should not be written in the order as anything coming on record would have international ramifications.The Rohingyas, who fled to India after violence in the Western Rakhine State of Myanmar, were settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.In a communication to all states, the union home ministry had said the rise of terrorism in last few decades had become a serious concern for most nations as illegal migrants were prone to recruitment by terrorist organisations.It had directed the state governments to set up a task force at district level to identify and deport illegally- staying foreign nationals.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecwq tetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
Yogi Adityanath

–>

Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>

Rohingya refugees: Supreme Court to resume hearing against deportation today

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will resume the hearing of plea of two Rohingya refugees against the Centre’s decision to deport Rohingya Muslims back to Myanmar.Last month, the apex court deferred the matter after agreeing to the request of senior advocate Fali S Nariman, who appeared for the two refugees Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir.The matter was heard by a bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud. In its last hearing, the bench ordered to Centre not to deport the Rohingya Muslim refugees.The bench had observed that the whole issue of Rohingya Muslims has to be looked at from various angles like national security, economic interest, labour interest and also the protection of children, women, sick and innocent persons.The Rohingya immigrants, who fled to India after violence in the Western Rakhine state of Myanmar, have settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.More than 600,000 Rohingya are languishing in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing a brutal Myanmar army campaign launched in late August.Meanwhile, the UN has said the scorched-earth operation, which has left hundreds of villages burned to ash in northern Rakhine state, amounts to ethnic cleansing.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecwq tetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
Yogi Adityanath

–>

Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>

SC washes hands off anti-torture bill, says cant compel Centre to make law

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>On Monday, the Supreme Court disposed off a petition which sought direction compelling the Centre to ratify the UN Convention against torture and draft a framework for anti-torture laws.The decision, which came on the heels of a petition filed by former Union Law Minister Ashwini Kumar, was dismissed after learning the top court heard the matter for almost a year.”How can we compel the government to make a law? Can we ask the government to ratify a treaty by way of a mandamus?” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who led the bench, asked the former law minister.Justice DY Chandrachud, who was also on the bench along with Justice AM Khanwilkar, said: “The government has to take a political decision on whether it should ratify the treaty.”However, Kumar submitted that the government was obligated to fulfil its international obligations and address the issue of torture, especially custodial torture.”The government has made a commitment to the international community. It is conscious of its obligations. We would be crossing judicial limits by issuing a mandamus to the government. We have to respect the political compulsions of the government,” Justice Chandrachud observed.Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted that the Centre is considering an anti-torture law. The Law Commission of India has already recommended them to ratify the UN convention and frame a standalone anti-torture law, where the state will be held responsible for any injury inflicted by its agents on citizens in custody. The commission suggested that states could not claim immunity from the actions of its officers.

Kerala Love Jihad | Wife is not a chattel, hubby can’t be guardian: SC admonishes Hadiya

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> A wife is not a chattel and the husband cannot be her guardian, the Supreme Court said today after interacting with a Kerala woman, alleged victim of love jihad.A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud interacted with the 25-year old Hadiya for nearly half-an-hour and posed questions on her life, ambition, studies and hobbies.Hadiya told the apex court that she wanted ‘freedom’ to live with her husband, profess her faith in Islam and that she very well understood what she was doing.When the bench asked Hadiya to name any relative or any near acquaintance to be named as her local guardian in college at Salem in Tamil Nadu, she said her husband could be her guardian and she does not want anyone else in that role.”A husband cannot be a guardian of his wife. Wife is not a chattel. She has her own identity in life and society. Even I am not guardian of my wife. Please make her understand,” Justice Chandrachud said.The bench posed questions to Hadiya in English while she answered in Malyalam, which was translated by senior advocate V Giri, who appeared for Kerala government.When the bench asked Hadiya what your dreams are for the future, she replied she wanted freedom and to live with her husband.The bench then asked whether she was comfortable in professing her faith and studying simulatenously and told her that being a good citizen, she can profess her faith and be a good doctor.Hadiya replied she wanted freedom to profess her faith and she fully understood what she is doing.The bench asked her whether she wanted to continue her studies and pursue internship in house surgeonship at the expense of the state government.The woman said she wanted to pursue her studies but not at the state’s expense as her husband will take care of her.She further requested the court that she be allowed to visit her friend before being taken to Salem, to which the court agreed and directed the state government to provide her security.The court asked Kerala police ensure that she travelled at the earliest to Salem in Tamil Nadu to pursue homeopathy studies at Sivaraj Medical College there and appointed dean of the institution as her local guardian.

Love Jihad case: Partial freedom for Hadiya, SC sends her to medical college

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court today freed a Kerala woman, alleged to be a victim of ‘love jihad’, from the custody of her parents and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband.After a prolonged proceedings in the open courtroom, the top court did not accede to Hadiya’s plea that she should be allowed to go with her husband. She also told the court she wanted “freedom” to live and profess Islamic faith. The apex court, which interacted with 25-year old Hadiya for nearly half-an-hour in the courtroom against the wishes of her father who had sought an in-camera interaction, directed the Kerala police to provide her security and ensure that she travelled at the earliest to Salem in Tamil Nadu to pursue homeopathy studies at Sivaraj Medical College there.Hadiya was in the custody of her parents for almost six months, after the Kerala High Court had on May 29 annulled her ‘nikah’ with Shafin Jahan. Hadiya, a Hindu by birth, had converted to Islam several months before her marriage. The court fixed the plea of Jahan, challenging Kerala High Court’s order annulling his marriage with Hadiya, for hearing in the third week of January next year. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also appointed the dean of the college as her local guardian and granted him liberty to approach it in case of any problem.
ALSO READ Love Jihad case: Hadiya to be taken back to medical college, SC appoints Dean as her guardian The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, directed that Hadiya should be treated as any other student in the college. The top court also acceded to the request of Hadiya that she be first allowed to visit her friend’s home as she has been mentally harassed for past 11 months and allowed her to visit her friend before going to Salem to attend college.Hadiya, when asked by the bench to name any nearest relative or acquaintance at Salem to be named as the local guardian, said she only needed her husband in that role.She said her husband can take care of her expenses of studies and she does not need state’s expenses to pursue her professional course. The bench posed questions in English, while Hadiya replied in Malyalam, which was translated by senior advocate V Giri who appeared for Kerala government. During the hearing, which continued for almost two-and- half hours till 5.30 PM, Hadiya’s parents, her in-laws and her husband were present in the packed courtroom.
ALSO READ Kerala Love Jihad Case: Hadiya says she wasn’t forcefully converted, wants to live with her husbandThe bench asked questions about her ambitions, life, studies and hobbies, which she replied comfortably and said she wanted to do internship of house surgeonship, a course of 11 months and wanted to stand on her own in life.The court directed the college and the university to re-admit Hadiya and grant her hostel facilities. At the outset, senior advocate Shyam Diwan, appearing for Hadiya’s father Asokan K M, said his daughter should be questioned in-camera as this was a case of indoctrination backed by huge organisational support.He claimed there was a highly communally charged atmosphere which could have wider ramifications and insisted on his plea for in-camera proceedings. Diwan also placed an alleged transcript of conversation between one alleged offshore ISIS handler and Hadiya’s husband, saying it showed that Jahan had links with an organisation called Popular Front of India and a larger conspiracy of indoctrination was happening on the ground. He said in social networking sites, there was a conversation between one Abdul Rashid and Jahan in which he has been found asking how much money he can get to make a person join the ranks of militant outfit ISIS.Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, appearing for NIA, said there were compelling evidence to show a well-oiled machinery which indulges in indoctrination and conversion.”NIA’s job was to give solid facts and it has been found during investigation that 11 cases were detected by Kerala police and seven such cases involved the same organisation and person. “The real question is how to establish whether a person is indoctrinated, brain-washed or programmed due to which his or her individual autonomy is compromised,” Singh said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jahan, said this audio recording was nothing new and was being in circulation for past one year.”What indoctrination? She has been with her parents for past 11 months. National Commission of Women, NIA all interrogated her but state commission for women was not allowed. She is entitled to speak her mind and has her own individual autonomy and the court should hear her,”Sibal said. The bench initially said it would first decide whether to interact with her first and then peruse materials of NIA or first peruse the material and then hear her.”It is a question of what comes first. We have to decide that first. Her father says it is a larger conspiracy but this is also a matter between two adults. Would this case not have the bearing on other cases,” the court observed.Justice Chandrachud posed at what stage the autonomy of an individual is breached, what could be the impact and at what time can the court intervene.He also referred to the ‘Stockholm syndrome’ where a person, who is a hostage, starts believing in his kidnappers. “Although this is not your case, but in such cases there is a free consent of person who is major, but due to this syndrome, he can’t take decisions freely. His individual autonomy is broken,” Justice Chandrachud said. The Kerala government said the court should first peruse the materials and then talk to the woman. “The sequence has to be different at the appellate court.We as a state deal with this scenario everyday at ground level. The court should first look into the material and then talk to her,” Kerala counsel Giri said. To this, the bench said “we are under oath to protect the constitutional values. Constitution does not give us the power to abdicate from hearing a case. We are trying to figure out a way to proceed. We don’t see such cases every day.” The bench then called Hadiya and asked questions while making it clear that case will be heard on merits in the third week of January.

Bilkis Bano case: Gujarat gets 6 more weeks to tell SC on action taken against convicted cops

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Friday granted six weeks time to the Gujarat Government to apprise it of any disciplinary action that must have been initiated against the cops who were convicted in connection of the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case.A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, passed the order.In October, the Supreme Court gave four weeks time to the state government to inform of the developments. But the government asked for more time to reply, following which the court extended the date today.Earlier, during the hearing, the victim also submitted to the court that she wanted enhancement of compensation. To this the apex court directed her to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP).In March 2002, Bilkis Bano was gang-raped and left for dead, alongside 14 members of her family, including her 3-year-old daughter, during the Gujarat riots. She was then five months pregnant when rioters attacked her in Vadodara.She had approached the local police station to register a case against the assailants. However, the police dismissed her case and threatened her with dire consequences if she proceeded with the matter.She then approached the National Human Rights Commission and filed a petition in the apex court.The matter was later shifted to the Bombay High Court following which charges were filed against 19 men, including six police officers and a government doctor.In January 2008, 11 of them were sentenced to life imprisonment for gang-rape and murder.

