Yuva Sai Sagar

Online news channel!

Tag: khehar

SC collegium gave age criteria a miss while clearing names

When it finalised the draft of the new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the document that guides appointments to higher judiciary, the Supreme Court collegium — headed by (then) Chief Justice of India JS Khehar — had decided that no lawyer below the age of 45 years and above the age of 55 years should be considered for appointment as Judge of a high court.Apart from then CJI Khehar, other members of the collegium who decided this included current CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur. All, except Justice Khehar, who is now retired, are members of the larger SC collegium now.However, even as the new MoP is yet to be notified — it is pending with the government since March — the collegium has shown that it isn’t too keen to stick to its own resolution.Minutes of meeting of the three-member Supreme Court collegium show that the CJI-led panel is not immune to violating the age limit.Take for example the December 4 decision of the collegium while clearing names for Calcutta HC.The High Court collegium had recommended names of six advocates, including Sabyasachi Chaudhury and Sakya Sen, who weren’t 45 at the time their names were recommended.However, the SC collegium has recommended Sen’s name for elevation to the bench in “relaxation of the age criterion”. As for Chaudhary, he completed 45 years of age during the intervening period when his name was recommended by the HC collegium and cleared by the SC collegium.But, Madras HC lawyer AV Radhakrishnan, whose name had been recommended by the HC collegium, wasn’t so fortunate. “… He is more than 57 years of age. Even on the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium he had crossed the maximum age limit of 55 years prescribed for Advocates recommended for elevation to the High Court Bench. Having regard to above, he is not found suitable for elevation to the High Court Bench,” the SC collegium decided on the same day when it ignored the age criteria in two other cases.Incidentally, it was on the Centre’s insistence that the SC collegium first agreed to include the age clause in the MoP. The Justice Ministry is of the view that such a cause will ensure uniformity and transparency in the appointment process and also rule out the possibility of members of the collegium adopting different yardsticks while recommending names.But it isn’t the age criterion that the SC collegium has refused to stick to while making appointments.It cleared the name of another lawyer of Calcutta HC – Ravi Krishan Kapur – who had failed to submit the undertaking from his lawyer-father as is mandated under existing rules. In doing so, the SC collegium also ignored the objection raised by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice on this subject, saying the undertaking was based on “mere administrative instructions and is not a mandatory requirement”.In yet another departure from rules, the SC collegium decided to clear a candidate – advocate Arindam Mukherjee – even though he had not submitted adequate number of reported/unreported judgments.”In our view, number of reported/unreported judgments is just one of the factors and not the only factor to determine suitability of a recommendee for purpose of elevation,” the collegium noted.

Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>
Vidya Balan: It has to be something like Ijaazat with Shah Rukh Khan
“Stop behaving like Aaradhya,” says Amitabh Bachchan to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Watch viral video!
Here’s how “well-behaved” Shashi Kapoor was different from Raj Kapoor & Shammi Kapoor, writes Shobhaa De
Bigg Boss 11: Shilpa Shinde rebukes Akash Dadlani for touching her inappropriately
Varun Dhawan buys a plush new apartment; girlfriend Natasha Dalal attends housewarming party
Bigg Boss 11: Hiten Tejwani gets evicted from Salman Khan’s show
Telugu actor Vijay Sai found dead in his apartment; Did he commit suicide?
STOP spreading rumours! Deepika Padukone-Ranveer Singh’s special gift for Anushka Sharma-Virat Kohli REVEALED!
Aditya Chopra is one of the first ones to know about Anushka Sharma-Virat Kohli’s Wedding!
Will Alia Bhatt say yes to Priyanka Chopra?
Salman Khan cheers up teary-eyed Katrina Kaif during ‘Tiger Zinda Hai’ promotions
Not just Anushka Sharma and Virat Kohli: Here are other B-Town beauties who bowled over cricketing stars

SC collegium restores judges’ appraisal move

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Over seven months after the Supreme Court collegium junked the system of evaluating the performance of Additional Judges of the high courts through a detailed scrutiny of their judgments, the Supreme Court collegium yesterday restored the system.The decision to restore the system was taken at the meeting of the collegium under Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Mishra. The collegium has also decided that judgments of Additional Judges of the High Courts would be evaluated by a committee of two Judges of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the CJI.These two Judges would not be the consultee-Judges – which refers to Judges who have served in the high court to which the additional judge, whose case for making permanent is under consideration, belongs.The guideline was the main criteria to decide whether an Additional Judge should be made a Permanent Judge and was issued by the then CJI SH Kapadia on October 30, 2010.As first reported by DNA, the decision of the collegium, then headed by previous CJI JS Khehar, taken at a meeting on March 3, 2017, had, however, not found favour with the Centre.The Union Law Ministry took strong exception to the new practice of the collegium recommending names of additional judges of various high courts for confirmation as permanent judges without making an objective assessment of the judicial work of the judge.This newspaper had also reported that the government had told the SC collegiums that since the guideline that made it mandatory for a Judgments Evaluation Committee to evaluate the performance of an additional judge before recommending his/her name for appointment as permanent judge was the only “parameter” to examine the performance of the judge, it did not agree with the decision to scrap it.In his letter to the HC CJs on March 29, then CJI Khehar had written, “The collegium comprising myself and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court in its meeting held on 3rd March, 2017 has resolved that assessment/evaluation of judgements of Additional Judges of High Court for purpose of determining their suitability for confirmation as Permanent Judges runs contrary to Para 41 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SP Gupta case (1981 Supp. SCC 87) and, therefore, the practice of Judges’ Committee by the chief justices of the high courts for the said purpose needs to be discontinued.”He had also written to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on April 16, requesting him to consider the possibility of issuing “necessary instructions to the concerned department to take note of the contents” of his communication to the chief justices while “processing the proposals for appointment of Additional Judges of the high court as Permanent Judges”.GOVT OBJECTIONDNA had reported Centre’s objection to the practice of the collegium recommending names without making an objective assessment of the judicial work of judges

Master the skill of presenting facts of cases before courts: CJI Dipak Misra tells budding lawyers

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra today asked budding lawyers to master the skill of presenting facts of the cases before courts.The CJI, who was felicitated by the Bar Council of India — apex bar body — praised women advocates and judges for their endeavours in the field of advocacy and judiciary and asked them as well as their male counterparts not to deviate from the principles of the profession.Justice Misra, who succeeded Justice J S Khehar as the CJI on August 27, expressed gratitude to the bar and advised budding lawyers to get mastery over facts of the cases being fought by them.”Everyday, we judges are taught by lawyers. If a young lawyer is not recognised by this country, his ambition will be scuttled,” he said.Praising women lawyers and judges, the CJI said that they were doing a great service to the nation.Besides the CJI, several apex court judges, including Justices Arun Mishra, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, L N Rao, S Abdul Nazeer and Navin Sinha, graced the occasion.Speaking at the function, Justice Misra highlighted the importance of a strong and independent bar and said it was necessary for a strong judiciary.”If the bar is not strong and its independence is compromised, the judiciary will become very weak. The bar’s duty is to keep the judiciary in a perspective. Bar is our protection,” he said.BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra raised the issue of rising vacancies in judiciary.”With the new CJI among us, we hope that vacancies across high courts in the country would be filled up speedily,” he said.He emphasised that bar bodies like the BCI should be consulted by the judiciary in appointment of judges.”We don’t know why the bar has been given a step-motherly treatment by judiciary. We hope that in times to come, the BCI’s autonomy is respected and not compromised,” he said.He also raised the issue of frequent strikes by lawyers and said that the BCI was aware of the situation.

Justice Dipak Mishra: All you need to know about the 45th Chief Justice of India

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Justice Dipak Mishra was on Monday sworn in as the 45th Chief Justice of India (CJI) and will remain at the helm till October 2, 2018, a tenure of almost 14 months.Outgoing CJI JS Khehar had recommended his name as his successor last month.Born in a small town in Orissa, Mishra had come a long way from struggling in English language to being a top-level judge in the apex court.Justice Mishra is a known name in the law circles, who grabbed wide media attention when he made several key verdicts while also drawing flak for a few blurred decisions.Mishra scripted history when he led the three-judge bench to dismiss 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon’s plea seeking a stay on his execution. In May 2017, Mishra doctored the landmark judgement confirming the death penalty of four convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape-murder case that send cracks in the nation.Another noteworthy decision he made was directing all States and Union Territories to upload the FIRs on their websites within 24 hours of registration at police stations.However, Mishra dawned criticism when he ordered mandatory for all cinema theatres to play nation anthem before the start of every movie show. He said that patrons should stand up in respect and “committed patriotism and nationalism” when National Anthem and also National Flag are featured in the halls.Mishra played an instrumental role in upholding the constitutionality of the 150-year-old law on criminal defamation. He was part of the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court to convict Justice CS Karnan, the then Calcutta High Court judge, of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months’ in prison.In 2015, Mishra-led Bench set aside the ban on dance bars under the Maharashtra Police Act and said there are other ways to ban on dance performers to ensure safety of woman.Mishra, who is National Legal Services Authority executive chairman, was the mastermind behind the idea of introducing Legal Assistance Establishments in states to streamline activities to provide free legal aid to the needy.Born in a family of intellects, jurists and politicians from a small town in Orissa, Mishra had always shown inclination towards the law. Despite studying in an Oriya-medium school, he showed interest in English and mastered himself in English.Justice Dipak Mishra, who enrolled as an advocate on 14th February 1977, rose up to the ranks of additional judge of the Orissa High Court in 1996 and a year was later transferred to Madhya Pradesh. He has practised in Constitutional, Civil, Criminal, Revenue, Service and Sales Tax matters in the Orissa High Court and the Service Tribunal.In 2009, he was appointed as the chief justice of the Patna High Court and later went onto to head Delhi High Court in 2010.His time in Delhi HC paved the way for his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2011. In 2017, he was finally recommended as the CJI by the outgoing CJI JS Khehar as his successor.

Outgoing CJI Khehar hopes paperless court becomes reality

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Outgoing Chief Justice of India JS Khehar on Friday hoped that his dream of “paperless courts” soon becomes a reality and hailed the support of the bar in his endeavour to digitise the justice delivery system.Justice Khehar, who was speaking at his farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), said that he served the country “in the manner of discharging a debt” and also expressed gratitude towards his family, colleagues and the motherland. “I would like to thank my country and motherland for giving me the opportunity to serve it. I served my country in the manner of discharging a debt. I feel that it is difficult to discharge a debt to your country just like you cannot discharge the debt of your parents,” Justice Khehar said.Veteran lawyer and Attorney General KK Venugopal was effusive in his praise for the CJI and credited him for taking the pioneering step of working during summer vacation to render justice to Muslim women by deciding pleas on triple talaq which could have remained undecided for years. An emotional CJI, during his speech, appreciated the support of the SCBA in his endeavour to achieve the goal of “paperless courts”.”I must place my appreciation for the tremendous work the SCBA has done during last eight months. We have not always been in agreement but they have worked hardest and pushed themselves farthest to get what they could get. “When we ventured to introduce paperless court system, they supported me solid and did not allow anyone to feel that the matter was not going right. I hope paperless courts will not be a dream and will be a reality in the near future,” Justice Khehar said. Justice Dipak Misra, who will succeed Justice Khehar as the 45th CJI, was all praise for the outgoing judge and called him a democratic person with a good heart and a great mind.”Justice J S Khehar is a man with democratic attitude. He has a good heart, a creation of a good mind which is capable of transmitting good thought and energy.”He is affectionately energetic and has the ability to energise others because of his contagious vibrance,” Justice Misra said. Venugopal, who as the government’s top law officer opposed the pleas in support of Right to Privacy, however, praised yesterday’s unanimous verdict of the nine-judge bench headed by Justice Khehar. “We have a landmark verdict in triple talaq case which otherwise would have taken years and years to be brought up for hearing. It is one of the major judgements delivered by the Supreme Court, perhaps welcomed by practically the entire population of this country where equality has been brought about to the women in this country belonging to a particular country,” Venugopal said.”We have now an extraordinary judgement which has propelled the right to privacy to be a major fundamental right which has been welcomed by every single person in this country and that I think is one of the greatest thing done by the Supreme Court of India,” he said. Deprecating recent practices of throwing muck at judges by some bar members, the Attorney General said such people are trying to dismantle the foundation of the justice delivery system.”So far as judiciary is concerned, they do not possess their freedom of speech in the same manner as we possess. They have to remain silent. The result of that is they have to speak through their judgements.”But they cannot respond to whatever is being said about them. Be it good or bad. The result is that the members of Bar can throw bricks at the judges but they can’t throw anything back at the lawyers,” the AG said. He said that lawyers cannot use “intemperate language” and throw stones at judges. “I find it very very reprehensible because what you are doing is you are bringing down the confidence of the litigant public and the general public at justice delivery system,” he said.

SC orders Chandigarh administration to release Rs. 1 lakh to rape survivor’s family

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Chandigarh administration to release Rs. one lakh to the family of a 10-year-old rape survivor. The apex court also ordered to make a fixed deposit of Rs. nine lakh for the survivor and asked the hospital to keep her medical records in a sealed cover. The Supreme Court also directed the Chandigarh administration to provide free medical service, counseling and other necessary help to the girl at her home so as to protect her identity. In its earlier hearing, the top court sought responses from the Centre and the Chandigarh administration on a plea seeking Rs. 10 lakh compensation for the victim, who delivered a baby on August 17. On July 28, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea seeking its nod for terminating the 32-week-old pregnancy of the 10-year-old rape survivor after taking note of a medical report that abortion was neither good for the girl nor for the foetus. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud took note of the report of the medical board set up by PGI (Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research) Chandigarh to examine the rape survivor and the consequences if the termination of pregnancy was allowed.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Recap of arguments during the case

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court’s decision to accord privacy as a fundamental right was not an easy one. The nine-judge bench acknowledged the efforts of the advocates on both sides who argued their case. DNA recaps a few key arguments made during the trial.The debate for privacy that was triggered by a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar was heard by a rare nine-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India JS Khehar.The privacy judgment delivered on Thursday will remain to be a touchstone in CJI Khehar’s career as he retires on Friday.Over an almost three-week period, 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.Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium, Soli Sorabjee, Shyam Divan, Anand Grover, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, and Meenakshi Arora argued for the petitioners and sought the elevation of privacy as a fundamental right.Opposing them, Attorney General KK Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta with senior advocates CA Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, along with advocates like Gopal Shankarnarayan, and Arghya Sengupta argued that privacy was a common law right and had enough protection through statutory provisions.The crux of the Centre’s argument was that the right to life (under Article 21) superceded one’s right to privacy. “Aadhaar is beneficial to the poor. In the name of fundamental rights, one cant deprive a large section of the society and their right to life,” the top law officer had said.Privacy was not a fundamental and absolute right in this (Aadhaar) instance. The state can subject privacy to reasonable restrictions in order to preserve the right to life of the masses. An elite few cannot claim that their bodily integrity would be violated by a scheme which serves to bring home basic human rights and social justice to millions of poor households across the country, he had added.Interestingly, Sengupta — who closed the arguements on Wednesday is also part of the ten-member committee that will draft the data protection law recently constituted by the Centre. Sengupta, founder and research director of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy also helped draft the Aadhaar bill. He argued that the existing fundamental right to liberty sufficiently covered privacy and hence no new jurisprudence was required.

SC privacy ruling should protect misuse of private date:CPI(M)

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The CPI(M) today welcomed the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict declaring right to privacy as a Fundamental right and expressed hope it would protect the misuse of private data in a world “dominated by corporates”. “The Politburo welcomes the Supreme Court verdict…this landmark judgment should pave the way to protect, in this world of technology advance dominated by corporates, misuse of private data and infringing upon the privacy of individuals,” the Left party said in a statement. A nine-judge bench of the apex court today unanimously declared that right to privacy was a Fundamental right under the Constitution. The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar ruled that “right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and entire Part III of the Constitution”. The ruling on the highly contentious issue was to deal with a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Mamata welcomes SC verdict on right to privacy

Updated: Aug 24, 2017, 06:29PM IST, PTI
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee today welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling on right to privacy. “We welcome this verdict by Honourable Supreme Court #RightToPrivacy is a Fundamental Right,” she said in a tweet. In a landmark decision that will affect the lives of all Indians, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that right to privacy was a Fundamental right under the Constitution. A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar ruled that “right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and entire Part III of the Constitution”.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Welcome verdict; SC said right to privacy not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, says law minister Prasad

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in a series of tweets hailed the Supreme Court’s decision regarding right to privacy, claiming that the apex court had taken note of the Committee formed by the Govt on data protection.A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar ruled that ‘right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and entire Part III of the Constitution’.Earlier, the Centre had argued that right to privacy is not a Fundamental right, the petitioners had contended that when a citizen gives his biometrics and personal details to the government and when in turn it is used by commercial organisations, it is a breach of privacy.The judgement was limited to the issue of the right to privacy and the question whether Aadhaar violates right to privacy will be dealt with the five-judge bench which has been hearing the petitions since 2015.The nine judges unanimously overruled the two earlier judgements of the apex court that right to privacy is not protected under the Constitution.The bench overruled the MP Sharma verdict of 1950 and that of Kharak Singh of 1960.

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.

SC declares right to privacy as Fundamental right

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a landmark decision that will affect the lives of all Indians, the Supreme Court today unanimously declared that right to privacy was a Fundamental right under the Constitution. A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar ruled that “right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and entire Part III of the Constitution”. The ruling on the highly contentious issue was to deal with a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes. Others members of the bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, S K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer also shared the same view. The nine judges unanimously overruled the two earlier judgements of the apex court that right to privacy is not protected under the Constitution. The bench overruled the M P Sharma verdict of 1950 and that of Kharak Singh of 1960. The judgement in the Kharak Singh case was pronounced by eight judges and in M P Sharma it was delivered by six judges. Justice Khehar, who read the operative portion of the judgement, said the subsequent verdicts pronounced after M P Sharma and Kharak Singh have laid down the correct position of the law. Before pronouncing the judgement, the CJI said that among the nine judges some of them have authored different orders.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Right to privacy: Here is all you need to know about the case and argument

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court will on Thursday pronounce its judgment on the vexatious issue whether the right to privacy can be held as a fundamental right under the Constitution.Here is all you need to knowA nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar had on August 2 reserved its verdict after hearing marathon arguments for six days over a period of three weeks, during which submissions were advanced in favour and against the inclusion of the right to privacy as a fundamental right.► Who are the judges?Besides CJI Khehar, the other judges of the nine-judge bench are Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, S K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.► The lawyers who argued either in favour or againstThe high-voltage hearing saw a battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General K K Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subaramaniam, Shyam Divan, Anand Grover, C A Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, advancing arguments either in favour or against the inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right.► How the issue emerged?The contentious issue had emerged when the apex court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.► Why the decision to set-up nine-judge bench was takenThe 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 decision to set up the nine-judge bench was taken to examine the correctness of two apex court judgements delivered in the cases of Kharak Singh and M P Sharma, decided by six and eight judge benches respectively, in which it was held that this right was not a fundamental right.While the Kharak Singh judgement was delivered in 1960, the M P Sharma verdict was reported in 1950.► States move SC for interventionFour non-BJP ruled states, including Karnataka and West Bengal had moved the apex 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.► What the bench observed?During the 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?”The Attorney General contended: Right to privacy cannot fall in the bracket of fundamental rights as there were binding decisions of larger benches that it was only a common law right evolved through judicial decisions.► What Centre said?The Centre had termed privacy as a “vague and amorphous” right which cannot be granted primacy to deprive poor people of their rights to life, food and shelter.(With inputs from Agencies and Ritika Jain)

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.

Triple Talaq verdict: A new dawn for muslim women, freedom from instant indignity