Pay Rs 10 lakh each to 150 students for illegal admissions: SC directs medical college

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday directed a Lucknow-based medical college to pay Rs 10 lakh each to 150 students as a compensation for illegal admissions.Terming it the case ‘judicial indiscipline and impropriety’, the top court has barred the college from admitting students for the academic year 2018-19.A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud directed the college to refund the admission fee paid by the students and slapped a fine of Rs 25 lakh to be paid to the SC registry, reported Times of India.The lawyers appearing for the Medical Council of India ( MCI ), told the bench that the High Court allowed admissions even though the college didn’t have formal. According to Hindustan Times, the case came under the scanner in September when one judge of a two-member Allahabad high court bench made hand written corrections to its original order to allow the medical college to admit students to MBBS course for 2017-18.The top court also said that the High Court bench virtually overruled the SC order, saying it may cause an institutional problem.In September, the CBI had arrested retired Orissa High Court judge Ishrat Masroor Quddusi and five others, including the chairman of a private medical college in Lucknow, which was barred from admitting students for two academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.The former High Court judge was allegedly trying to help the Lucknow-based Prasad Educational Trust to overcome a bar on admitting students in its medical college for two academic years (2017-2018 and 2018-2019).Quddusi was granted bail on September 27.(With agency inputs)

SC denies appeal by Hadiya’s father

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to modify its order on a plea filed by KM Asokan seeking an in-camera trial on November 27, when his daughter Akhila/Hadiya is set to appear before a court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.The bench, which also comprised Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, ruled that the decision to conduct the trial in-camera would be taken on the day of the hearing itself. However, it allowed Asokan’s counsel to mention the matter again on Monday.The advocate appearing for Asokan, however, said the matter would become infructuous if the decision is taken on the day of the trial itself.The father’s move comes days before Hadiya is set to appear in the Supreme Court to finally speak up and give her side of the story.Hadiya, who has been caught in the eye of the storm for converting to Islam and marrying Shafin Jahan, is supposed to appear before the court bench on November 27.”It is respectfully submitted that a family’s anguish and misery caused by the acts of an extremist organisation should not be reduced to a public spectacle and or a reality show. The object of the production of Akhila in a court is to enable this court to arrive at the truth and ascertain the role of PFI/other extremist elements, and whether there is a network in place or systematic conversion and radicalisation activities,” the application filed through advocate Madhavi Divan said.In May, the Kerala High Court had nullified Jahan’s marriage with 24-year-old Hadiya aka Akhila condemning it as “love jihad”.Jahan appealed in the top court against the HC order and sought his wife’s presence since she was in her father’s custody. Jahan claimed that Ashokan was holding Hadiya against her wishes since their marriage was “arbitrarily” annulled. However, Ashokan — the father, claimed that Sathya Sarani who propagated conversion to Islam, influenced his daughter.Flip-flopping on this issue, at the previous hearing, the apex court finally agreed to meet Hadiya in person to decide for itself whether her move was by her free-will or whether she was “brainwashed”.

Love jihad case: Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing for in-camera proceedings

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accord urgent hearing on a plea filed by the father of a Kerala-based woman, who converted to Islam before marrying a Muslim man, that interaction with the woman be conducted in- camera.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said that it will deal with this plea on November 27 itself when the woman would be brought before it for interaction.The counsel for Ashokan K M, the father of the woman, sought an urgent hearing on his plea saying that it would become infructuous if the earlier order mandating open court interaction is not modified.The apex court had on October 30 directed that the woman be produced before it on November 27 for an interaction in open court.Asokan referred to the communally sensitive nature of the case and sought in-camera interaction on some grounds including that radical elements could jeopardise the safety and privacy of his daughter and the family.The top court had on August 16 said it would speak to the woman in-camera before taking a final decision on the matter.It has later modified the order saying “We may further add that this court shall speak to her not in camera but in open court.”The apex court had earlier observed that the free consent of a major to marriage has to be ascertained amid an assertion by National Investigation Agency (NIA) that an indoctrinated person may be incapable of giving free consent to marriage.The NIA had referred to “psychological kidnapping” and said that an indoctrinated person may be incapable of giving free consent.It had also alleged that there was a “well-oiled machinery working in Kerala” indulging in indoctrination and radicalisation and 89 such cases have been reported.The NIA had claimed that this was a case in which the woman was indoctrinated and hence the court could invoke parental authority even if she was a major.The counsel for her father had earlier claimed that Shafin Jahan, the alleged husband of the woman, was a radicalised man and had links with persons who used to recruit for ISIS.The woman, a Hindu, had converted to Islam and later married Jahan. It was alleged that the woman was recruited by Islamic State’s mission in Syria and Jahan was only a stooge.Jahan had on September 20 approached the apex court seeking recall of its August 16 order directing the NIA to investigate the controversial case of conversion and marriage of a Hindu woman with him.He had moved the top court after the Kerala High Court had annulled his marriage, saying it was an insult to the independence of women in the country.

Blue whale challenge: Create awareness among school kids, says SC to states

Updated: Nov 20, 2017, 06:02 PM IST, PTI
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court today directed all state governments to make school children aware of the dangers posed by virtual dare games like Blue Whale Challenge.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said school-going children should be made aware about the “beauty of life” and the dangers posed by such games. It directed the Chief Secretaries of all states to ask the secretaries of the concerned departments to take steps in this regard. The bench also directed the Union Human Resources Development Ministry to take requisite steps to inform all schools in the country about the ill-effects of such games.The apex court considered the interim report of a committee set up by the Centre to enquire into the suicides committed by students in some states while playing the Blue Whale challenge. The bench disposed of the petition filed by lawyer Sneha Kalita seeking framing of guidelines to regulate and monitor virtual digital games like Blue Whale and other life- threatening online games. On October 27 the apex court had asked Doordarshan to produce a 10-minute educational show on the perils of virtual dare games.It had said educational TV programme should also be shown not only by the public broadcaster Doordarshan but by all private channels on prime-time. The court had also asked the government to set up a panel of experts to block virtual dare games like Blue Whale Challenge which has allegedly led to several suicidal deaths.

SC allows Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad for daughter’s admission

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a relief to P Chidambaram’s son, Karti Chidambaram Supreme Court on Monday allowed him to travel to UK from December 1 to 10. Karti is currently facing CBI probe in the case of FIPB clearance to INX media. According to reports, Karti wants to travel to UK to admit his daughter in Cambridge university. However, SC has imposed certain conditions on Karti’s travel. If Karti Chidambaram is allowed to travel abroad, we fear he may not return, the Central Bureau of Investigation told the Supreme court last week. Sharing their apprehension, the CBI, through its counsel additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta, opposed Chidambaram’s appeal to travel to Cambridge to attend a lecture and a meeting.Mehta’s submission cane after the bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, perused a report by the agency, highlighting material found during the investigation. “The incident in June-July coupled with the vehemence with which he insists on going again inspires no confidence,” Mehta told a bench that also consisted Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.

SC sweeps aside plea seeking stay on release of movie on Arvind Kejriwal

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> “An Insignificant Man”, billed by the makers as a film based on the life of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, would hit the screens tomorrow as the Supreme Court today dismissed a plea seeking a stay on its release saying freedom of speech and expression was “sacrosanct”.A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that any film, theatre, drama or novel was a creation of art and courts should not crucify rights of an expressive mind.The court was hearing a plea filed by Nachiketa Walhekar, who allegedly threw ink at Kejriwal in 2013. He has claimed that he has been depicted as a convict in the movie despite the fact that trial in that matter was still pending.His counsel told the bench, also comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, that the film contains a video clip, which was originally shown by media, pertaining to him and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) should not have granted a certificate to the movie for its release.”It is worthy to mention that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with,” the bench said.It said when the CBFC has granted a certificate and only something with regard to the petitioner, which was shown in the media, was being reflected in the movie, “this court should restrain itself in not entertaining the writ petition or granting injunction”.”Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind,” the bench said.It said that “human history” records that there were many authors, who expressed their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also created characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of.”A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in law,” it noted in its order.The bench also said that courts have to be extremely slow in passing any kind of restraint order in such a situation and it should allow the respect that a creative man enjoys in writing a drama, play, book on philosophy or any kind of thought that is expressed on the celluloid or theatre.Regarding the petitioner’s apprehension that the documentary film would be used as an evidence during the trial of the case, the bench said it cannot be commented upon as it would be for trial court to adjudge under the Evidence Act.During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel told the bench that his image has been tarnished in the film and the filmmakers could have put in a disclaimer that trial in the ink-throwing case was still pending.”The incident happened in 2013. It was alleged that the petitioner had thrown the ink on Kejriwal. Trial is still pending. How can they show me as a convict of throwing ink at Kejriwal?,” the lawyer said.The bench, however, said that prohibiting exhibition of a documentary or a film was “very serious” and courts should be very slow in interfering with it.It said that only the courts have the right to convict a person of any crime.”Everyday, debate takes place in this court and people write about it as they understand. We do not gag them. Pre- censorship by courts should not be done,” the bench said.

Supreme Court calls Delhi pollution an ’emergency situation’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court said on Monday that the Capital’s air pollution was an emergency-like situation and ordered the central government as well as Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and its municipal corporations to respond to a petition on stubble burning and dust spread for quick action.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud heard lawyer RK Kapoor’s submission on rising air pollution levels. It said there would not be any stay on pollution cases being heard in other courts.Kapoor suggested sprinkling of water and vacuum cleaning to tackle the dust problem. He also sought direction for the promotion of solar energy and e-rickshaws. He sought schemes and subsidies to dissuade stubble burning.The Supreme Court-mandated Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) suggested that plying of diesel vehicles should be banned and thermal power plants should be shut when pollution crosses emergency levels.It said to the court on Monday that stickers on vehicles should show fuel and age to allow certain categories to be stopped prohibited, depending on pollution levels.Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court asked the traffic police and the city’s transport department to check vehicles for compliance of pollution norms. The court said there was rampant violation of rules by vehicles.Meanwhile, the AAP government filed an application at the NGT seeking modifications of its order passed on Odd-Even traffic restrictions. This was after the NGT asked: “Are you approaching us or was the minister’s statement that the government will file a review petition only for the press.” The government has for now called off the plan because exemptions to two-wheelers and female motorists were not allowed by the NGT for vehicle rationing.Strict measuresThe Supreme Court-mandated Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) suggested that plying of diesel vehicles should be banned and thermal power plants should be shut when pollution crosses emergency levels

Delhi pollution: SC issues notices to Centre, UP, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi govts over stubble burning

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi Government on petition on stubble burning and dust pollution. The Supreme Court had earlier in the day agreed to hear today itself a fresh plea seeking to curb rising pollution in Delhi and the national capital region (NCR).A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of lawyer R K Kapoor that rise in dust particles on roads, stubble burning in Delhi’s neighbouring states like Haryana and Punjab have led to an alarming rise in pollution levels in the NCR and its adjoining areas..Delhi Government on Monday had filed an appeal in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking certain changes in NGT’s previous directions regarding the odd-even scheme. The NGT is likely to hear the plea on Tuesday.Earlier in the day, also questioned the government on Odd-Even scheme. The green court asked whether the Delhi government was only informing the media about a review petition on the Odd-Even scheme since no review petition had been filed as yet.The NGT had approved the Delhi government’s suggestion of implementing the odd-even scheme to curb the smog that has plagued the national capial since last Wednesday. However, the NGT made it clear that nobody would be exempted. This was contrary to the Delhi government’s proposal that women drivers and two-wheelers would not fall under the purview of the scheme. The Delhi government then called off implementing the scheme.

Delhi pollution: AAP govt files appeal before NGT; ask for ‘certain changes’ in tribunal’s previous directions over odd-even scheme

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Delhi Government on Monday filed an appeal in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking certain changes in NGT’s previous directions regarding the odd-even scheme. The NGT is likely to hear the plea on Tuesday.Earlier in the day, also questioned the government on Odd-Even scheme. The green court asked whether the Delhi government was only informing the media about a review petition on the Odd-Even scheme since no review petition had been filed as yet. The NGT had approved the Delhi government’s suggestion of implementing the odd-even scheme to curb the smog that has plagued the national capial since last Wednesday. However, the NGT made it clear that nobody would be exempted. This was contrary to the Delhi government’s proposal that women drivers and two-wheelers would not fall under the purview of the scheme. The Delhi government then called off implementing the scheme.Earlier on Monday, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of lawyer R K Kapoor that rise in dust particles on roads, stubble burning in Delhi’s neighbouring states like Haryana and Punjab have led to an alarming rise in pollution levels in the NCR and its adjoining areas.Earlier, smog continued to plague the national capital on Monday, with Air Quality Index figures in several parts of the city falling in the ‘hazardous category’, it was reported.According to latest AQI figures, Delhi’s Mandir Marg recorded 523, Anand Vihar recorded 510, while Punjabi Bagh at 743, Shadipur at 420.Despite this, schools reopened after they were shut since last Thursday. Both students and teachers were seen donning masks. Some teachers maintained that closing schools was not an option, and a collective effort was necessary.

NGT says govt did not file review petition on Odd-Even; SC to hear plea to curb rising pollution

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court agreed to hear today itself a fresh plea seeking to curb rising pollution in Delhi and the national capital region (NCR).A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of lawyer R K Kapoor that rise in dust particles on roads, stubble burning in Delhi’s neighbouring states like Haryana and Punjab have led to an alarming rise in pollution levels in the NCR and its adjoining areas.”We cannot ignore the pollution,” the bench said adding that it will hear the plea today itself after finishing the matters listed on its board.file any review petition Meanwhile, the NGT also questioned the government on Odd-Even. The green court asked whether the Delhi government was only informing the media about a review petition on the Odd-Even scheme since no review petition has been filed as yet.The Delhi Government has still not moved modification application, the green court said.Earlier, smog continued to plague the national capital on Monday, with Air Quality Index figures in several parts of the city falling in the ‘hazardous category’, it was reported.According to latest AQI figures, Delhi’s Mandir Marg recorded 523, Anand Vihar recorded 510, while Punjabi Bagh at 743, Shadipur at 420.Despite this, schools reopened after they were shut since last Thursday. Both students and teachers were seen donning masks. Some teachers maintained that closing schools was not an option, and a collective effort was necessary.Railway services, too, were hampered with 69 trains getting delayed and 22 getting rescheduled. Eight trains were cancelled due to the intense smog conditions.Air quality in Delhi-NCR has been at the season’s worst since last Wednesday as a combined effect of smoke from stubble burning and moisture turned the region into a ‘gas chamber’ leaving people gasping.Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday blamed stubble burning for smog in the national capital and said that a solution can be found if everyone comes together. The Delhi government had even proposed an odd-even scheme, with exemptions to two-wheelers and women drivers, which was approved by the National Green Tribunal on condition that nobody was exempted. This prompted the government to call of the scheme.

‘Can Karti Chidambaram travel abroad?’ SC asks CBI

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the CBI to apprise it of its stand on November 16 on whether Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P Chidambaram, can be conditionally allowed to go abroad for 4-5 days.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing CBI, to seek instruction on the issue and apprise it next Thursday.During the hearing, the bench perused the documents supplied by CBI in a sealed cover relating to materials found during the investigation conducted so far.The CBI FIR, lodged on May 15, had alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Karti’s father was the Union Finance Minister.

Transgender, denied job as cabin crew in Air India, moves Supreme Court

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A transgender, who had undergone sex change three years ago, today moved the Supreme Court challenging Air India’s decision to deny her a job as a cabin crew.A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud issued notice and sought responses from Air India and Civil Aviation Ministry in four weeks. She claimed that to pursue her dreams, she had worked for 13 months in Sutherland Global Services in the airline sector and even at Air India’s customer support, both domestic and international, at Chennai. Born in Tamil Nadu in 1989, she said she graduated in engineering in 2010. She underwent the gender surgery to turn into a woman in April 2014 and this information was published in the state government gazette.She said she had learnt about an advertisement on July 10 by Air India for the post of female cabin crew for its Northern Region office in Delhi on a fixed term engagement basis for an initial period of five years. She applied in the female category as she had undergone a successful sexual reassignment surgery in Bangkok. She said she got the call letter, appeared for GD and PAT tests and undertook four attempts, “but unfortunately she has not been short-listed for the post in question even though faring well in the tests conducted”.In her petition, she said she could not get shortlisted as she was a transgender and the vacancies in the cabin crew were earmarked only for women. She said that representations were made to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Civil Aviation but there was no redressal. She had sought direction to Air India and the Ministry for consideration of her candidature. “The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 prohibits discrimination. It is clear that no person shall discriminate against a transgender person in relation to employment or occupation…”, her plea said.Citing the top court verdict of 2014, she said the apex court has given certain directions for protection of the rights of the transgender persons by including a third category in documents like election card, passport, driving license and ration card, and for admission in educational institutions, hospitals, amongst others. “By recognising diverse gender identities, the Court has busted the dual gender structure of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ which is recognized by the society,” she said in her plea. “The right to chose one’s gender identity is an essential part to lead a life with dignity which again falls under the ambit of Article 21. Determining the right to personal freedom and self determination, the Court observed that the gender to which a person belongs is to be determined by the person concerned. “The Court has given the people of India the right to gender identity. Further, they cannot be discriminated against on the ground of gender as it is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21,” the plea said.

Delhi govt vs Centre: LG can’t scuttle executive decision by ‘sitting over a file’, says SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The SC on Thursday said that the LG can’t ‘scuttle an executive decision by sitting over a file’ as it heard pleas against the LG being the head of the national capital.The Delhi government had challenged a high court verdict which said that the LG had primacy over the elected government. “He (L-G) must exercise his power in reasonable time with reasons,” the court said.Senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the Delhi government, initiated the argument before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.He told a bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan that their plea challenges the Delhi High Court order of August 4, last year, by which it has said that LG is the administrative head of Delhi, which is also a union territory.He said the challenge is to Article 239 AA by virtue of which special status is accorded to Delhi.The apex court had on February 15 referred to a Constitution Bench the pleas filed by the AAP government against the high court verdict which had held that Delhi is not a state and the LG is its administrative head.The city government had on February 2 told the apex court that it has exclusive executive powers in relation to matters falling within the purview of the Legislative Assembly and neither the Centre nor the President or the LG can encroach upon these.The apex court, however, had said that it is correct that the elected government should have some powers but whether it will be as per the Delhi High Court verdict or as it is being perceived by the Delhi government needed to be looked into.The Constitution has given a face and identity to a government in Delhi after inclusion of Article 239AA and the executive decisions taken and implemented by it cannot be reversed by the LG, it had contended.The apex court had on December 14, last year, observed that the Delhi government should have some powers otherwise it cannot function while hearing the appeals of the city government.On September 9, 2016, the apex court had refused to grant an interim stay on the verdict of the Delhi High Court of August 4 last year. With inputs from PTI

Love jihad case: Supreme Court to hear Hadiya Shafin in person

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Hadiya Shafin, 24, is an adult, her consent is “prime” and she will be heard in an open court at 3 pm on November 27 to know whether she converted to Islam and married a Muslim by choice or she was compelled, the Supreme Court said on Monday. The court overruled vociferous objections by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing Kerala’s “love jihad” case, and the woman’s father.The homeopathic doctor’s marriage had been annulled in May by the Kerala High Court on her retired military man father Ashokan KM’s appeal after Akhila Ashokan converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan in December 2016. Her father had said the marriage was a form of recruitment by ISIS and she was to be sent to Syria.Her husband has challenged the HC order and also a sanction given by the apex court to the NIA to probe allegations of Hindu women being lured by members of terror outfits.On Monday, SC first directed Kerala’s government to produce the woman. The father then undertook the responsibility to bring her to the court. “We call the person and question her. At the time, if we have any doubts that she was not free to make her choice… then we will take a final call,” said the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.”Get me out of here… I am going to die. My father is getting angry,” Hadiya had said in a video released last week.”If a girl comes and says I don’t want to stay with my father, what should the court do? We have to find out where she intends to stay,” said the bench that also comprised Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud. As far as her marriage is concerned, it’s a personal choice, the bench said. “It is our constitutional obligation to direct the production of the girl and ask her choice,” the court said.In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Maninder Singh, representing the NIA, said: “In normal cases, yes, but not in cases of indoctrination.” Here, Singh said, hypnosis was used as a method of radicalisation and the girl’s mind was manipulated. “This is an exceptional case and there is no concept of free will,” Singh added.Singh further submitted that Akhila’s case was not unique and Kerala was witnessing a trend of people joining ISIS. “Eighty-nine cases have been identified in Kerala so far and nine are the worst.” Singh said. The ASG added that Akhila was indoctrinated by conversion organisation Sathya Sarini, and Popular Front of India, an Islamic fundamentalist organisation, was behind her radicalisation, and hence her “free consent” should not be considered.