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a historic decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday called the controversial practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’, which allows Muslim men to divorce their wives instantly by uttering “talaq” thrice, “manifestly arbitrary” and declared it illegal.The majority judgement of a five-judge bench came as a huge victory for lakhs of Muslim women who had long argued that instant talaq violated their right to equality.Pronouncing the final order of the bench, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar announced: “By majority of 3:2, ‘talaq-e-biddat’ is set aside.”Judges from five different religious backgrounds — Hindu (Justice UU Lalit), Sikh (CJI Khehar), Christian (Justice Kurian Joseph), Parsi (Justice Rohinton Nariman) and Muslim (Justice S Abdul Nazeer) — formed the five-judge Constitution bench.While Justices Joseph, Nariman and Lalit ruled against instant talaq, CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer ruled in favour of the practice, holding that it was being followed for over 1,400 years by the Hanafis and had become a part of religious practice.CJI Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, in their minority judgement (which is not binding), put the onus of passing a new legislation on to the legislature, hoping it would do so within six months.In the meantime, they ordered a stay on instant triple talaq for six months. They said if a legislation banning instant triple talaq completely is not placed before Parliament within six months, the stay on the practice would continue till the House enacted or rejected the law.The minority judges opined: “It would not be appropriate for this court to record a finding, whether the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ is or is not affirmed by ‘hadiths’, in view of the enormous contradictions in the ‘hadiths’, relied upon by the rival parties.””The practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ being a constituent of ‘personal law’ has a stature equal to other Fundamental Rights. The practice cannot therefore be set aside, on the ground of being violative of the concept of the constitutional morality, through judicial intervention.”The minority judgment also held that instant talaq did not violate Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.However, CJI Khehar also observed that in view of the fact that even the Muslim world had shed talaq-e-biddat, there was no excuse for independent India to lag. He appealed to political parties and legislators to set aside their individual gains and give “thoughtful consideration” to frame a suitable law.Triple talaq is banned in 22 Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.While Justice Nariman penned the majority judgment, Justice Joseph wrote a separate concurring one. Justice Nariman said triple talaq in all three forms — talaq-e-biddat, talaq ahsan and talaq hasan — was “recognised and enforced” under Section 2 of the Shariat Act of 1937. Due to this very reason, he added, triple talaq was no longer a personal law but a statutory law, which fell under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. Under Article 13, no law can be violative of the Fundamental Rights.Justice Joseph said triple talaq was not sanctioned by Quran and hence could not form part of the Fundamental Right to religion. He also added that what is not true in theology couldn’t be sanctioned by practice or law.The five-judge bench, which sat for six days during the summer vacations, was constituted to decide the validity of triple talaq after a batch of petitions were filed by Muslim women challenging the legality of the same.At the end of the hearings, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had submitted that the issue was outside the judiciary’s realm.The AIMPLB had asked the court not to interfere in what was essentially the religious matter of the Muslim community. The then Attorney-General, Mukul Rohatgi, had asserted that the issue could not be seen as discrimination between majority and minority communities.During hearings, the Centre had also argued against the practice, terming it “unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory” and assuring the court that it would bring in a new law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the practice of triple talaq was declared unconstitutional.However, the apex court had decided to restrict itself to the validity of triple talaq and had refused to go into other issues of polygamy and nikah halala, which requires a female divorcee to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and then get a divorce to remarry her previous husband,under the Muslim personal law.Earlier this year, the Allahabad High Court had held triple talaq unconstitutional and violative of basic human rights of Muslim women.What the judgement meansOnly instant talaq goneTalaq-e-biddat that allowed the husband to pronounce talaq thrice in one sitting is now illegal. The other two forms of talaq — Talaq-e-Hasan and Talaq-e-Ahsan — remain valid. They allow the husband to pronounce talaq three times spread over three monthly courses. The divorce is revocable during those months.What the order will lead to The Supreme Court’s judgement reasserts Muslim women’s right to equality. If Muslim men divorce their wives by letter, telephone, text, WhatsApp messages and Skype, it will be held illegal. The verdict will improve the condition of women who face atrocities due to instant triple talaq.Minority view not binding Of the five judges, two — CJI JS Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer — upheld the validity of instant talaq. But this is not binding. The views of three other judges override that. Initially, there was confusion among journalists about the ruling because CJI Khehar started reading out the minority judgement first.Personal Law upheld The Supreme Court not only left the two other forms of divorce untouched, but also refused to go into other contentious issues of polygamy and nikah halala. This went on to enthuse even the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which said the order has protected Personal Law.No new legislation as of nowCJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer, in their minority judgement, also suspended instant talaq for six months, asking the government to bring in legislation. This will also not be binding. Government officials still ruled out the need for bringing any legislation in the light of the overriding verdict.

Freedom, freedom, Freedom … From Instant Indignity

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a historic decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday called the controversial practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’, which allows Muslim men to divorce their wives instantly by uttering “talaq” thrice, “manifestly arbitrary” and declared it illegal.The majority judgement of a five-judge bench came as a huge victory for lakhs of Muslim women who had long argued that instant talaq violated their right to equality.Pronouncing the final order of the bench, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar announced: “By majority of 3:2, ‘talaq-e-biddat’ is set aside.”Judges from five different religious backgrounds — Hindu (Justice UU Lalit), Sikh (CJI Khehar), Christian (Justice Kurian Joseph), Parsi (Justice Rohinton Nariman) and Muslim (Justice S Abdul Nazeer) — formed the five-judge Constitution bench.While Justices Joseph, Nariman and Lalit ruled against instant talaq, CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer ruled in favour of the practice, holding that it was being followed for over 1,400 years by the Hanafis and had become a part of religious practice.CJI Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, in their minority judgement (which is not binding), put the onus of passing a new legislation on to the legislature, hoping it would do so within six months.In the meantime, they ordered a stay on instant triple talaq for six months. They said if a legislation banning instant triple talaq completely is not placed before Parliament within six months, the stay on the practice would continue till the House enacted or rejected the law.The minority judges opined: “It would not be appropriate for this court to record a finding, whether the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ is or is not affirmed by ‘hadiths’, in view of the enormous contradictions in the ‘hadiths’, relied upon by the rival parties.””The practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ being a constituent of ‘personal law’ has a stature equal to other Fundamental Rights. The practice cannot therefore be set aside, on the ground of being violative of the concept of the constitutional morality, through judicial intervention.”The minority judgment also held that instant talaq did not violate Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.However, CJI Khehar also observed that in view of the fact that even the Muslim world had shed talaq-e-biddat, there was no excuse for independent India to lag. He appealed to political parties and legislators to set aside their individual gains and give “thoughtful consideration” to frame a suitable law.Triple talaq is banned in 22 Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.While Justice Nariman penned the majority judgment, Justice Joseph wrote a separate concurring one. Justice Nariman said triple talaq in all three forms — talaq-e-biddat, talaq ahsan and talaq hasan — was “recognised and enforced” under Section 2 of the Shariat Act of 1937. Due to this very reason, he added, triple talaq was no longer a personal law but a statutory law, which fell under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. Under Article 13, no law can be violative of the Fundamental Rights.Justice Joseph said triple talaq was not sanctioned by Quran and hence could not form part of the Fundamental Right to religion. He also added that what is not true in theology couldn’t be sanctioned by practice or law.The five-judge bench, which sat for six days during the summer vacations, was constituted to decide the validity of triple talaq after a batch of petitions were filed by Muslim women challenging the legality of the same.At the end of the hearings, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had submitted that the issue was outside the judiciary’s realm.The AIMPLB had asked the court not to interfere in what was essentially the religious matter of the Muslim community. The then Attorney-General, Mukul Rohatgi, had asserted that the issue could not be seen as discrimination between majority and minority communities.During hearings, the Centre had also argued against the practice, terming it “unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory” and assuring the court that it would bring in a new law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the practice of triple talaq was declared unconstitutional.However, the apex court had decided to restrict itself to the validity of triple talaq and had refused to go into other issues of polygamy and nikah halala, which requires a female divorcee to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and then get a divorce to remarry her previous husband,under the Muslim personal law.Earlier this year, the Allahabad High Court had held triple talaq unconstitutional and violative of basic human rights of Muslim women.What the judgement meansOnly instant talaq goneTalaq-e-biddat that allowed the husband to pronounce talaq thrice in one sitting is now illegal. The other two forms of talaq — Talaq-e-Hasan and Talaq-e-Ahsan — remain valid. They allow the husband to pronounce talaq three times spread over three monthly courses. The divorce is revocable during those months.What the order will lead to The Supreme Court’s judgement reasserts Muslim women’s right to equality. If Muslim men divorce their wives by letter, telephone, text, WhatsApp messages and Skype, it will be held illegal. The verdict will improve the condition of women who face atrocities due to instant triple talaq.Minority view not binding Of the five judges, two — CJI JS Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer — upheld the validity of instant talaq. But this is not binding. The views of three other judges override that. Initially, there was confusion among journalists about the ruling because CJI Khehar started reading out the minority judgement first.Personal Law upheld The Supreme Court not only left the two other forms of divorce untouched, but also refused to go into other contentious issues of polygamy and nikah halala. This went on to enthuse even the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which said the order has protected Personal Law.No new legislation as of nowCJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer, in their minority judgement, also suspended instant talaq for six months, asking the government to bring in legislation. This will also not be binding. Government officials still ruled out the need for bringing any legislation in the light of the overriding verdict.

SC verdict on triple talaq gives respite to Muslim women Congress

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Congress Party on Wednesday welcomed Supreme Court?s verdict on Triple Talaq and said the judgement has given respite to the Muslim women. Speaking to ANI, Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad said that some people were misusing the Islamic practice to get divorce. ?I welcome the verdict of Supreme Court. It is wrong and unIslamic to pronounce talaq thrice over phone or write it down in message and get divorce. People were misusing this practice. This verdict has given respite to the Muslim women. There is a provision in Islam on Triple Talaq but it was being misused,? he said. Another Congress leader Brijesh Kalappa also hailed the decision said such decision which gives equal right to women is always welcome. ?This is a very good decision. Everbody with progressive idea will welcome this move. We welcome such decision which provides equal right to women,? he told ANI. Earlier on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Jagdish Singh Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution”, but did say that there was a need for Parliament to on enact a law on the issue at the earliest. The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Shah Bano’s lawyer praises

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Lawyer in Shah Bano Case, Arif Mohammad Khan on Tuesday praised the Modi-led government for its resolve in delegitimising triple talaq stating that with this decision the Muslim women will live with equality in the country. Speaking to ANI, Khan said, ?I?m glad over Supreme Court’s verdict on triple talaq. I thank the Modi-led government for its resolve in delegitimising on this issue. We should welcome this and the result will be great if accepted by all. After this women can live with equality and can also take part in country?s development?. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution”, but did say that there was a need for Parliament to on enact a law on the issue at the earliest. The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Triple talaq verdict: Religion pitted against constitutional rights in such cases, says Supreme Court

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>When issues like ‘triple talaq’ come to the forefront, the discourse often takes the form of pitting religion against constitutional rights, the Supreme Court said today.Justice Kurian Joseph, who penned a separate majority judgement, said the process of harmonising different interests was within the powers of the legislature and this power has to be exercised within the constitutional parameters without curbing religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.”However, it is not for the courts to direct for any legislation,” he said in his 26-page judgement.”When issues of such nature come to the forefront, the discourse often takes the form of pitting religion against other constitutional rights. I believe that reconciliation between the same is possible, but the process of harmonising different interests is within the powers of the legislature,” he said.Justice Joseph also noted in his verdict that to freely profess, practice and propagate religion of one’s choice is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution.He, however, disagreed with the views of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice A Abdul Nazeer that the practice of ‘triple talaq’ has to be considered integral to the religious denomination and it was part of their personal law.”Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible. The whole purpose of the 1937 (Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application) Act was to declare Shariat as the rule of decision and to discontinue anti- Shariat practices with respect to subjects enumerated in section 2 which include talaq,” he said.”Therefore, in any case, after the introduction of the 1937 Act, no practice against the tenets of Quran is permissible,” Justice Joseph said.He also said, “I also have serious doubts as to whether, even under Article 142, the exercise of a Fundamental Right, can be injuncted.”In a historic verdict, the apex court today brought the curtains down on the 1,400 year old practice of ‘triple talaq’ among Muslims.A five-judge constitution bench, by a majority of 3:2 in which Chief Justice J S Khehar was in minority, said the practice of “‘talaq-e-biddat’ ? triple talaq is set aside”.The two separate judgements, written for majority by Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman, did not concur with the CJI and Justice Nazeer that ‘triple talaq’ was a part of religious practice and the government should step and come out with a law.