J&K special status: SC defers verdict on constitutional validity of Article 35A by 3 months

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the case on Article 35A, granting special status to Jammu and Kashmir, by three months. This is after Attorney general KK Venugopal on behalf of the Centre urged deferring of the case by six months. AK Venugopal said to the SC that Centre has appointed an interlocutor to talk to all stakeholders in the valley and hence hearing in this matter should be deferred for now. SC partially agreed to the request put off the case by three months. Separatists had warned of unrest if Article 35A was tinkered with. SC was hearing petitions filed claiming that politically contentious Article 35A was illegally added to the Constitution of India as the Article was never proposed before the Parliament. Four petitions, which demanded the scrapping of the provision, have been listed before a bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.The main petition was filed by ‘We the Citizens’, a Delhi-based NGO in 2014. Three more petitions were also filed challenging the Article but were later clubbed with the main one. The issue has come to the centre stage of controversy after the Supreme Court’s indication that it may be dealt with by a five-judge constitution bench, to ascertain that, if Article 35A relating to special rights and privileges of the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir is ultra vires of the Constitution or if there is any procedural lapse.Article 35A of the Indian Constitution is an article that empowers the Jammu and Kashmir state’s legislature to define “permanent residents” of the state and provide special rights and privileges to those permanent residents, while article 370 gives special status to the state of J&K in the Indian Union. Article 35A was added to the Constitution by a Presidential Order in 1954 and accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of the Jammu and Kashmir. It also empowers the state’s legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on grounds of violating the Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution.With Agency inputs

SC grants bail to Sanjay Chandra after Unitech deposits Rs 750 crore

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will consider granting bail to Unitech Ltd Managing Director Sanjay Chandra after the embattled real estate firm deposits Rs 750 crore by December end.A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the money, to be deposited in the apex court registry, will be used in facilitating refund to the home buyers who want their money back.The bench, also comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, asked the authorities of Tihar jail, where Chandra is presently lodged, to facilitate his meeting with his company officials, financiers and lawyers so that he could arrange the money for refunding the home buyers as well as for completing the ongoing housing projects.Advocate Pawan Shree Aggarwal, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter, told the bench that the real estate firm needed around Rs 2,000 crore to refund money to home buyers as well as completing the ongoing projects.Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Chandra, told the court that they have given a plan for refund of money and completion of projects and they needed some time to do it.The apex court has fixed the matter for hearing in the second week of January and granted liberty to Chandra to mention the matter for grant of bail after depositing Rs 750 crore in the apex court Registry.The Supreme Court had on October 23 asked the jailed Unitech Ltd MD to establish his bonafide by depositing at least Rs 1,000 crore out of a total of Rs 1,865 crore to refund hassled homebuyers who do not want possession of flats.The apex court had also questioned the real estate firm why they cannot auction their properties to refund money to the homebuyers and complete their housing projects.The apex court had earlier directed the amicus curiae to create a website in which the home buyers could upload their details and claim flat or refund from the company.Chandra is seeking interim bail from the apex court after the Delhi High Court on August 11 had rejected the plea in a criminal case lodged in 2015 by 158 home buyers of Unitech projects’ –‘Wild Flower Country’ and ‘Anthea Project’– situated in Gurugram.The apex court had on September 1 said that although it is absolutely conscious that it is dealing with an application for bail, but “the consumers who have invested their money in various projects undertaken by the petitioners cannot be allowed to lurch in the dark. Their problem has to be solved”.It had said that settlement of the problem can take place in two ways — the consumers who are inclined to take possession of the flats can opt for the same and those who wanted their money back shall get the amount along with interest.

SC to set up Constitution bench to hear pleas against Aadhaar being mandatory for govt schemes

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A constitution bench would be set up to hear a clutch of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing various services and government welfare schemes, the Supreme Court today said.A bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said the larger bench would commence hearing on these petitions in the last week of November this year.Earlier today, the apex court questioned the West Bengal government for filing a plea challenging the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes while asking how a state can challenge the mandate of Parliament.It also asked West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to file the plea as an individual.Recently, a nine-judge Constitution bench had held that the Right ot Privacy was a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Several petitioners challenging the validity of Aadhaar had raised the issue that the scheme was violative of privacy rights.Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and Shyam Divan, appearing for those opposing the Aadhaar scheme, had sought urgent hearing on the petitions.The Centre had on October 25 told the apex court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail the benefits of the government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year for those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number and were willing to have it.The petitioners had termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as illegal and unconstitutional and strongly objected to the CBSE’s move to make it mandatory for students to appear for exams.Divan, appearing for some of the petitioners, had earlier contended that final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter, which is pending before the apex court, was necessary as the government “cannot compel” citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or mobile numbers.

Subramanian Swamy moves SC for early hearing on plea in Aircel-Maxis case

Updated: Oct 27, 2017, 11:19 PM IST, PTI
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Friday moved the Supreme Court seeking early hearing on his plea alleging that illegality was committed by then Finance Minister P Chidambaram in granting FIPB clearance to the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said it would consider the plea for early hearing. The top court had earlier asked Swamy to bring “concrete material” to support his allegations. Chidambaram has denied the allegations levelled by Swamy. Swamy had earlier argued before the court that the then Finance Minister had given Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to the deal which should have been referred to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), headed by the Prime Minister, as the CCEA alone was empowered to clear foreign investments over Rs 600 crore.He had claimed that the money transaction involved in the process was around Rs 3,500 crore and FIPB clearance was given by the then Finance Minister, who should have sent it to CCEA. He had referred to the CBI charge sheet in the Aircel- Maxis deal case and said the agency had claimed the Finance Minister was competent to give approval of projects up to Rs 600 crore. A special court had discharged former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his industralist brother Kalanithi Maran and others who were chargesheeted by the CBI and ED in connection with the Aircel-Maxis case and a money-laundering matter relating to the deal.

Fresh plea in SC for extending ban on firecrackers in NCR beyond October 31

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A fresh plea was moved in the Supreme Court on Friday seeking extension of the ban on the sale of firecrackers in the national capital region beyond October 31.A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said it would consider whether the plea seeking extension of ban on firecrackers can be heard urgently. The counsel appearing for petitioner Arjun Gopal, on whose plea the court had banned the sale of firecrackers, said the restraint order be extended beyond October 31 keeping in mind the present pollution level in the national capital and the adjoining areas.On October 13, the apex court had ruled that there would be no sale of firecrackers till October 31. It had expressed anguish that attempts were made to give a political colour to its order banning firecrackers. The court had refused to relax its October 9 order banning the sale of firecrackers while dismissing a plea by traders who had sought its permission to sell crackers for at least a day or two before Diwali on October 19. It had said its ban order for this year during Diwali was an experiment to examine its effect on the pollution level in the region.Some of the licences told the bench that licences granted to them would expire on October 21 while the ban order would be in force till October 31. The bench had said they could make a request to the authorities to extend the period of licence beyond November 1, when the September 12 order would come into effect. The top court had in September temporarily lifted the ban on sale of crackers with certain conditions. The traders had moved the top court seeking relaxation on the ban for a further period saying that a huge amount of money had been invested by them after their licences were revived and the ban order would cause a massive loss to them.The apex court, while banning the sale of firecrackers till October 31, had said its September 12 order would be made effective only from November one. It had said its November 11, 2016 order suspending the licences “should be given one chance to test itself” to see if there is a positive effect of this, particularly during Diwali.

Why aren’t children with special needs sent to appropriate schools, SC asks UP government

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Uttar Pradesh government why separate schools cannot be set up to impart education to children with special needs, instead of teaching them along with other students.A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also asked the state government how children with special needs (CWSN) can be taught with kids who are not disabled.The bench, also comprising of Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, raised the query after the Centre and the state government said that under the new integrated education scheme, CWSN were being taught along with kids who do not suffer from any disability.The top court asked Centre why some guidelines cannot be framed for the education of such children across the country.The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the UP government said that CWSN were being taught under the integrated scheme to ensure they are not demoralised or feel isolated.They told the apex court that teaching CWSN along with children without disability would boost the confidence of those disabled and stop their alienation from the normal environment in schools.The submissions came during hearing of a PIL, filed through advocate Prashant Shukla, claiming lack of sufficient number of special educators in the state of UP as well as across India to teach CWSN.The petition, by 17 teachers who claim to have undertaken the training required to teach CWSN, has contended that to make Right to Education a success, it is necessary that qualified special educators are there in each school so that disabled kids can be prepared to face the challenges of life.The Punjab government was also faced with the same query from the bench in another similar matter in the apex court.

Euthanasia case: Centre opposes ‘living will’ in SC, says it can be misused

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench on Tuesday commenced hearing on a plea favouring euthanasia. A five-judge constitution bench of the top court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra,is hearing the case. According to ANI, Centre opposed the living will & told SC’s five-judge Constitution bench that it could be enormously misused. A living will is when a patient can give consent which allows withdrawal of life support systems if the individual is reduced to a permanent vegetative state with no real chance of survival. SC during the hearing advised Centre to set up permanent medical board to deal speedily with cases of passive euthanasia. Besides the CJI, the bench also comprises justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.The court had in February 2014 referred to a Constitution bench a plea favouring voluntary passive euthanasia or mercy killing in cases where a person is suffering from a terminal illness and has no chance of revival and recovery as per the medical opinion. The court will consider the plea of an NGO, Common Cause, to declare ‘right to die with dignity’ as a fundamental right within the fold of Right to Live with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. With ANI inputs

Centre versus Delhi government: SC Constitution bench to start hearing on Tuesday

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, would on Tuesday start hearing five key issues, including the power tussle between the Centre and Delhi government over administrative jurisdiction and a matter relating to passive euthanasia.Besides the CJI, the bench also comprises justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.The bench will also deal with issues like whether a parliamentary committee report can be referred to or relied upon during judicial proceedings, how to add income for future prospects of victims in motor accident claims and whether the top court can entertain a plea for making an arbitration award a rule of the court.The court had in February 2014 referred to a constitution bench a plea favouring voluntary passive euthanasia or mercy killing in cases where a person is suffering from terminal illness and has no chance of revival and recovery as per the medical opinion.The court would consider the prayer of an NGO, Common Cause, to declare ‘right to die with dignity’ as a fundamental right within the fold of Right to Live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.The bench would also hear the matter relating to the tug- of-war between the Centre and the Delhi government over the administration of the National Capital Territory.The Delhi High Court had on August 4 last year declared the Lieutenant Governor as the administrative head of the national capital against which the city government has moved the apex court.The constitution bench would also hear the issue whether a parliamentary committee report could be referred to or relied upon during judicial proceedings before the top court.The matter had cropped up when a two-judge bench on April 5 this year was hearing a PIL seeking to quash licencing of two vaccines for cervical cancer treatment as the approval for their use was done without adequate research on safety. It had referred to certain reports of parliamentary panels.In a matter related to the grant of compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, a two-judge bench had in 2014 said that while calculating compensation to victims, the issue of adding income for future prospects needed an authoritative pronouncement and had referred the matter to a higher bench.The bench will hear whether the top court can entertain an application for making an arbitration award a rule of the court.

Here’s why Supreme Court advocates Harish Salve and Fali Nariman have deleted theit Twitter accounts

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday voiced its concerns over social media, with senior advocates Harish Salve and Fali Nariman even saying that they had deleted their Twitter accounts.The bench was hearing arguments on whether a public servant or a minister can claim freedom of speech to air his or her views on a sensitive matter under investigation on public forums such as Facebook and Twitter.PTI reported the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud, as saying people disseminated incorrect information on social media — even about court proceedings.While Nariman said he had stopped looking at social media, Salve said he had deleted his Twitter account.PTI reported Salve as saying that he had once appeared in a case related to a medical college and that what subsequently appeared on his Twitter feed had forced him to delete his account.The report further added Salve as adding that “now private players were more into infringing the privacy rights and such things are no more restricted to the state only.”

Issued lookout notice against Karti Chidambaram to prevent him from travelling abroad: CBI to SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The apex court, which was hearing the matter relating to a corruption case against Karti, was informed by the agency that several issues have come out during the investigation and many others were expected to be revealed.The CBI wanted to place the documents concerning its investigation in a sealed cover before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which was opposed by Karti’s counsel and senior advocate Kapil Sibal.”What he did abroad is part of this sealed cover,” Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.Sibal repeatedly protested the ASG’s submissions that the agency be allowed to place before it the documents in a sealed cover.The ASG took the opportunity to briefly submit about the contents of the documents enclosed in the cover.”Let me say what is contained in the sealed cover. What he has done when he was abroad. He said (during interrogation) he has only one account abroad. But when he went abroad, he closed several bank accounts. I don’t want to say all this as it will embarrass him but I have been compelled,” he told the bench.Sibal countered his submission and asked the ASG “did you ask a single question about the bank accounts and property?” “They interrogated me (Karti), but not a single question was asked on this,” Sibal said, adding “if they can show any signature of Karti on any account, they can prosecute him under FEMA or blackmoney law”.The case against Karti pertains to an FIR lodged by the CBI on May 15, alleging irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when his father was the Finance Minister during the then UPA regime.

Ryan school murder case: SC directs lawyer body not to obstruct the proceedings

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday, directed the members of the District Bar Association of Gurugram not to obstruct in any manner the proceedings going on before a special judge there relating to the murder of a seven-year-old student in the Ryan International school.The apex court was informed by the bar body that they have withdrawn their earlier resolution in which they had said that no lawyer will represent any of the accused in the case.A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed that an accused has the right to be represented by an advocate and the bar was under an obligation not to obstruct any lawyer from appearing on behalf of an accused.”We must say without any hesitation that any accused, whatever the offence maybe, has a right to be represented by an advocate. The tradition of bar does not authorise any bar association to pass a resolution like this.”However, the solace is realising the fault. The bar association has withdrawn it (resolution),” the bench, also comprising Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.The bench was hearing a plea filed by Francis Thomas, the northern zone head of Ryan Group, seeking transfer of the student murder case from the local court at Sohna, alleging that the bar has restrained lawyers from representing the accused in the sensational case. Thomas was arrested in connection with the case.During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Sandeep Kapur, appearing for Thomas, told the bench there was “hostile atmosphere” at the Sohna court and no lawyer was appearing for the accused in the case.Class 2 student Pradyuman was found with his throat slit on the morning of September 8 in the toilet of the Ryan International School in Gurgaon.Police allege that 42-year-old bus conductor Ashok Kumar killed him with a knife after the boy resisted an attempt to sodomise him.

Right to privacy: LGBT community cheers after SC adds a touch of rainbow in judgment

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The right to privacy cannot be denied to members of the LGBT community merely because they have unconventional sexual orientation and form a miniscule fraction of the over 1.32 billion Indian population, the Supreme Court observed today.The 9-judge bench, which held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, made this observation while assailing the earlier apex court verdict in the appeal by an NGO on behalf of the LGBT community in which it said they formed a miniscule fraction of the country’s population and the right to privacy cannot be a ground to set aside a penal law.Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices R K Agrawal, S A Nazeer and D Y Chandrachud, who were part of the nine-judge constitution bench, said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity of an individual.
ALSO READ Right to Privacy: Individual has right to refuse medical treatment, terminate pregnancy, says SC”A miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders (LGBT) is not a sustainable basis to deny the right to privacy. The purpose of elevating certain rights to the stature of guaranteed fundamental rights is to insulate their exercise from the disdain of majorities, whether legislative or popular,” the bench said.The apex court said that discrete and insular minorities face grave dangers of discrimination for the simple reason that their views, beliefs or way of life does not accord with the ‘mainstream’.”Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform.”The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution,” it said.It, however, clarified that since the challenge to Section 377 (Section which criminalizes gay sex) is pending consideration before another bench of the Supreme Court, it would leave the constitutional validity to be decided in an “appropriate proceeding”.Justice S K Kaul, in a separate judgement, also concurred with the view of the four judges and said the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights.”…The Courts are often called up on to take what may be categorised as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the Constitution of India. One’s sexual orientation is undoubtedly an attribute of privacy,” he said.

Right to privacy: SC cautions on data leaks in a digital era; asks govt to set up robust regime

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today cautioned about the dangers to privacy in a digital era and asked the government to set up a robust regime for ensuring data protection.The apex court said threats to privacy can originate not only from the state but even from “non-state actors” as individuals are constantly generating valuable data which can be used by private parties to “track their moves, choices and preferences.””We commend to the Union government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state,” the court said.”The legitimate aims of the state would include for instance protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits.”These are matters of policy to be considered by the Union government while designing a carefully structured regime for the protection of the data,” Justice D Y Chandrachud, who wrote a separate judgement on behalf of himself, Chief Justice J S Khehar, and Justices R K Agrawal and S A Nazeer said.The top court noted that the Centre has constituted a committee chaired by Justice B N Srikrishna, a former apex court judge, for this purpose and the issue would be dealt with.Justice S K Kaul, who wrote a separate 47-page verdict, said that growth and development of technology has resulted in an “information explosion” which has advantages as well as disadvantages.”The access to information, which an individual may not want to give, needs the protection of privacy. The capacity of non-state actors to invade the home and privacy has also been enhanced. Technological development has facilitated journalism that is more intrusive than ever before,” he said.Justice Kaul said data is generated not just by active sharing of information, but also passively with every click on the ‘world-wide web’.”Recently, it was pointed out that ‘Uber’, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. ‘Facebook’, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. ‘Alibaba’, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And ‘Airbnb’, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something interesting is happening,” he said.Justice J Chelameswar also echoed the same views and said telephone tapping and internet hacking by the government also fell within the realm of the right to privacy.”Informational traces are also an area which is the subject matter of huge debate in various jurisdictions falling within the realm of the right of privacy, such data is as personal as that of the choice of appearance and apparel.”Telephone tappings and internet hacking by state of personal data is another area which falls within the realm of privacy. The instant reference arises out of such an attempt by the Union of India to collect biometric data regarding all the residents of this country,” he said.

SC declares right to privacy as Fundamental right: Here’s the chronology of the case

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Thursday declared right to privacy as a Fundamental right under the Constitution.A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar ruled that right to privacy is protected intrinsically as part of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.Following is the chronology of Supreme Court hearings in the right to privacy case:► July 7: Three-judge bench says issues arising out of Aadhaar should finally be decided by larger bench and CJI would take a call on need for setting up a constitution bench.Matter mentioned before CJI who sets up a five- judge constitution bench to hear the matter.►July 18: Five-judge constitution bench decides to set up a nine-judge bench to decide whether the right to privacy can be declared a fundamental right under the Constitution. Nine-judge bench (Chief Justice J S Khehar, Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer) constituted to hear the privacy matter.► July 19: SC says the right to privacy can’t be absolute, may be regulated.► July 19: Centre tells SC that right to privacy is not a fundamental right.► Jul 26: Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry, the four non-BJP ruled states move SC in favour of the right to privacy.► July 26: Centre tells SC that privacy can be fundamental right with some riders.► July 27: Maharashtra government tells SC that privacy is not a “standalone” right, but it is rather a concept.► August 1: SC says there has to be “overarching” guidelines to protect an individual’s private information in public domain.► August 2: SC says protection of the concept of privacy in the technological era was a “losing battle”, reserves verdict.► August 24: SC declares right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Privacy a Fundamental Right? SC to deliver judgement today

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A nine-Judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will on Thursday pronounce its judgment on whether citizens have a fundamental Right to Privacy under the Indian Constitution.The decision of the bench, comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, Rohinton Nariman, AM Sapre, DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer, will have far-reaching impact since it could also revisit two earlier judgments delivered decades ago which declared that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right.It will also have an effect on the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for almost everything, an action that has led to a clutch of petitions being filed in various courts.Some of these petitions challenged the legal status of Aadhaar itself.The Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar, who retires on August 27, had heard the matter over a period of three weeks.The debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right was triggered when the top court was hearing a batch of petitions that challenged the constitutional validity of the Centre’s unique numbering system – Aadhaar.Thrice a week over a period of three weeks, a battery of lawyers representing various petitioners, the Centre and various states argued around the concept of privacy as a common law right protected by statutory rights, or whether it was fundamental to a human’s existence.During hearing, the bench had observed that privacy could not be an absolute right. It had also observed that steps need to be taken to give data protection a statutory recognition. “This (issue of privacy) is a new procedure for us,” Justice Rohinton Nariman had observed. “There is no established procedure till date and we will need all the assistance particularly on the parameters of the issue,” he had said.Justice Chandrachud had said: “It is all well and good to argue about privacy in the abstract, But What are its contents? What are the contours? How can the State regulate privacy?”Interestingly, during hearing, the counsel for the petitioners had referred to a speech by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in Parliament during discussion on the Aadhaar Bill where he had said that the right to privacy was a fundamental right.

Karti Chidambaram appears before CBI

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chidambaram, today appeared before the CBI in connection with a corruption case. Karti was directed by the Supreme Court to appear for questioning before the CBI. The agency wants to examine him in connection with a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to media group INX Media for receiving funds from Mauritius when his father P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister. It is alleged that a firm “indirectly controlled” by him received money from INX Media, run by Indrani and Peter Mukerjea. The CBI had issued a notice to Karti to appear for questioning in June but he had sought more time. Later, a look out circular was also issued against him to prevent him from leaving the country, CBI sources said. Karti then approached the Madras High Court which had stayed the circular. The Supreme Court later put on hold the high court order. During a hearing before the apex court, Karti had told the court that he was willing to appear before the CBI to which it directed him to appear on August 23. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed Karti to be accompanied by a lawyer at the CBI headquarters during the questioning. The CBI had registered the case on May 15 against Karti, his company Chess Management Services, INX Media, Advantage Strategic Consulting Services, its director Padma Vishwanathan and the Mukerjeas. The Mukerjeas, charged with the murder of Indrani’s daughter, Sheena Bora, are currently in jail. Former finance minister P Chidambaram had issued a strong statement in response to the FIR, saying that the government was using the CBI and other agencies to target his son. FIPB approval was granted in “hundreds of cases”, the senior Congress leader had said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Right to privacy: Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on Thursday

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on whether right to privacy can be elevated to the status of a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment will be made tomorrow at 10.30 am.The court had reserved its verdict on August 3 after marathon day-long hearings spanning six days across three weeks. The Supreme Court on August 1 had said that that there had to be “overarching” guidelines to protect an individual’s private information in public domain to ensure that it was used only for an intended purpose.The bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, also referred to the fact that India was a signatory of a 1948 international convention which recognised privacy as a human right.The bench, which also comprised justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer, said that there has to be an “overarching” or all-embracing guideline to ensure that the private information of individuals, put in public domain, wwas used only for an intended purpose.
ALSO READ Right to Privacy case: Overarching guidelines needed to protect an individual’s privacy, says SCThe Centre in its defence of saying that privacy wasn’t a fundamental right told the Supreme Court since privacy was multifaceted, it could not be treated as a fundamental right.”There is no fundamental right to privacy and even if it is assumed as a fundamental right, it is multifaceted. Every facet can’t be ipso facto considered a fundamental right,” Attorney General KK Venugopal told the bench.