Triple talaq verdict: No need for a new law; SC verdict law of the land, says government

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The government today virtually ruled out the need for a new law on instant triple talaq, which has been rendered as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, indicating that existing laws, including the one dealing with domestic violence, were sufficient.”The government will consider the issue in a structured manner. A prima facie reading of the judgement makes it clear that the majority (of the five-member bench) has held it (instant triple talaq) as unconstitutional and illegal,” Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said.Hailing it as a “great victory” for those who believe that personal laws must be progressive, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the verdict is the law of the land now.
ALSO READ Triple talaq verdict: PM Modi’s decision to back his Muslim sisters made this possible, says union law ministerHe also said many parts of the Islamic world have rejected the triple talaq practice.Asked how the SC verdict striking down the practice of triple talaq would be implemented and why a statute is not necessary for the order’s enforcement, a senior government functionary explained that a marriage will not be annulled if the husband resorts to instant triple talaq.
ALSO READ Triple talaq verdict: PM Modi, Rahul Gandhi lead the way to hail Supreme Court ruling”After the Supreme Court order, if a husband gives instant triple talaq, it will not be considered valid. His obligation towards the marriage will remain… The wife is also free to drag such a person to police and file a complaint of harassment or domestic violence,” the functionary said, indicating penal provisions are present to check the practice.The Centre is also all set to send an advisory to all states asking them to ensure compliance of the Supreme Court order.A home ministry spokesperson said the ministry will be asking the state governments to take appropriate action and ensure compliance of the Supreme Court order.While Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were in favour of putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq and asking the government to come out with a law in this regard, justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman and U U Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution.The majority verdict said any practice including triple talaq which is against the tenets of Quran is unacceptable.The three judges also said the practice of divorce through triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the Constitution and must be struck down.The minority verdict by CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer, which favoured keeping on hold the practise of triple talaq for six months, asked the political parties to set aside their differences and help the Centre in coming out with a legislation.The judges in the minority verdict said that if the Centre does not bring a law within six months, then its injunction on triple talaq will continue

Triple talaq verdict: FM Arun Jaitley deems it a ‘great victory’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, on Tuesday, upheld the Supreme Court?s decision of banning the practice of Triple Talaq in Islam by calling it a ?great victory? for the progressive aims of the country. Jaitley observed, “the practice (triple talaq) heaped injustice and oppression on the female spouse and virtually left her remediless.? In the light of the current situation of Indian women, Jaitley praised the Supreme Court for stepping in at the right time, adding that the decision was a ?great victory for all those who?ve always believed that personal laws of India must also be progressive and must be compliant with the constitutional guarantees.? ?The majority view of the Supreme Court is absolutely clear, that this instant pronouncement is not fundamental to the religion itself. It?s not an essential aspect of the religion and therefore it?s discriminatory, it compromises the dignity of the women itself,? he said. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” ?Even the minority view which upheld the practice certainly was conscious of the fact that there was a need for a reform and that is why by upholding the practice itself, they injuncted it,? said the Finance Minister. The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Rahul Gandhi terms SC’s verdict on triple talaq as ‘Welcome Move’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi welcomed the Supreme Court’s verdict on triple talaq and congratulated the women who fought for the same. “Welcome the Supreme Court decision setting aside instant #TripleTalaq. I congratulate the women who fought for justice,” he tweeted. Earlier in the day, Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala too welcomed the verdict on triple talaq as an affirmation of the rights of the Muslim women, which were perverted over the years. ?The verdict is an affirmation of the rights of the Muslim women and gives relief to them against being subjected to discrimination by the practice. We welcome the acceptance of reality by the court and we welcome the verdict of the Supreme Court,? he said. Further speaking about the Muslim Personal Law Board?s plea before the Supreme Court against the practice of instant triple talaq, Surjewala said that the verdict is a culmination and acceptance of a wider wisdom. ?Several interveners, including amicus curiae, as also the Muslim Personal Law Board had pleaded before the Supreme Court against the practice of instant triple talaq by speaking it instantly three times, on the ground that it deviated from the practice prescribed by Islamic Law and has no sanction, either in the Quran or in the Hadith- the two main sources of Islamic jurisprudence,? he said. ?The Supreme Court?s verdict is a culmination and acceptance of wider wisdom, as also the recognition of the rights of Muslim women. We welcome the same,? he added. The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Owaisi differs on triple talaq verdict, calls it ‘contentious’, slams BJP

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> While the Supreme Court?s decision of banning triple talaq was welcomed by many sections of the society, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen (AIMIM) has called it a ?contentious issue? that demands a more nuanced step than the one taken. In his argument, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi highlighted the fact that even the five-judge constitution bench could not arrive at the decision unanimously as Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar. “Triple Talaq is a very contentious issue. That is why you see even in the Supreme Court, there was no unanimity.” Owaisi said. On being asked if he agrees that the decision is a positive step towards women empowerment, Owaisi said that the number of cases of women being victimised due to triple talaq was miniscule, adding that if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) really wants to empower women, it should ?bring a legislation and give reservation to only Muslim women in education and employment; that will be the greatest empowerment.? ?You (BJP) control your ?Gaurakshaks? who have made many Muslim women widows. The Muslim women have lost their children. It is a social evil that is why the Muslim Personal Law Board has taken this up as a social reform movement. And it is only through the Muslim Personal Law Board?s reform programme that this inhuman practice will come down in coming months and years,? he said. He further accused the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government of trying to make India a ‘Hindurashtra’, the pursuit of which will ?open a can of worms, as a uniform civil court will not work in a diversified country?. If so, then all personal laws would begin to be questioned, including the Hindu Undivided Family law. Citing the Shamim Ara judgement in 2002, Owaisi said that the majority decision has already been the law as the 2002 Supreme Court judgement had pronounced that “a divorce will not happen unless and until a reasonable cause and arbitration effort was made.? ?My stand is that for the Muslims who follow the Hanafeez school of thought, it is sinful to pronounce divorce in the form of triple talaq, and divorce happens, and that is why the Muslim Personal Law Board has said very clearly that do not use this form of triple talaq. It is sinful and we must discourage this thing,? he said. Owaisi added that he respects the SC decision, but that there are many issues attached to this decision and ?it?s going to be a great, herculean task to implement it on the ground,? as a legislation is not the answer to solving problems. To cite an instance, he said that the law against child marriage has not been able to stop the marriage of one crore minor girls in Indian villages. ?The minority judgement said that it is an integral part of Islam, but unfortunately the majority didn?t agree with Justice Khehar and Justice Nazir. So even in that majority judgment, other judges have said that personal laws cannot be challenged now, so this is a welcome step,? he said. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Salman Khurshid hails triple talaq verdict, says it uproots practices established outside Islam

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Appreciating the Supreme Court?s decision to strike down the triple talaq practice as ‘unconstitutional’, senior advocate Salman Khurshid said the decision has uncovered the real Islam and has directed to uproot all the practices established outside Islam in the country or elsewhere. Speaking to ANI, the former Minister of External Affairs said that ?what we hoped for has happened and it is a good decision.? “There is no role of legislature now as it is only the minority, which said the legislature should step in, but the majority has not sought that so now there is no role of legislature,” he said, while commenting on the court’s directive to bring a new legislation in place. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. Commenting on the split decision Khurshid said, ?Chief Justice?s opinion was a minority opinion; the chief justice himself recognized that at the end when the order was passed, it is the majority that prevails in our system and therefore the majority has not asked for the matter to go to the parliament, therefore what the chief justice has said is no longer of any functional value.? In the verdict that ruled out today, Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court has further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

PM Modi hails triple talaq verdict as ‘powerful measure for women empowerment’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday took to Twitter to laud the Supreme Court?s verdict on triple talaq as ?historic?, adding that the judgement will further fuel the women empowerment drive. ?Judgment of the Hon’ble SC on Triple Talaq is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment,? he tweeted. Prime Minister Modi has voiced his opinion on the age-old practice time and again. Recently, while delivering his address to the nation on the 71st Independence Day from the ramparts of the Red Fort, Prime Minister Modi expressed his admiration towards the courage of women who have been suffering due to Triple Talaq. Prior to that, in his radio program, ?Mann Ki Baat?, aired on All India Radio, Prime Minister Modi extended full support to the women of the community. The Supreme Court earlier today struck down the Triple Talaq practice as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court further directed the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months, in unison with all political parties. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Cong. welcomes verdict on triple talaq as affirmation of Muslim women’s rights

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Congress party, on Tuesday, welcomed the verdict on triple talaq as an affirmation of the rights of the Muslim women, which were perverted over the years. ?The verdict is an affirmation of the rights of the Muslim women and gives relief to them against being subjected to discrimination by the practice. We welcome the acceptance of reality by the court and we welcome the verdict of the Supreme Court,? said Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala. Further speaking about the Muslim Personal Law Board?s plea before the Supreme Court against the practice of instant triple talaq, Surjewala said that the verdict is a culmination and acceptance of a wider wisdom. ?Several interveners, including amicus curiae, as also the Muslim Personal Law Board had pleaded before the Supreme Court against the practice of instant triple talaq by speaking it instantly three times, on the ground that it deviated from the practice prescribed by Islamic Law and has no sanction, either in the Quran or in the Hadith- the two main sources of Islamic jurisprudence,? he said. ?The Supreme Court?s verdict is a culmination and acceptance of wider wisdom, as also the recognition of the rights of Muslim women. We welcome the same,? he added. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) also welcomed the ?historic? verdict on triple talaq and said, it?s not about anyone?s victory or loss, rather it is about a Muslim woman?s sense of equality in the country. ?I welcome the historic verdict on behalf of the party. This verdict is not about anyone’s victory or loss. This verdict is about a Muslim woman?s equality and democracy in the country,? BJP chief Amit Shah said here. ?The triple talaq is illegal in many other countries. The Supreme Court, with this verdict, has given the Muslim women in this country a way to live with a sense of equality and self respect,? he added. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Triple talaq banned: Muslim cleric Barkati praises ‘unique’ decision

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Following the Supreme Court?s decision to strike down the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional, Muslim cleric Moulana Ahmed Barkati called the judgement an ?unparalleled and unique? decision ?in light of the Indian Muslims? misuse of triple talaq?. He also reassured that the decision is neither a disappointment to the Muslim men and women, nor interference on the Shariat. Barkati denounced the instant nature of divorce as having no relation to the religion of Islam and educated Muslims, further explaining that the Prophet of Islam has pronounced triple talaq to be ?the most wrong thing which should only be used after a conscious thought by both parties.? ?There are only pros, and no cons to this decision, because the Muslims have made a mockery out of divorce and out of Islam as well- getting drunk and announcing divorce is not the right way. Divorce is a decision that should be taken after a conscious thought, and after a discussion between both husband and wife. In my visits to the Muslim countries of Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh, I have never seen this way of divorce,? he told ANI. The Muslim cleric who dubbed it a wrong practice, said he speaks from his 30-35 years of experience as a Shahi Amaam (Royal priest) and a scholar of Islam. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Social activists welcome SC’s verdict on triple talaq

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> After the 3:2 majority Supreme Court verdict invalidated the Islamic practice of triple talaq, women activists welcomed the judgement, saying this would definitely give good morale boost and legal support to the victims of this age-old tradition. Speaking to ANI here, Nirmala Samant said, “The best way to give justice to women was the Supreme Court’s priority, so this verdict needs to be welcomed. This will definitely give a good morale support and legal support to the women who were given triple talaq.” Resonating similar views, social activist Javed Anand termed the verdict as ‘fantastic’. Anand told ANI, “It is fantastic. It is what progressive Muslim women and men were hoping, fighting and campaigning for the last so many years.” Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC sets aside triple talaq, terms it void and unconstitutional

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court by a majority verdict today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims, saying the practice was void, illegal and unconstitutional. The apex court held that the triple talaq was against the basic tenets of Quran. “In view of the different opinions recorded by a majority of 3:2, the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ triple talaq is set aside,” a five-judge constitution bench said in a 395-page order. While Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were in favour of putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq and asking the government to come out with a law in this regard, Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman and U U Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution. The majority verdict said any practice including triple talaq which is against the tenets of Quran is unacceptable. The three judges also said the practice of divorce through triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the Constitution and must be struck down. The minority verdict by CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer, which favoured keeping on hold the practise of triple talaq for six months, asked the political parties to set aside their differences and help the Centre in coming out with a legislation. The judges in the minority verdict said that if the Centre does not bring a law within six months, then its injunction on triple talaq will continue. CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer in their minority verdict expressed hope that the Centre’s legislation will take into account the concerns of Muslim bodies and the Sharia law. The bench, made up of judges from different religious communities — Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim, had heard seven pleas, including five separate petitions filed by Muslim women challenging the prevalent practice of ‘triple talaq’ in the community. The petitioners had claimed that the practice of ‘triple talaq’ was unconstitutional. The Muslim women, who had filed the petitions, had challenged the practice of ‘triple talaq’ in which the husband pronounces ‘talaq’ thrice in one go, sometimes even by phone or a text message, to get divorce. During the hearing, the apex court had observed that the practice of ‘triple talaq’ was the “worst” and “not a desirable” form of dissolution of marriage among Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which called it “legal”. The Centre had earlier told the bench that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if ‘triple talaq’ is held invalid and unconstitutional by the apex court. The government had termed all the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community – talaq-e-biddat, talaq hasan and talaq ahsan, as “unilateral” and “extra-judicial”. It has said that all personal laws must be in confirmity with the Constitution and rights of marriage, divorce, property and succession has to be treated in the same class and has to be in conformity with the Constitution. The Centre had said ‘triple talaq’ is neither integral to Islam, nor a “majority versus minority” issue but rather an “intra-community tussle” between Muslim men and deprived women. The batch of pleas had also challenged the constitutional validity of other practices like ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy among Muslims. The bench had taken up the main matter on its own as a petition titled “Muslim women’s quest for equality”. The apex court had on its own taken cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Triple talaq verdict: This is what five Supreme Court judges said in their verdicts on ‘talaq-e-bidat’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court has termed triple talaq practice unconstitutional by a 3-2 majority verdict. Triple talaq is widely known as Instantaneous talaq — or talaq-e-bidat. The SC ruled that triple talaq was violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. While CJI JS Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer backed triple talaq, Justice Nariman and Justice Lalit ruled to set aside triple talaq terming it unconstitutional. Justice Joseph set it aside on the ground that it is against the teachings of Quran. CJI wanted Parliament to bring about a law to deal with triple talaq.According to reports, following reasoning was offered by the judges while giving the verdict on triple talaq.Chief Justice JS Khehar: Matters of personal law cannot be touched by a constitutional court law or constitutionality cannot be tested. CJI said Talaq-e-biddat is an integral part of Sunni community practiced since 1000 years.Justice Nariman: Triple talaq is a part of 1934 act should always be tested on constitutionality and said it’s unconstitutional.Justice Kurien said triple talaq is not an essential part of Islam and enjoys no protection of Article 25, set it aside. Justice Kurian added that triple talaq was against the tenets of Holy Quran and hence violates Shariat law.“Extremely difficult to agree with CJI that Triple Talaq is integral to the practise of Islam,” Justice Kurian said. The verdict has been delivered by a panel of five judges from different major faiths – Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism. The bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after hearing it for six days starting May 11 during the summer recess.

AIMPLB demands Muslim women’s security until law on triple talaq is made

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> With the Supreme Court asking the Union Government to formulate a new legislation in connection with the triple talaq practice, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Tuesday said that the Board supports the judgement, adding security should be provided to the Muslim women until a law is made. ?I am thankful to the Supreme Court for this judgement that a law is to be made immediately in this issue. I hope that the top court will monitor this issue and provide security to the Muslim women until a law is made. The victims should get relief from this malpractice,? AIMPLB member Shaista Amber told ANI. She further said that the apex court should advise the Parliament to make a law for the Muslim marriage like there is one for the Hindu marriages. ?A law regarding divorce should be implemented which is in light of the Quran. Also, a fine and a punishment for the culprits should also be decided upon so that the cases of ?talaq? are reduced,? Amber added. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court struck down the Triple Talaq practice as ‘unconstitutional’ by a 3:2 majority. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar, deciding on the verdict, was seemingly split on the legality of the practice. Justice Nariman, Justice Lalit and Justice Kurien opposed the view of Justice Nazir and Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and dubbed the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and unislamic. The Supreme Court has further asked the Union Government to formulate a new legislation within six months. The apex court reportedly referred to the abolition of triple talaq in the Islamic countries and asked “why can’t independent India get rid of it.” The decision came soon after the apex court resumed the hearing on the matter on Tuesday morning. CJI Khehar, while pronouncing the judgement, however, upheld the practice and said, “Talaq-e-biddat is not violative of articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.” The CJI, further using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislature regarding ‘talaq-e-iddat.’ CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing. During the hearing, the Centre had assured the apex court that it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq is upheld as invalid. Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that triple talaq violates Muslim women’s right to equality within the community, and also within the country Earlier in the hearing, the apex court refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time. The Centre, earlier on May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice. Various petitioners had knocked the doors of the apex court seeking to strike down triple talaq. On May 22, the All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court and said it would advise the Qazis to tell the brides and grooms to not resort to “triple talaq in one sitting.” The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) told the apex court that marriage in the Muslim community is a contract and in order to protect their interests, they can put special emphasis on certain clauses in ‘nikahnama’. The board further said that a Muslim woman had every right to pronounce triple talaq in all forms, and also ask for very high ‘mehr’ amount in case of talaq. The board’s reply came after CJI J.S. Khehar asked AIMPLB counsel Kapil Sibal if it was possible to give bride the right to not accept instant triple talaq.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC says triple talaq practice void and unconstitutional

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 today ruled that the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims is “void”, “illegal” and “unconstitutional”. The apex court held that the triple talaq is against the basic tenets of Quran. While Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were in favour of putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq, asking the government to come out with a law in this regard, Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman and U U Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution. The majority verdict said any practice including triple talaq which is against the tenets of Quran in unacceptable. The three judges also said the practice of divorce through triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the Constitution and must be struck down. The minority verdict by CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer, which favoured to keep on hold the practise of triple talaq for six months, asked the political parties to set aside their differences and help the Centre in coming out with a legislation. The judges in the minority verdict said that if the Centre does not bring a law within six months, then its injunction on triple talaq will continue. CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer in their minority verdict expressed hope that the Centre’s legislation will take into account concerns of Muslim bodies and the Sharia law.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC notice to Centre on Constitutional recognition for differently-abled

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea seeking a “purposive interpretation” of the Constitution to recognise the fundamental rights of differently-abled persons prohibiting discrimination.In his petition, wheel-chair bound Nipun Malhotra also urged the Centre to strike down the Goods and Services Tax (GST) imposed on essential equipment meant for differently-abled persons.A bench, constituting of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud, issued notice to the Finance Ministry on the PIL which alleged that imposition of GST on mobility aids like wheelchairs, tricycles, crutches and Braille paper and watches for differently-abled people was violation of their fundamental rights.Initially, the court was reluctant to admit the plea by saying that similar petitions — pertaining to the imposition of GST, were already being heard in court. However, advocate Jai Dehadrai, representing Malhotra alleged that imposing a tax on wheelchairs was akin to imposing a financial penalty on differently-abled for walking. Dehadrai added that taxing Braille-material and writing paper was akin to imposing a state-sponsored financial burden on reading.”It is shocking to note that taxes have been introduced and sustained on the most basic mobility aids used by those citizens who would otherwise not be able to carry out daily activities, such as walking and reading, which are taken for granted, and are tax-free by those who are able-bodied,” the petition read.