Quota of Dalit Christians; SC seeks Centre’s reply on PIL

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought the Centre’s response on a plea by Dalit Christians seeking parity in quota with their counterparts among the Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist communities. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the central government on the plea filed by All India Catholic Union challenging the validity of paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, which says no person who professes a religion different from Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. It has sought inclusion of Dalit Christians in the Scheduled Caste category for enabling them to get benefits of reservation under the Constitution. The plea, filed by advocate Jose P I, claimed that by this Order, Scheduled Caste persons professing religion different from the Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, are deemed not to be scheduled caste and hence deprived of quota benefits. It said the exclusion ought to have been only of those persons who were no more socially and educationally backward. “The exclusion as per 1950 SC Order ought to have been only of those persons who are no more socio-educationally backward and it may be appropriate to treat as a different class of persons who has taken a religion other than Hinduism as their profession by joining any of its religious congregations for they have gained in education as well as social status,” the plea said. “It may be mentioned that by amendment Act 63 of 1956, persons professing Sikh religion was included in Para 3 after Kalelkar Commission in 1955 submitted its report according to which persons professing Sikh religion were found to be backward. However the benefit was not given to Christians,” it said. “Because the advantage of gaining, or the disadvantage of losing, the benefits specially provided to members of a Scheduled Caste through various reservation and other laws/ policies of the Government to a Christian of SC origin upon ‘Ghar Vapasi’ or to a Hindu of SC origin upon deciding to profess Christian religion, respectively, under the 1950 (SC) Order by itself is not only discrimination but also amounts to granting of a special privilege by the State to the preferred Hindu religion,” it said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

AI aircraft purchase: SC asks NGO to file short submissions

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today asked an NGO, which has alleged “serious irregularities” in purchase or hiring of 111 aircraft for Air India in 2005-06, to give short submissions on these aspects which, it has claimed, were not probed by the CBI. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said this after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, claimed that several issues were raised in the petition but the CBI has not probed those aspects. Bhushan, representing Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), also alleged that the aspect of payment of bribes have not been investigated. Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha, appearing for the CBI, told the bench that the agency has registered four separate FIRs in the matter and the probe was going on. The bench, which fixed the matter for hearing next week, asked Bhushan to give a short submission on this aspect saying “let us have a clear picture”. The NGO, in its plea, has alleged that irregularities in purchase or hiring of 111 aircraft for Air India had cost around Rs 70,000 crore. Bhushan had earlier alleged in the apex court that Canada’s superior court had convicted a person for paying bribe for purchase of biometric system for Rs 1,000 crore for the airline. The Centre had said that most of the allegations referred to in the plea were the result of adverse comments made by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament (PAC). The NGO had earlier moved the top court against the government and Air India, seeking a CBI/SIT probe into alleged irregularities, including purchase of aircraft, and giving up of profit-making routes allegedly to private airlines during the UPA dispensation. The court had in September 2012 issued notice to the government and Air India on the plea of CPIL seeking a CBI/SIT probe into the alleged irregularities. The NGO had referred to several government decisions, including the “massive” purchase of 111 aircraft for national airlines costing around Rs 70,000 crore, taking a large number of planes on lease, giving up profit-making routes and timings in favour of private airlines and the merger of Air India and Indian Airlines. It had moved the apex court challenging Delhi High Court order rejecting its plea into the alleged irregularities. In its plea before the apex court, the NGO had alleged that the actions and decisions of the then government had “ruined our national carriers, cost the national exchequer tens of thousands of crores and the only beneficiary of the above decisions were foreign aircraft manufacturers, private and foreign airlines”.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Deposit Rs 25 L fine, or will send you to jail, SC to NGO head

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today warned the chairperson of an NGO that it will send him to jail if a fine of Rs 25 lakh, imposed on him for “wasting” judicial time by filing over five dozen PILs, was not deposited. The top court took strong note of the fact that Rajiv Daiya, chairman of NGO Suraz India Trust, filed as many as 64 PILs, including a plea seeking contempt action against a former Chief Justice of India, over the years that were dismissed by the court. It also rejected his plea for an amicus curiae (friend of the court), questioning its need when he had filed “so many cases” on his own. “You have filed 64 cases. You did not stop. You have filed contempt petition against the Chief Justice of India and the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. “We do not know why you are doing this all nonsense. You obey our order. Apology is alright, but you have to pay the cost. Otherwise, we will send you jail,” a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said. Earlier, the apex court, on May one this year, had imposed costs of Rs 25 lakh on Daiya for wasting judicial time and had asked him to pay the fine within a month. Today, Daiya said that he has petitioned the President also and pleaded with the court that he be provided with a lawyer or an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to help him in the hearing. The bench rejected the plea saying that he has filed “so many cases” on his own and did not need any amicus curiae to help him. “You (Daiya) tell us by when you are going to deposit the cost. If the Supreme Court orders are not going to be obeyed, then there is no point in having courts. “If a simple person is not going to obey then what will happen. The states and the Centre may say that they will not obey the orders. The order has to be obeyed. We will send you to jail,” the bench said and fixed the matter for hearing tomorrow. It also asked Daiya to file the copy of the plea filed by him before the President of India. Earlier, the apex court, while imposing the fine, had said that the “waste” of judicial time was a matter of serious concern and all such endeavours had to be dealt sternly to prevent misuse of the courts by such individuals “who have nothing to do but only cast scandalous and imaginary aspersions”. It had then refrained the NGO and its chairperson Daiya from filing any plea in public interest. Referring to the details of the matters filed by the NGO and the various orders passed by the apex court, the bench had said it “leaves no doubt that Suraz India Trust has repeatedly misused the jurisdiction of this court”. “In 64 occasions, when Suraz India Trust approached this court as per the details indicated above, it did not have any success whatsoever. Not a single direction was passed on acceptance of any issue canvassed by Suraz India Trust,” it had said. The apex court, on March 27, had issued notice to the NGO for filing 64 petitions over the years under the garb of public interest litigation and Daiya to show cause as to why he should be allowed to continue filing cases. It had handed over to him a compilation of the 64 pleas filed by him in the nature of writ petitions, review petitions to asked him to respond to the notice.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC asks govt how it will implement, monitor mid-day meals

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre and states how were they monitoring the implementation and hygiene of the mid-day meal schemes in government schools across the country. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud sought the response of the Centre and the state governments while noting that two committees at the national and state level were suggested to be set up to monitor various aspects like maintaining hygiene in the mid-day meal schemes in schools. “How will the implementation of the scheme take place? Tell us and we will crystalise it (in the form of an order),” the bench said and posted the matter for hearing on August 24. The court was hearing a PIL, filed by NGO ‘Antarashtriya Manav Adhikaar Nigraani’ in 2013, on the issue of mid-day meals. It had issued directions to prevent incidents like the one that occurred in a government primary school in a Bihar village where 23 children died after eating contaminated food in 2013. The apex court had on March 23 asked state governments and union territories to upload information including the total number of students getting benefit of the mid-day meal scheme within three months on their websites. The court had approved the “proforma” for providing the details and requirements of the mid-day meal scheme, noting that 25 states agreed to give information as per the format. The Cente had informed the court that 11 other states, which have not filed their reply, were also “not averse” to providing the requisite information as required under the proforma, which contains heads under which information is to be uploaded on the website of the state education department. Information like the total number of schools covered under the scheme, number of beneficiary students, quality and nutritional value of food grains and vegetables, eggs and other supplements served, have to be provided by state governments. The proforma also seeks states to provide information as to whether there is any monitoring mechanism to check the quality of food served to the children in government schools. Earlier, the apex court had issued notice to the Centre and 12 states seeking their response on the steps taken to ensure cleanliness in the midday meal scheme and prevent incidents like the one that occurred in the Bihar village primary school. The states were Bihar, Odisha, West Bengal, Assam, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Jharkhand. In over 12 lakh government-run and aided schools across the country, children receive free, cooked lunch every day but “they are constantly exposed to the risk of food poisoning and related health hazards due to a lack of mid-day meal infrastructure and proper monitoring of the scheme,” the PIL said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to hear plea on police department vacancies

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court will on Monday hear the petition filed by lawyer, Manish Kumar, seeking to fill up various posts of police department in many states. In the last hearing, the top court had directed the respective states to fill the vacancies with respect to the numbers. The apex court earlier on April 24 directed Uttar Pradesh to fill up vacancies of 3,000 sub-inspectors and 30,000 constables. A bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar and also comprising Justice D. Y. Chandrachud passed the order after hearing a petition filed by Kumar. The Uttar Pradesh Government had also filed a road map about the vacancies in the state and how to fill up these vacancies. A copy of the road map of the Uttar Pradesh Government said that the number of candidates to be recruited every year has been determined after taking into account the current capacity of the police training colleges in the state and career prospects of the candidates. Notifications for recruitment said, 30,000 constables are proposed to be issued every year in the month of August 2017 till 2020, taking into account the current and future vacancies, the road map filed by the Uttar Pradesh government stated. The state government expects to fill up all posts of constables by June 2021.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Supreme Court asks Karti to appear before CBI on Aug 23

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Friday directed Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chindambaram, to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in New Delhi on August 23.The directive is in connection with a case involving alleged kickbacks paid by INX Media for obtaining clearance from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) during the senior Chidambaram’s term as finance minister.A Bench of Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud directed Chidambaram Jr to carry all necessary documents required for his defence. The court has also allowed him to be accompanied by an advocate for the entire duration of his questioning. However, the advocate will not be allowed in the same room where the questioning will take place.On September 1, the top court will hear the plea on lifting a Lookout Circular issued against Karti. In his counter affidavit, Karti has argued that there no likelihood of him trying to leave the country or not appearing in court. The bench has also asked the CBI to consider reviewing the circular after questioning Karti.

SC asks Karti Chidambaram to appear before CBI on Aug 23

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today directed Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union minister P Chidambaram, to appear before investigators at the CBI headquarters here on August 23 for questioning in a corruption case. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed Karti to be accompanied by a lawyer at the CBI headquarters during the questioning. “During the course of hearing, the counsel for respondent number 1 (Karti) states that the respondent is ready and willing to appear before the investigating officer. “We, therefore, hereby direct respondent number 1 to appear before the investigating officer on August 23 at CBI headquarters in New Delhi,” the bench said. It gave CBI the liberty to question him for as many days as it wants till August 28, the next date of hearing. It also asked Karti to carry all necessary documents required to defend himself against the allegations made by the CBI in the FIR. The bench, however, clarified that the accompanying lawyer would sit in an adjoining room to the place where Karti will be quizzed by CBI investigators. The bench has now posted the matter for consideration on August 28 and asked both parties to file their respective reports with regard to the investigation and other aspects of the case. The apex court had on August 14 said that Karti would not be allowed to leave India without subjecting himself to investigation in the corruption case. The apex court, which stayed the Madras High Court order putting on hold the look out circular (LOC) issued by the Centre against Karti, had sought to know when he would make his appearance for questioning before CBI. The case lodged by CBI in Delhi is related to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of almost Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Karti’s father was the Union Finance Minister. The CBI had claimed that the FDI proposal of the media house, cleared by Chidambaram, was “fallacious”. The FIR was registered on May 15 before the special CBI judge here and the registration of the case was followed by searches at the residences and offices of Karti and his friends on May 16. The Madras High Court had on August 10 stayed the look out circulars issued against Karti and four others by the Centre under the Passport Act over the corruption case filed by the CBI. The order had come on petitions filed by Karti and others seeking to quash the circulars, issued against Karti on June 16 last year and against the four others on July 18 this year.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Framing of law to regulate NGOs under process: Centre tells SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Centre today told the Supreme Court that it was in the process of taking a final policy decision, including the framing of a law to regulate the activities of NGOs across the country. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud considered the statement of Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, and adjourned the matter for further hearing on August 21. The bench said that in all probabality, the Centre was going to come out with a legislation on the issue. The ASG sought some more time to apprise the court about the possible step to be taken by the government to regulate activities of the NGOs. The court was hearing a PIL filed by lawyer M L Sharma, in his personal capacity, seeking to regulate activities of the NGOs including financial ones. Earlier, the apex court had asked central government body CAPART to apprise it about the steps taken in pursuance to its direction to consider making a law to regulate the NGOs, disbursal of funds and consequential proceedings against them. It had sought an affidavit from the Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) on action taken on its April 26 order, suggesting that the Centre should consider prosecuting NGOs or voluntary organisations if they were found misusing public funds. The apex court had in its April 26 order asked the Centre to examine enacting a law to regulate disbursal of public funds to over 32 lakh NGOs and voluntary organisations (VOs) and prosecute them in case of misuse or misappropriation. The court had suggested to the Centre that it can legislate under Entry 97 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which provides the list of issues on which the Centre or states or both can make laws to regulate NGOs. Favouring a fresh all-encompassing law, the court had said if the government “desires to extend statutory status to regulations, then they would not only provide for enforceable consequences, but also envisage civil and criminal action as may be considered by the legislation”. The CAPART, which works under the Ministry of Rural Development and disburses funds to voluntary organisations (VOs) working in rural areas, had earlier apprised the top court that it has recommended lodging of 159 FIRs against various NGOs for alleged misappropriation or misuse of funds. It had initially said it had blacklisted 718 NGOs for not following the due process and not submitting their accounting details, but had later removed 15 NGOs from the black-list after they complied with the accounting norms. While hearing the PIL filed by Sharma, the court had said the Centre and its departments were doling out crores of rupees but were not aware of the repercussion of non-auditing. Referring to details provided by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, assisting the court as an amicus curiae, the court had said that a phenomenal amount of Rs 950 crore every year was being given by the Centre and state governments to NGOs. The bench had also said that “mere blacklisting” of these organisations would not suffice and civil and criminal action should be initiated for misappropriation of public money received by them from various government departments. The CBI had in September 2015 informed the apex court that less than ten per cent of over 30 lakh NGOs functioning in the country had submitted their returns or balance sheets and other financial details to the authorities.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Decide on NK Amin re-induction today, says SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Gujarat government to take a call by Thursday on the re-induction of NK Amin as Superintendent of Police after his retirement, observing he had serious charges against him and had spent eight years in jail.The apex court also cited the case of former Gujarat DGP PP Pandey, who was given a promotion and three-month extension despite being out on bail in the Ishrat Jahan alleged fake encounter case. Pandey had in April offered to relinquish his office forthwith after the court’s prodding.“Either you take a call by tomorrow (Thursday) or we will deal with the issue. There were two serious allegations against him, and in one case he has been in jail for eight years,” a bench comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar and DY Chandrachud said.

Kerala Love jihad not isolated case: NIA tells SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken over the probe of the Kerala love jihad case after it suggested that the case of a woman converting to Islam for the purpose of marriage is not an isolated incident.However, to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, the probe will be supervised by retired SC judge Justice RV Raveendran, a Supreme Court bench noted.The central probe agency said there were other similar cases where allegations about a well-oiled mechanism to convert women from Hinduism to Islam were made. These observations made before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud were made in pursuance to an earlier order where the NIA was asked to scrutinise the investigation reports prepared by Kerala Police.On Wednesday, the bench added that before coming to any definitive or final conclusion, it would speak the 25-year-old woman who is currently under the court-ordered supervision of her parents.The husband’s counsels — senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaising, initially objected to an NIA probe, raising apprehensions over its credibility as an independent agency. “I can file an affidavit pointing to so many u-turns it has taken in several cases,” Sibal submitted.

SC refuses to take cognisance of UP hospital tragedy

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today refused to take cognisance of the recent deaths of children at a government hospital at Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. The bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud asked the lawyer, who mentioned the issue before it, to approach the Allahabad High Court with his grievances. The lawyer has also sought an SIT probe into the deaths of children at the Baba Raghav Das Medical College (BRD) hospital in Gorakhpur. The court observed that the authorities were handling the situation and the grievances, if any, have to be raised before the high court concerned. Over 60 children have reportedly died at BRD Medical College Hospital since August 7, many for want of oxygen whose supply was disrupted after bills were not paid to the vendor. At least 30 children were reported dead in the last two days alone. Many of the victims were infants who perished in the neo-natal intensive care unit. Police had said no case has been registered so far in the absence of a formal complaint. The state government had on August 12 ordered an official inquiry by the chief secretary and suspended the principal of the Medical College Hospital Rajiv Mishra.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC refers to 3-judge bench issue of stay in graft case trials

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today referred to a larger bench a batch of petitions challenging the stay granted in trials in graft cases by higher courts despite a specific prohibition against it under the Prevention of Corruption Act. An apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, referred the vexatious legal issue to a three-judge bench which will hear the matter on August 29. The top court’s verdict will decide the fate of 45 cases pending in various courts where trial has been stayed by the apex court and high courts in corruption cases. The bench referred the matter to the larger bench after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners whose trial has been halted, sought four weeks time to make his submission. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the court that stay in 45 cases had resulted in trials in 146 matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act getting stalled. He contended before the bench, also comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud, that some of these appeals were pending in the apex court for the last 15 years and most of the cases were Delhi-centric. The solicitor general said the stay in graft cases were granted despite a statutory ban under Section 19(3)(c) of the Act which stated, “No court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any enquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.”(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Take decision within 3 months on plea for minority status to non-Muslims in J&K: SC to Centre

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a last opportunity to the Centre and asked it to take a decision within three months on a plea to grant minority status to non-Muslims in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices A K Goel and D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of the central government that it needed more time to hold consultations with the state government and other stakeholders, if any.Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre said the government has been holding consultations at various levels and eight weeks more time be granted to it to apprise the court about their stand on the PIL.The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Jammu-based lawyer Ankur Sharma that in a Muslim majority state like Jammu and Kashmir, non-Muslims should have been granted minority status to avail benefits of various governmental schemes.

SC asks NIA to investigate ‘love jihad’ match

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Friday was tasked with balancing requests made by a husband whose marriage was nullified by the Kerala High Court (KHC) against the backdrop of ‘love jihad’, and a father who opposed the union.The bench comprising Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud issued a notice to Kerala, the father KM Ashokan and the National Investigative Agency (NIA) and asked them to respond by August 16, when the matter will be heard next.The court also took an undertaking from the father that if the daughter’s presence was required in court, she would be produced within a period of 24 hours.”Why does she have three names? Which 24-year-old has three names?” CJI Khehar inquired about the girl’s multiple identities.”Prima facie, the Kerala High Court had interviewed her before deciding to annul the marriage and return the child to her father. In this interview, the High Court judgment records that her answers were incoherent. So prima facie, she seemed to have been in the control of someone else,” Justice Chandrachud observed.Earlier this year, the Kerela HC nullified Shafin Jahan’s marriage with 24-year-old Hadiya aka Akhila condemning it as “love jihad”.”A girl aged 24 years is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways. This court, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, is concerned with the welfare of a girl of her age. The duty of this court to ensure the safety of at least the girls who are brought before it can be discharged only by ensuring that Akhila is in safe hands. The 7th respondent (Akhila’s guardian) has proved that she is unworthy of the trust reposed in her, by her conduct in weaning Akhila away from her parents and by having a sham of a marriage ceremony performed with a person like Shafin Jahan, who is an accused in a criminal case, apart from being associated with persons having extremist links,” the judgment read.Jahan appealed in the top court against the HC order and sought his wife’s presence since she was in her father’s custody. “They (Kerala High Court) have declared a marriage void. How can this be? She should be produced before the court. Your Lordships should interview her,” senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Indira Jaisingh said, representing Jahan.Jahan claimed that Ashokan was holding Hadiya against her wishes since their marriage was “arbitrarily” annulled on May 24. However, Ashokan claimed that Sathya Sarani, an organisation that propagated conversion to Islam, influenced his daughter.”My daughter once told me that she wants to do sheep-farming in Syria… even the most liberal of fathers would be shocked to hear this,” advocate Madhvi Diwan, representing Ashokan, told the bench. Ashokan also alleged that Jahan was involved with a political outfit that was a front for the banned terror group Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). He even hinted at a possible ISIS connection.

SC seeks clarification on Centre’s notification on cattle sale

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Friday sought clarification on the Centre’s notification on sale of cattle in market asking if notification was placed before the Parliament.A bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Jagdish Singh Khehar and also comprising Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, asked if the said Union of India’s notification was placed before the Parliament or not.The plea was filed by Hyderabad-based NGO, All India Jamiatul Quresh Action Committee, challenging the Central Government notification banning cattle trade.Earlier, the top court vacation bench, headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and comprising Justice R.K. Agarwal, had issued a notice to the Centre on hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Hyderabad-based NGO on the same issue.The petitioner NGO had moved the apex court challenging the Centre’s notification that bans sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for slaughter, a move that received flak since its announcement.The petition was filed by a Hyderabad-based lawyer, Fahim Qureshi, stating that the order was discriminatory and unconstitutional, as it prevented cattle traders from earning their livelihood.On May 25, the Centre, through an order imposed a ban on the sale of cattle, including cows, for slaughter and restricted cattle trade solely to farm owners.Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Harsh Vardhan had ordered that the ministry has notified the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 to ensure that the sale of cattle is not meant for slaughter purposes.Regulating animal trade is a state business, but animal welfare is a central subject, thereby providing the window for the ministry to notify the rule.In lieu of this, there was widespread opposition of the order, with many states openly denying accepting the notification.