Levy of GST on equipments for disabled;SC seeks Centre’s reply

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking to strike down the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on essential equipments meant for differently-abled persons. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Ministry of Finance on the PIL which alleged that imposition of GST on mobility aids like wheelchairs, tricycles, crutches and Braille paper and watches for differently-abled people, was in violation of their fundamental rights. The court, which was initially reluctant to admit the plea, later issued notice on the petition of wheel-chair bound Nipun Malhotra challenging the levy of GST on equipments meant for differently-abled persons. The plea, filed through lawyer Jai A Dehadrai, alleged that while imposition of a tax on wheelchairs was akin to imposing a financial penalty on differently-abled for walking, putting any tax on Braille-material and writing paper was akin to imposing a state-sponsored financial burden on reading. It also sought a “purposive interpretation” of Article 15 of the Constitution to recognise the fundamental rights of differently-abled persons with regard to prohibition of discrimination. It said that a representation was earlier sent to the Ministry of Finance seeking withdrawal of all GST-related levies on equipments used by the disabled who are already burdened with physical limitations. “It is shocking to note that taxes have been introduced and sustained on the most basic mobility aids used by those citizens who would otherwise not be able to carry out daily activities, such as walking and reading, which are taken for granted, and are tax-free by those who are able-bodied. “This list includes a cascading tax scheme on items such as wheelchairs, wheelchair enabled cars, braille paper, braille typewriters and braille watches, crutches/walkers, instruments and implants for severely handicapped patients and joint replacement and spinal instrument and implants including bone cement,” the petition said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to tomorrow pronounce judgement on ‘triple talaq’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court would tomorrow pronounce a historic judgement on the controversial issue of whether the practice of ‘triple talaq’ among Muslims is fundamental to the religion. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing during the summer vacation. During the hearing, the apex court had clarified that it may not deliberate upon the issue of polygamy and said it would only examine whether triple talaq was part of an “enforceable” fundamental right to practice religion by the Muslims. Besides CJI Khehar, the bench also included Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and S Abdul Nazeer. The bench, made up of judges from different religious communities — Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim, had heard seven pleas, including five separate petitions filed by Muslim women challenging the prevalent practice of ‘triple talaq’ in the community. The petitioners had claimed that the practice of ‘triple talaq’ was unconstitutional. The Muslim women, who had filed the petitions, have challenged the practice of ‘triple talaq’ in which the husband pronounces ‘talaq’ thrice in one go, sometimes even by phone or a text message, to get a divorce. During the hearing, the apex court had observed that the practice of ‘triple talaq’ was the “worst” and “not a desirable” form of dissolution of marriage among Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which called it “legal”. Several lawyers including noted jurist Ram Jethmalani had attacked the practice on various constitutional grounds including the right to equality and termed it “abhorrent”. It was argued that triple talaq was a discrimination on the ground of sex and this practice was abhorrent to the tenets of holy Quran and no amount of advocacy can save this “sinful” practice which is contrary to constitutional tenets. The Centre had told the bench that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if ‘triple talaq’ is held invalid and unconstitutional by the apex court. The government had termed all the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community – talaq-e-biddat, talaq hasan and talaq ahsan, as “unilateral” and “extra-judicial”. It has said that all personal laws must be in confirmity with the Constitution and rights of marriage, divorce, property and succession has to be treated in the same class and has to be in conformity with the Constitution. The Centre had said ‘triple talaq’ is neither integral to Islam, nor a “majority versus minority” issue but rather an “intra-community tussle” between Muslim men and deprived women. The apex court had said it was keeping open for adjudication in the future the issues of polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ among Muslims as the Centre had insisted deliberations on these aspects as well. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), had equated the issue of ‘triple talaq’ with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya and these were matters of faith which cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality. He had argued that triple talaq has been there since 637 AD and cannot be termed as un-Islamic as Muslims have been practising it for last 1,400 years. Sibal had said that either Parliament can enact a law or it should be left to the community itself to deal and the court should not interfere on the issue. The apex court during the hearing had asked the AIMPLB whether a woman can be given an option of saying ‘no’ to triple talaq at the time of execution of ‘nikahnama’ (marriage contract). It had asked Muslim bodies how a practice like triple talaq could be a matter of “faith” when they have been asserting that it is “patriarchal”, “bad in theology” and “sinful”. The batch of pleas had also challenged the constitutional validity of other practices like ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy among Muslims. The bench had taken up the main matter on its own as a petition titled “Muslim Women’s quest for equality”. The apex court had on its own taken cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC to hear Hurriyat leader Abdul Gani Bhat’s plea

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court will on Monday hear a plea filed by Hurriyat leader Abdul Gani Bhat raising several issues including that he was not being heard by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the matters affecting him and his family. Earlier in January, apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y.Chandrachud asked him to refrain from making any political statements. As Bhat tried to refer to the recent incidents wherein normal life was hampered in Kashmir, and tried to eulogise some extremists, the bench said that he was in a court and there was no place for politics in it. Telling Bhat that they would go through his pleas, the bench asked him to come prepared to address the court and not to digress from his issue raised by him.(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.)

SC restrains lawyer from practising for a month

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today restrained a lawyer from practising as an Advocate On Record (AOR) for a month. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar passed the verdict against the lawyer for allegedly casting aspersions on the apex court Registry in listing of a case. “We are not inclined to proceed with contempt notice but the contemnor is not allowed to practise for a month as an AOR,” the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, said. The lawyer had made the allegations against the apex court Registry in listing of a case. Advocate Mohit Chaudhary on April 7 had mentioned the matter before a bench headed by the CJI and alleged that it was directed to be listed on that day itself but in a “manipulated way”, it was listed before a special bench. The lawyer had on April 7 told the bench that the matter was to be listed before a regular bench but the registry had listed it before a special bench for which there was no need. Chaudhary was appearing for a firm in a slum redevelopment case and his matter was listed on April 7 before a special bench of Justices Arun Mishra and S Abdul Nazeer. The matter was listed on April 6 for regular hearing but later put in the supplementary list before the special bench headed by Justice Mishra as there was judicial order of March 31 to list the matter before the bench which had heard it.(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.

‘Citizens of all religions, ethnicity proud Indians’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar, at an Independence Day function at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, asserted that every citizen of India is equal and whatever be the religion or ethnicity, should be proud of being an Indian.”Whether it is Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims or Jains, everybody should be proud of his own religion to be an Indian. Everybody should be proud of his own ethnicity. Proud of being an Indian and that is what the Constitution is all about,” he said.The event became a nostalgic affair for CJI Khehar, as he reminisced about how his great grandfather was forced to shift to Kenya to avoid being arrested in Lahore for his suspected role in fomenting a student uprising against the British rule. “The CJI was not a citizen of this country to start with. But when he became the citizen of this country, he was equal to everybody else and had equal opportunities. This is what citizenship or Independence of this great country means,” he said.The CJI’s statement assumes significance coming as it is within days of previous Vice President Hamid Ansari’s assertion that Muslims were feeling insecure in the country.”You might be thinking how I reached Kenya and became a Kenyan national? My great grandfather was Dr Wazir Chand, a medical doctor in Lahore. In his spare time, he was honorary doctor of student boarders in the DAV institutions in Lahore. He was suspected of involvement in the freedom movement, for motivating college students to join the uprising against the British. To avoid his arrest and from being incarcerated in the Andamans, he fled to Kenya,” CJI Khehar recalled.However, while the CJI’s great grandfather escaped to Kenya, his grandmother, Sulakshna, was brought up in Jalandhar under the care of freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai. The family remained in Kenya, but after Independence Dr Wazir Chand returned to India. While still in school, CJI Khehar gave up his Kenyan nationality, deciding to acquire Indian nationality.”After being a citizen, you are neither inferior nor superior to anyone. You are no less or more than anyone else,” CJI Khehar said. He pointed out that the country has a Dalit leader who spent his childhood in a mud hut, a Vice-President who is an agriculturist, and a Prime Minister who was once a tea vendor.In his address, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, who was also present, suggested that the country’s greatest achievement was its secular fabric. “I hold a very firm view that India is not secular because the Constitution says so. The word ‘secularism’ was added to the Preamble only during Emergency. India is secular because India’s heritage is secular. That flows from the great Rig Veda. Truth is one, wise men interpret it in different manners,” he said.

Be honest, CJI tells NLU law graduates

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Chief Justice of India JS Khehar, who demits office on August 27, told law students graduating from the National Law University (NLU), Delhi to be honest at the job and lead by example, as “they would have the power of shaping the legal course of the country in the future”.Addressing students at the fifth convocation at the varsity’s Delhi campus on Saturday, Khehar said, “Getting a degree is only a step forward in your life. It is an acknowledgment that you are capable of the tasks that an LLB or an LLM or a doctorate degree holder is required to perform. This is a big responsibility that you owe to not only yourself and your parents, but also to the institution that has conferred the degree upon you.”According to the institute, 123 students have graduated from the LLB and LLM courses and two have completed their PhD.”In some measure the future of the rule of law rests with you for shaping a constitutionally abiding India. From tomorrow you will bear part of the larger responsibility where your performance will emerge from the intellect and wisdom that you have acquired,” the 44th CJI added.Citing a story of Michelangelo to inspire students to stretch the limits of their mind, he said the 16th century Italian artist painted the famous ceiling of Sistine Chapel in Rome despite being a sculptor, exhorting students to apply the knowledge they had attained.”As a member of legal fraternity, I can assure you that judges always encourage young, deserving lawyers at the bar to carry the torch of great advocates who are responsible for assisting courts to lay down many of the precedents that we set today. In future, you may also find yourself deciding on important social and political matters,” he told the outgoing batch.The National Law University was established in Delhi in 2008 and offers LLB, LLM and PhD programmes in criminal, corporate and consumer law among others.

SC indicates Right to Privacy verdict in next one week

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today indicated it may deliver its verdict on whether right to privacy constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution next week. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said by next week the judgement on the status of Right to Privacy could be pronounced. The court’s remark came on a plea by senior advocate Salman Khurshid who sought urgent listing of his petition challenging passing of the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. “There are some Aadhaar matters in which notices have been issued while in some notices have not been issued till now,” Khurshid said. To this, the court said, all Aadhaar matters will be taken up once the verdict on Right to Privacy is delievered. “We can’t fix the date for your bill. You wait for one week by which time Right to Privacy verdict may come, then we will give the date for listing of your plea,” the court said. A nine-judge Constitution bench had reserved its verdict on the issue on August 2 after voicing concern over possible misuse of personal information in public domain. It had observed that protection of the concept of privacy in the technological era was a “losing battle”. The Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, had heard marathon arguments on six days over three weeks. A battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General K K Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subaramaniam, Shayam Divan, Anand Grover, C A Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, had advanced arguments in favour and against the inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right. The bench, which had favoured “overarching” guidelines to protect private information in public domain, said there was a need to “maintain the core of privacy” as the notion of privacy was fast becoming irrelevant in an all-pervading technological era. It had said, “We are fighting a losing battle of privacy. We do not know for what purpose the information will be used. This is exactly a cause of concern.”(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC seeks assistance on audio recording of court proceedings

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today sought a senior law officer’s assistance in deciding whether the CCTV cameras installed in court rooms should be allowed to record the audio of the proceedings. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar told Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh that he has been appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist it in the matter. The apex court had on March 28 directed installation of CCTV cameras, without audio, in at least two districts in every state and Union Territory. It had made it clear that the CCTV footages would not be available under the the Right to Information Act and would not be given to anyone without the permission of the high court concerned. The bench said it would hear a petition filed in this regard on August 14. The apex court had earlier directed that CCTV cameras be installed in the court rooms within three months. The Centre had told the court that audio-video recordings could contribute to transparency in judicial proceedings.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Supreme Court declines extension in NBA case

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Families displaced due to the Sardar Sarovar dam got no relief from the Supreme Court as it declined to extend the July 31 deadline to rehablitate the families.The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) had approached the apex court claiming that the court-directed rehabilitation by the states was not complete. The NBA which has been fighting for the cause since over three-decades, say that over 40,000 families will be affected as the backwaters of the dam rises, threatening it with submergence. The lowering of the gates and impounding of water up to the full reservoir level is also going to submerge 192 villages across three districts in Madhya Pradesh, affecting nearly 2.5 lakh people who have been declared as project affected.The NBA also said that activist Medha Patkar, who was on an indefinite fast since the past 12 days, was forcibly removed by the Madhya Pradesh(MP) police from the site at Chikaldha, Dhar district in MP.An apex court bench led by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar ordered a compensation of Rs 60 lakh to each family under the special compensation package. Those under the same package owning two hectares of land are to be paid Rs. 45 lakhs. Whereas at least 1385 families would be paid Rs. 50 lakh each.

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.

Decide on payment of salary in pvt engg colleges: SC to AICTE

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today directed the technical education regulator AICTE to decide the issue of regularising and ensuring timely payment of salaries to staffers in all private engineering colleges in the country. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud disposed of the petition that had raised the issue of non-payment of salaries to the staff in these colleges and asked the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to treat it as a representation. “Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that at the present juncture, it will suffice if a direction is issued to the petitioner to submit a paper book of the writ petition to the secretary of the AICTE. “The AICTE shall treat the same as a representation, and shall take a conscious decision in respect of issues canvassed and take such remedial action, as may be called for, in consonance with the law,” the bench said. The petition, filed by one K M Karthik, had sought a direction to the government to regularise and ensure timely and complete payment of the staff salaries in all the private engineering colleges in the country through the electronic clearing service of the nationalised banks. It had also sought that inspection be carried out in such colleges “to verify the recommended student-staff ratio, which shall be verified by the annual salary paid statements to the staff and not only by identification parades”. The petition had said that no college should withhold or collect any of the original educational or professional certificates of any staff member and that penalty be imposed on the authorities for doing so. A welfare board or a commission for the welfare and grievance redressal of the staff in these colleges should be established, it had said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

International Council of Jurists seeks in-house probe against SC judge

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Even as Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar has recommended the name of senior-most Supreme Court judge Justice Dipak Mishra as his successor, the International Council of Jurists (ICJ) has sought an in-house probe against Justice Mishra for alleged irregularities.Since the CJI has already recommended Justice Mishra’s name as his successor despite the charges against him, ICJ plans to approach the President and the Prime Minister seeking their intervention.Lok Sabha MP Harinder Singh Khalsa has also written a letter to the Prime Minister’s Office expressing his concern over the CJI’s recommendation of Justice Misra.”I feel very strongly about what is going on at the moment. Allegations of impropriety and the incident with Justice CS Karnan prompted me to write to the Prime Minister,” Khalsa told DNA.In his letter, Khalsa referred to late Arunachal Chief Minister Kalikho Pul’s suicide letter which accused several judges of the higher judiciary of corruption. Khalsa wrote: “The people of this country who certainly expect the next CJI to be not merely a Caeser’s wife above suspicion but a judicial statesman, a tall figure whose integrity and probity is beyond doubt.”As first reported by DNA, an in-house probe headed by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice SJ Vazifdar and two other Hgh Court judges against two Orissa High Court judges was abruptly stopped when the name of a sitting Supreme Court Justice cropped up. The committee wrote to CJI Khehar and stated that it could not conduct any enquiry against a sitting Supreme Court judge.The ICJ wrote a letter to CJI Khehar on July 24 and sought an internal probe against Justice Misra since its own enquiries had “revealed that the Supreme Court judge in question is Justice Dipak Misra, who is the senior-most after the CJI.””We seek your indulgence to immediately appoint an in-house committee consisting of Judges of Supreme Court of India to look into the allegations against Mr Justice Dipak Misra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, to ensure transparency in the functioning and independence of Indian judiciary,” the letter sent by ICJ president Adish Aggarwala reads.The ICJ letter also refers to a September 2016 complaint filed by one Jayanta Kumar Das, alleging that Justice Misra was involved in the illegal transfer of large tracts of government land in Bidanasi and other areas of Cuttack when he was a lawyer. According to ICJ Aggarwala, Justice Misra was allotted land in 1979 when he was an advocate there and there is a court order with adverse remarks in the matter pertaining to the land.”Your Lordship, since institutional integrity is involved in the whole episode and that the allegations are against a sitting apex court judge, who may be considered for appointment as next Chief Justice of India, it is incumbent on you to clear the doubts in the minds of the public and lawyers about your successor,” the letter says.It also points out that when allegations of impropriety were made against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, “allegations, which were much less serious than those against Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra, the then CJI immediately constituted an in-house committee to look into the allegations against him”.”Once the veracity of allegations against him (as an advocate) was established, the then CJI recommended his impeachment. Unless a similar procedure of enquiry is followed in case of Mr Justice Dipak Misra, the high name of Indian judiciary may be smirked,” it says.

Bengaluru blasts accused seeks SC’s nod to attend son’s

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today agreed to hear on July 31 a plea by Kerala’s PDP leader Abdul Nazir Maudany, facing trial in the 2008 Bengaluru serial blasts case, for visiting his home state to attend his son’s wedding. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar directed that the matter be listed after advocate Haris Beeran sought an urgent hearing of the plea. Maudany (51) has challenged the trial court’s order of July 24 declining him permission to attend his son’s wedding functions between August 8 and August 20. The trial court had, however, allowed him to visit his ailing mother from August one to August seven, but had declined him the permission to attend his son’s wedding scheduled to be held on August nine. In his plea, Maudany said that he was granted bail in July 2014 with condition that he would not leave Bengaluru without permission.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Prez Kovind hails India’s diversity, stresses importance of giving access and opportunities to all

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Ram Nath Kovind, a lawyer-turned- politician, today took over as India’s 14th president in a grand ceremony, and emphasised that diversity is the key to India’s success.”Our diversity is the core that makes us so unique.In this land we find a mix of states and regions, religions, languages, cultures, lifestyles and much more. We are so different and yet so similar and united,” he said in his acceptance speech after taking oath of office in the Central Hall of Parliament.The 71-year-old, who took over the highest Constitutional post in the country from Pranab Mukherjee, is the first BJP leader and the second Dalit in the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
ALSO READ Expected him to rise above partisan considerations: Cong slams Prez Kovind for not mentioning Nehru in speechStressing on access and opportunities for the “last person and the last girl-child from an under-privileged family”, he said, “We have achieved a lot as a nation, but the effort to do more, to do better and to do faster should be relentless. This is especially so as we approach the 75th Year of our independence in 2022.”The former Bihar governor, described variously as low profile and unassuming, said the country needs to sculpt a robust, high growth economy, an educated, ethical and shared community, and an egalitarian society, as envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi and BJP ideologue Deen Dayal Upadhyay.
ALSO READ From a mud house to Rashtrapati Bhavan: The meteoric rise of President KovindThe change of guard had begun early in the morning with a gentle knock on the door of Kovind’s Akbar Road residence. It was Military Secretary to the President, Major General Anil Khosla.Khosla, who had come with a motorcade, invited Kovind and his wife Savita to the Rashtrapati Bhavan, where Mukherjee received them in the study.
ALSO READ From Mamata-Modi bonhomie to chants of Bharat Mata Ki Jai: Highlights of President Kovind’s swearing-in ceremonyA few hours later, the roles had reversed and President Kovind escorted Mukherjee out of the Rashtrapati Bhavan.Earlier, the then president-elect and the outgoing president had gone to the grand Rashtrapati Bhavan forecourt where they were escorted to the saluting dais.Mukherjee took the last salute of the President’s Bodyguard (PBG) with Kovind standing to his left.The two leaders drove down Raisina Hill to the Central Hall of Parliament in the black presidential limousine with Mukherjee in the right and Kovind on the left.Escorting them was a grand equestrian procession by the PBG, dressed in white ceremonial uniforms and blue turbans with gold ornamental work.The road from Rashtrapati Bhavan to Parliament was lined with 1,000 jawans from all three services of the armed forces offering the traditional ‘hazaar salaam’ to the president — the supreme commander of the defence forces.The procession reached gate number five of Parliament where Vice President Hamid Ansari, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan and Chief Justice of India J S Khehar received President Mukherjee and President-elect Kovind who were then taken to the Central Hall.The oath ceremony started with Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi reading out the Election Commission notification on the presidential polls declaring Kovind winner.After Justice Khehar administered the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution and law”, Kovind exchanged seats with Mukherjee.Addressing the gathering, Kovind referred to his humble background and said he grew up in a mud house in a small village. His journey to the presidency had been a long one.”It is so telling of our nation and our society also. For all its problems, it follows that basic mantra given to us in the Preamble to the Constitution – of ensuring Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity – and I will always continue to follow this basic mantra,” he said.Remembering his predecessors, including Rajendra Prasad, S Radhakrishnan, A P J Abdul Kalam and Pranab Mukherjee, Kovind said the country’s Independence was the result of efforts by thousands of patriotic freedom fighters led by Mahatma Gandhi.”These leaders did not believe that simply political freedom was enough. For them, it was crucial to also achieve economic and social freedom for millions of our people,” he said.After the ceremony, Kovind met leaders across the political spectrum who had gathered in Central Hall.He then left for the Rashtrapati Bhavan in the presidential limousine — this time with Mukherjee in the left and India’s new president on the right.The skies opened up as the procession made its way from Parliament to the presidential palace. The black tarmac of Rajpath seemed washed clean as the PBG marched with military precision in the pouring rain.Kovind and Mukherjee reached the Rashtrapati Bhavan where the new president formally took charge.Kovind then came out into the forecourt in the presidential buggy, a black carriage with national emblem–the Ashoka insignia–embossed in gold and drawn by six horses.It was Mukherjee who had revived the tradition of the buggy ride.Kovind inspected the Guard of Honour and returned back inside.He came back outside to the forecourt, escorting Mukherjee who was given a last Guard of Honour.Kovind then accompanied Mukherjee in the presidential limousine to see him off to his new residence at 10, Rajaji Marg, once occupied by the late Kalam.