SC rejects review plea against its order on reservation

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea seeking review of its earlier order rejecting a petition for a direction that reservation on the basis of caste, sex, religion and financial status be removed from the Constitution. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar observed that there was no ground to review its March 20 order by which it had rejected the plea filed by a chartered accountant who had claimed that reservation was against the mandate given by the Constitution. “Having carefully gone through the petitions for review, we do not find any ground to review the orders impugned. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed,” the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Four non-BJP ruled states move SC in favour of Right to

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Four non-BJP ruled states, including Karnataka and West Bengal, today moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the ongoing hearing on the issue of whether the Right to Privacy can be declared as one of the Fundamental Rights under the Constitution. Besides Karnataka and West Bengal, two Congress-led states of Punjab and Puducherry took a stand opposite to the Central government which had said that Right to Privacy is a common law right and not a Fundamental Right. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the four states, initiated his arguments before a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and said that in the light of technological advancement, the court is needed to take a fresh look on the Right to Privacy and its contours in the modern day. “Privacy cannot be an absolute right. But it is a Fundamental Right. This court needs to strike a balance,” he submitted before the bench also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer. The hearing is in progress. The apex court had on July 18 set up the Constitution bench after the matter was referred to a larger bench by a five-judge bench. The petitioners had claimed that collection and sharing of biometric information, as required under the Aadhaar scheme, was a breach of the “fundamental” right to privacy. The Centre had on July 19 submitted in the apex court that Right to Privacy cannot fall in the bracket of fundamental rights as there are binding decisions of larger benches that it is only a common law right evolved through judicial pronouncements.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC notice to govt on plea for minor rape survivor’s abortion

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought the response of the Centre on a plea seeking its nod for a 10-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 26-week-old pregnancy and ordered the child’s examination by a medical board consented to by one of her parents. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud also directed that the member secretary of the Chandigarh Legal Services Authority be made a party to the case and asked the functionary to assist the court as an amicus curiae on July 28, the next date of hearing. “Before the matter is taken up for hearing on July 28, the member secretary, after having followed the procedure and obtained due permission of at least one of the parents of the child, shall have the child examined at the PGI, Chandigarh, by a board of doctors on July 26…,” it said. The court said this would done so as to affirm one way or the other, whether the health of the girl child concerned, who was stated to be of the age of 10 years, and also that of the foetus, would be adversely affected if the pregnancy was continued for the full term. “The member secretary shall carry the report of the board of doctors of the PGI, Chandigarh, to this court for its consideration, in a sealed cover,” the bench said. The court also asked the legal services functionary to “arrange for transportation of the girl child in question, as well as, at least one of her parents, at the time of medical examination… “Such facilities shall be extended by the member secretary for effectuating the presence of the girl child involved, as also at least one of her parents, in this court, during the course of hearing, hereinafter.” The PIL was filed after a Chandigarh district court on July 18 refused to let the girl undergo the abortion after it was confirmed that she was 26 weeks pregnant. Courts allow medical termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and can make an exception if the foetus is genetically abnormal. The petition, filed by advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, has sought appropriate guidelines be framed by the top court to set up a permanent medical board in each district of the country for expedient termination of pregnancies in exceptional cases involving child rape survivors under the best-possible medical facilities. “Medical experts have categorically opined that if the 10-year-old rape survivor is forced to give birth through normal delivery or C-section, it may be fatal to the life of the girl as well her child,” the petition filed through advocate Kedar Nath Tripathy has said. The petition has also sought a direction to the Centre to amend Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, so as to permit termination of pregnancy of more than 20 weeks, particularly involving child rape survivors after obtaining requisite opinion from a permanently constituted medical board.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC issues notice to Centre on plea seeking abortion of 10-year-old rape survivor

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and others on a plea seeking its permission to allow a 10-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 26-week-old pregnancy.A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud asked the member secretary of Chandigarh Legal Services Authority to assist it as an amicus curiae and get the rape survivor examined by a board of doctors on July 26.The bench also said that the medical board will have to examine the aspect whether if they allow the girl to abort the foetus, then what could be the possible risk on her life.It has asked the member secretary to ensure that the rape survivor and one of her parents are accorded proper transportation facility for her examination at PGI, Chandigarh.The court has now fixed the matter for hearing on July 28, and said the medical report be filed in a sealed cover before it and asked the counsel for the rape victim to provide her address to the member secretary instantly.The PIL was filed after a Chandigarh district court on July 18 refused to let the girl undergo the abortion after it was confirmed that she was 26-weeks-pregnant.Courts allow medical termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and can make an exception if the foetus is genetically abnormal.The petition, filed by advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, has also sought appropriate guidelines be framed by the top court to set up a permanent medical board in each district of India for expedient termination of pregnancies in exceptional cases involving child rape survivors under the best possible medical facilities.”Medical experts have categorically opined that if the 10-year-old rape survivor is forced to give birth through normal delivery or C-section, it may be fatal to the life of the girl as well her child,” the petition filed through advocate Kedar Nath Tripathy had said.The petition had also sought direction to the Centre to amend Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, so as to permit termination of pregnancies of more than 20 weeks, particularly involving child rape survivors after obtaining requisite opinion from a permanently constituted medical board.

SC seeks Gujarat’s reply on plea over re-induction of 2 cops

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought response from the Gujarat government on a plea alleging that two police officers, accused in separate encounter cases, have been re-inducted in the force after superannuation. “Issue notice returnable in two weeks,” a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said. The bench was hearing a petition filed by former IPS officer Rahul Sharma alleging that two police officers – N K Amin and Tarun Barot – have been re-inducted as Superintendent of Police at Tapi district in Gujarat and Deputy Superintendent of Police in Railways, respectively. The petition further alleged that Amin has faced trial in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Ishrat Jahan fake encounter killing cases and Barot was accused in the Sadiq Jaman and Ishrat Jahan encounter cases. Amin, however, has been acquitted in the Sohrabuddin encounter case. Both the cops have been re-employed on contractual basis with the police force.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

9-judge bench to hear right to privacy issue from Wednesday: Supreme Court

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing from Wednesday to decide if the contentious issue of right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.Hours after referring the matter to a larger bench, the apex court today set up the nine-judge bench to be headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar. It will also comprise Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by the CJI, which was to deal with pleas challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme and the right to privacy attached to it, was faced with the two past verdicts, delivered in 1950 and 1962 by larger benches, holding that the privacy right was not a fundamental right.The apex court said the nine-judge bench would deal with the limited issue of right to privacy and the correctness of the two judgements. The matter challenging the Aadhaar scheme would be then referred back to a smaller bench, it said. “During the course of the hearing today, it seems that it has become essential for us to determine whether there is any fundamental right of privacy under the Indian Constitution,” the bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer, said.”The determination of this question will essentially entail whether the decision recorded by this court in M P Sharma and Ors vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. (of 1950) by an eight-judge Constitution bench, and also, in Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP and Ors. (of 1962) by a six-judge Constitution bench, that there is no such fundamental right, is the correct expression of the constitutional position,” it said in its order.The court asked Attorney General K K Venugopal, representing the Centre, and other senior advocates, including Arvind Datar, Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramanium and Anand Grover, who appeared for petitioners opposed to the Aadhaar scheme, to submit their written briefs in the meantime. At the outset, Venugopal reiterated the arguments of his predecessor Mukul Rohatgi that there have been inconsistent views so far as judicial pronouncements on right to privacy was concerned.He said the apex court in M P Sharma and Kharak Singh cases have held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right and later, the smaller benches have said that it was a fundamental right. Venugopal also said that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right and rather it is common law right which is not recognised by the Constitution.One of the counsel for petitioners termed as “regressive” the stand of the Centre that the right to privacy was common law right and not a part of fundamental right under the Constitution.The apex court, initially, referred to the 1978 judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case and said that there was no need to revisit the judgements in Kharak Singh and M P Sharma cases on right to privacy. A three-judge bench had in 2015 referred to a larger bench a batch of pleas, including the one filed by Justice (retd) K S Puttaswamy, challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme and the aspect of right to privacy attached to it. The apex court had agreed to set up a bench on July 12 to deal with the Aadhaar-related matters after the attorney general and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioners, had jointly mentioned the matter.The petitioners had claimed that collection and sharing of biometric information, as required under the scheme, was a breach of the “fundamental” right to privacy. Allowing the Centre’s plea, the court had framed various questions, including as to whether right to privacy was a fundamental right, to be decided by a Constitution bench. “If yes, then what would be contours of right to privacy,” the bench had said while referring the matter to the then CJI for setting up a larger bench.At an earlier hearing, then AG Rohatgi, while backing the Aadhaar card scheme, had contended that right to privacy was not a fundamental right. “No judgment explicitly cites right to privacy as a fundamental right. It is not there under the letters of Article 21 either. If this court feels that there must be clarity on this subject, only a Constitution bench can decide,” Rohatgi had said. He had cited the two judgements, pronounced by six and eight-judge benches, which had held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right.Subsequently, smaller benches had held a contrary view and, hence the matter needed to be decided by a larger bench, he had said. “Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, in the light of express ratio to the contrary by an eight-judge bench in M P Sharma case and also by a six-judge bench of this court in Kharak Singh’s case has to be decided,” Rohtagi had said.

SC restrains petitioner from filing pleas before it, HCs

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today restrained a man, who had earlier filed a criminal petition against two sitting apex court judges for pronouncing adverse judgements against him, from approaching it or any other high court for any cause in public interest. The apex court also refused to review its March 27 order by which it had imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on him, observing there was no ground for it. “Accordingly, we hereby restrain the petitioner Rashid Ali Saudagar, from approaching this court or any other high court for any cause in public interest hereinafter,” a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said. “In case, any such petition is filed by the petitioner before the registry of this court, as a cause in public interest, the same shall not be entertained and shall be returned to the petitioner,” the apex court said. However, the bench clarified that in case the petitioner has any personal or individual grievance, he can approach a court of competent jurisdiction in consonance with the law. The apex court was dealing with a letter, filed by the petitioner in the registry, seeking recall of the March 27 order dismissing his appeal and directing him to pay Rs one lakh as cost. “However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider it just and appropriate to extend the time for payment of costs imposed vide this court’s order dated March 27 by a further period of four weeks during which time the petitioner shall file proof in the registry of this court depicting the payment of costs,” the bench noted. “In case no such proof is filed in the registry of this court the matter shall be re-listed for enforcement of costs,” the court said. In his plea, which was dismissed by the court on March 27, the petitioner had made two judges on a bench that had passed an adverse order against him respondents in the criminal case.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

© 2019 Yuva Sai Sagar. Theme by Anders Norén.