SC rejects PIL alleging presence of repealed section in IT law

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today refused to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to notify that one of the provisions of the Information Technology Act has been struck down and it should not find a place in the statute book. Section 66-A of IT Act, struck down by the apex court on March 24, 2015 as being unconstitutional, still finds a mention in the law books and strangely, some courts are still entertaining cases under the provision, the plea alleged. The provision had provided power to arrest a person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud dismissed the petition which claimed that people are still being convicted under the repealed provision. “The Union of India has not cared to repeal Section 66-A of the IT Act, 2000 from the law book/Act. This resulted that the law publishers across the country are publishing latest editions of the IT Act containing Section 6-A. “Since the Act contains annulled Section 66-A of the IT Act, the judges across the country are convicting the accused persons for the offence under section 66-A although the Supreme Court has way back in the year 2015 had struck down the same,” the petition filed by Hyderabad resident Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi said. The plea also claimed that certain magistrates in the country are ‘oblivious’ of the striking down of section 66-A. “It is unfortunate that our judges are not aware of the latest position of the law laid down by this court and therefore, they are actually doing injustice while doing justice to the common people of India, the plea said.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC refuses plea to probe mass murder of Kashmiri Pandits

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking probe and prosecution of various persons, including separatist leader Yasin Malik, for offences including murder of over 700 Kashmiri Pandits during the height of militancy in the Valley in 1989-90.A bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said that almost 27 years have passed and it will be very difficult to gather evidences in cases of murder, arson and looting which had led to mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley.”You (petitioner) sat over it for last 27 years. Now tell us from where the evidence will come,” the bench said.Advocate Vikas Padora, appearing for an organisation ‘Roots of Kashmir’, said Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave their abodes in the Valley and could not join the investigation and further submitted that the delay was there but neither the Centre nor the state government nor the judiciary took adequate note of it to do the needful.The organisation has alleged that 215 FIRs had been lodged relating to the murder of over 700 Kashmiri Pandits and none of the cases have reached a logical conclusion.Kashmiri Pandits were forced to flee the Valley in the early 1990s amid rising threats and attacks during the peak of militancy.

Will decide on early hearing in Babri Masjid dispute case: SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today said it will take a decision to list for early hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid land dispute case. “We will take a decision on it,” a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy mentioned the matter for urgent listing and hearing. Swamy said that the main appeals against the Allahabad High Court order are pending for the last seven years in the apex court and they required urgent hearing. He also said that a separate petition had earlier been filed by him seeking enforcement of his right to worship without much hassle at the site. He also said that he has been allowed by the apex court to intervene in the matter and is seeking expeditious disposal of the cases. The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court had in 2010 ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres area at the disputed site in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. The three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties, the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and ‘Ram Lalla’.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Supreme Court decides to list Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid matter as soon as possible

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Friday said it will take a decision to list for early hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid land dispute case.”We will take a decision on it,” a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy mentioned the matter for urgent listing and hearing.Swamy said that the main appeals against the Allahabad High Court order are pending for the last seven years in the apex court and they required urgent hearing.He also said that a separate petition had earlier been filed by him seeking enforcement of his right to worship without much hassle at the site.He also said that he has been allowed by the apex court to intervene in the matter and is seeking expeditious disposal of the cases.The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court had in 2010 ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres area at the disputed site in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.The three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties, the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and ‘Ram Lalla’.

Celebrations start in Kovind’s village ahead of Presidential polls result

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Celebrations in National Democratic Alliance (NDA) nominee Ram Nath Kovind?s village Paraunkh have already started even as the counting for the Presidential polls is underway. People are dancing, singing and are preparing sweets to mark the day, referring the day as the proud moment for their region. ?We are confident that he will become the next President of India. There is no doubt about it. We are very happy about it and the entire village is celebrating at this moment. There is no word to express how happy we are feeling right now,? Anil Kumar, one of the relatives of Kovind, said. The villagers are even performing ‘Havan’ and holding prayers for Kovind at various places. ?We are performing ‘Havan’s for the victory of Ram Nath Kovind. He is going to win. We have no doubts about it,? Raj Singh. As per the locals, Kovind has always been a down-to-earth person and has been visiting his village on regular intervals. As per the locals, he is very close to the villagers and shares a great bond. Meanwhile, the result of the Presidential polls will be declared later in the evening today. The next President of India will be sworn-in by the Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar in the Central Hall of the Parliament. The President Pranab Mukheerjee will demit office on July 25.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Shiv Sena bats for ordinance, terms court’s verdict in Ram Temple matter ‘irrelevant’

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Shiv Sena on Wednesday asserted that for them, the court?s say in the Ram temple case does not matter. Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut urged that an ordinance in this regard should be passed and the Ram temple should be built without any delay. ?We should stop talking repeatedly about Ram temple. Let me tell you that the change of government in the state and in the Centre has taken place so that the Ram temple can be constructed. An ordinance in the regard should be brought in,? said Raut. ?Now the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister share the same thought like us. So now, there should be no delay in the regard. We will not go by what the court says in this matter. We did not protest and made sacrifices after taking court?s permission,? he added. The court has said that the Ayodhya dispute is a sensitive and sentimental issue, which needs to be settled amicably and through consensus. The court suggested that if required, a principal mediator can be chosen by the court to settle the issue. Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar said, if the parties want him to mediate, then he is ready for the task.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Five judge Constitution bench to hear Aadhaar pleas on July 18-19: SC

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that its five-judge Constitution Bench will sit on July 18 and 19 to hear matters relating to Aadhaar, including the aspect of right to privacy.The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud which said that its five-judge Constitution Bench will hear Aadhaar-related matters.Attorney General K K Venugopal and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioners who have challenged government’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for various public welfare schemes, jointly mentioned the matter before the bench and requested that there should be an early hearing by the Constitution Bench in the matter.When Justice Khehar asked Venugopal and Divan as to whether the matter was to be heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, both the parties said that it has to be heard by a five-judge bench.The Attorney General and Divan mentioned the matter before the CJI as a three-judge bench had on July 7 said that all issues arising out of Aadhaar should finally be decided by a larger bench and the CJI would take a call on the need for setting up a Constitution Bench.

SC to consider const bench to hear Delhi govt’s pleas on power

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today agreed to consider setting up a five-judge constitution bench to urgently hear the AAP government’s appeals against the high court order holding the Lieutenant Governor as the administrative head of Delhi. The Arvind Kejriwal-led government has been seeking early adjudication of its appeals against the Delhi High Court verdict, after a two-judge bench of the apex court on February 15 referred them to Chief Justice J S Khehar for setting up of the larger bench. “We will post it and consider setting up the bench,” a bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice D Y Chandrachud said, when senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing the Delhi government, mentioned the matters for early adjudication. Subramanium said a two-judge bench had earlier referred the appeals to a constitution bench which is to be set up. The bench, which assured Subramanium that it would consider setting up the bench, also said, “…this is a very difficult and complicated problem. However, we will do it”. The Delhi government had on February 23 and April 17 approached the apex court for setting up of the constitution bench and once, the CJI had said it might be set up “possibly” after the summer vacation. On February 15, a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal had referred a batch of pleas filed by the AAP government against the high court verdict, which had held that Delhi is not a state and that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is its administrative head, to a Constitution Bench. The bench had said that important questions of law and the Constitution are involved in the matter and it should be adjudicated upon by a Constitution Bench. However, it did not frame questions to be deliberated upon by the Constitution Bench, to be set up by Chief Justice J S Khehar, in the matter and had asked the Centre and the Delhi government to argue their case before the larger bench. The Delhi 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 it was 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 city government had told the bench that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), except for public order, land and police, possesses exclusive powers in relation to all other entries in state and concurrent lists and neither the central government nor the President or the LG has any role or power with regard to all other matters. “We are seeking only the special status as contemplated under Article 239AA of the Constitution. It is a narrow issue but requires interpretation. We need to see what are the limitation and amplitude of the LG’s power under the Article 239AA,” it had said. 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 government, through its counsel Gopal Subramanium, had said that the LG cannot exercise its power with respect to services as it does not fall under the purview of the Centre under the state list. The AAP government had said that since the law rules out the LG’s discretion on all matters that fall within the purview of the elected government, there is no occasion for him to differ or have an opinion on these matters. The apex court had on December 14 observed that the Delhi government should have some powers otherwise it cannot function while hearing the appeals of the city government. On September 9, the apex court had refused to grant an interim stay on the verdict of the Delhi High Court of August 4 last year.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC imposes Rs 1 lakh fine on lawyer for filing frivolous PIL

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A lawyer today incurred the wrath of the Supreme Court which slapped a hefty fine of Rs one lakh on him for filing a “frivolous” petition and wasting judicial time. “You have filed a PIL having 160 pages. I read it once and could not understand, and then I read again. What is your problem? We want to know what you are asking for,” a bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said. Advocate Raj Balam Sharma, who had filed the PIL in his personal capacity, said he wanted all colonial laws to go and the process of abolishing them be monitored by the apex court. “Which colonial law is creating the problem,” the bench, which also had Justice D Y Chandrachud, asked. All laws are colonial laws, the lawyer responded. “We have found nothing in the petition. You are wasting your own time and you cannot waste the court’s time. We will impose heavy cost on you… Tell us how much cost we should impose for this frivolous petition,” the bench said. The apex court, which has been harsh on litigants for filing frivolous pleas, then imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on the lawyer and asked him to deposit the money with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) within four weeks. It said that SCBA would use the fine amount in upgrading its library. While dismissing the PIL, the bench ordered its Registry to re-list the plea before it after four weeks if the lawyer failed to deposit the fine.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC dismisses PIL seeking ban on burning of ‘Ravana’ effigies

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking a ban on burning of effigies of Ravana on Dussehra across the country, saying that the Constitution provides for freedom to practice religion to all citizens. “Have you read Article 25 of the Constitution? It says that everyone has the right to practice his/her religion,” a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud told the petitioner while dismissing his plea. The PIL, filed by Haryana-based journalist Anand Prakash Sharma, had sought banning of the practice of burning Ravana on Dussehra, saying “this practice is not supported by any basis mentioned either in Valmiki’s Ramayana or Tulsi’s Ramayana.” It also said that it hurt not only the sentiments of some sects of Hindus, but was also hazardous for the environment. “More importantly, this illegal practice is a waste of money and hazardous to the environment and health of public,” it said while seeking direction to the Centre and states to ban the “improper” practice.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

SC grants 6 months to U’khand for appointing Lokayukta

<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today asked the newly-elected Uttarakhand government to make requisite changes in the Lokayukta law and appoint an ombudsman within six months. A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud considered the submission of the state government that a select committee would consider the requisite changes in the law, which may be cleared by the assembly at its next session. The state government said the Lokayukta would be appointed soon after the law is passed in the assembly. “Six months granted for doing the needful,” the bench said asking the state government to fill the post which has been lying vacant since 2013. The court was hearing a PIL filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay which said the Uttarakhand Lokayukta Act, 2011 was one of the “best and effective” measures and was “unanimously passed” by the Assembly in 2011. “This writ petition is being filed…for the implementation of the Uttarakhand Lokayukta Act, 2011. Uttarakhand is without a Lokayukta since September 2013, while more than 700 complaints related to corruption are pending,” it said. The apex court had on August 12 last year sought a response from the state government on the PIL seeking a direction to it to appoint the Lokayukta. The Uttarakhand law brings “the chief minister, all ministers, all legislators and all government servants under the ambit of the Lokayukta with a provision of punishment up to life imprisonment and forfeiture of property”, the plea said. Former chief ministers, ministers, MLAs and retired officials also come under its purview, it added.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

© 2020 Yuva Sai Sagar. Theme by Anders Norén.