Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has denied before the Delhi High Court that he filed a false affidavit claiming he had not instructed his counsel to use derogatory words against Union Minister Arun Jaitley.Kejriwal’s response came in pursuance to the August 23 notice issued to him by Justice Manmohan on Jaitley’s plea seeking action against the chief minister for making a false statement during his cross-examination in a defamation suit against him and five other AAP leaders. Jaitley, who has filed a Rs 10 crore defamation suit against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders, had moved a fresh application alleging that the chief minister had falsely denied that he had instructed his then senior lawyer to make derogatory comments. This was opposed by his former counsel Ram Jethmalani two days later. The high court listed the matter for hearing on April 26.In his response filed through advocate Anupam Shrivastav, Kejriwal has denied that he has committed any perjury or made any false statement supported by an affidavit under oath. “It is denied that the Senior Advocate representing the Defendant 1 (Kejriwal) on instructions had used abusive, offensive and per se defamatory words against the applicant/ plaintiff (Jaitley). “On the contrary the Defendant No.1 had at no time instructed his counsels to use abusive, offensive or defamatory language against the applicant,” he said.Also readArvind Kejriwal’s denial of instruction to Jethmalani ‘belated’ and ‘afterthought’: Arun JaitleyThe chief minister also submitted that the Bar Council Rules and the Advocates Act 1961 prohibits a senior advocate from taking instructions in any case directly from a client. “Therefore no utterances of a senior advocate can be attributed to the instructions of the client unless they are received through the Advocate on Record (Instructing Counsel),” he said. Kejriwal said the union minister’s application was “completely baseless” and was filed with the sole motive of “attempting to overawe the judicial process” sought its dismissal with costs.”It is denied that untrue averments have been made in the pleadings which would amount to committing perjury,” he said. The high court had on August 23 sought Kejriwal’s response on the plea seeking that a criminal complaint be lodged against him for allegedly filing a false affidavit that he did not instruct his counsel to use derogatory words against Jaitley. During the cross examination on May 17, Kejriwal’s then counsel Jethmalani had used offensive words against Jaitley.Jethmalani had categorically stated in court that he had received specific instruction from Kejriwal to use derogatory words against Jaitley. The application had stated that in an interview to the media on July 26, Jethmalani reiterated his earlier statement that he had instructions from Kejriwal to use the words. In his application, Jaitley had said that on July 28, Jethmalani had written a letter to Kejriwal. He copied it to the union minister stating he had not received a reply from the chief minister on his July 20 letter.According to the application, in the July 20 letter to Kejriwal, Jethmalani had said “ask your (Kejriwal) conscience how many times you used the word…” Seeking strict action against Kejriwal for allegedly stating false facts, Jaitley’s counsel had said, “a blatant, false and dishonest statement under oath by such a high functionary must attract severe and stringent punishment.” “Committing perjury before this court by making false averments in pleadings is squarely covered under provisions of section 340 of CrPC and the defendant (Kejriwal) deserves to be punished in accordance with law,” it had said.The high court had on July 26 asked Kejriwal not to put “scandalous” questions to Jaitley during the cross-examination in the defamation suit filed by the Union minister against the chief minister and five others — Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai. The first Rs 10 crore defamation suit was filed by Jaitley against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders in 2015.The second Rs 10 crore defamation suit was filed on May 22 this year only against the chief minister.Jaitley, who denied all the allegations of corruption levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had claimed that they had made “false and defamatory” statements in the case involving the DDCA, thereby harming his reputation. The cross-examination of Jaitley by Jethmalani on May 17 led to heated exchanges between them. Kejriwal had on July 24 told the high court that there was no instruction from him to Jethmalani to use objectionable remarks against Jaitley.
Join the discussion<!–end of artlbotbor–>
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the plea of a woman who claimed to be the biological daughter of late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.A bench of Justices M B Lokur and Deepak Gupta refused to allow her prayer for DNA test to know her parentage as she claimed to have been given in adoption to Jaya’s sister and her husband. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for the woman, also sought cremation of Jayalalithaa as per Hindu rites on the grounds that she was an Iyengar Brahmin. She said there were two witnesses when the child was given for adoption and the petitioner had come to know about her real parentage only when her adopted father was on his death bed.”There is a politically charged-up atmosphere in Tamil Nadu and this case should be transferred outside the state as infighting is going on in the ruling political party,” she said. Jaising said in order to establish her real parentage, DNA test should be allowed to be conducted on the woman as she has the right to know about her biological parents.”In this society, it is very difficult for an unwed mother to keep the child. Therefore (she) was given to Jaya’s sister who resided in Bangalore and there were two eyewitnesses to the incident,” the senior lawyer said. The court, however, said the petitioner is at liberty to approach the high court.
Updated: Nov 27, 2017, 01:06 PM IST, PTI
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition of a woman who claimed to be the daughter of late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.A bench of Justices M B Lokur and Deepak Gupta also refused to allow the plea of the woman to conduct DNA test for the purpose of proving her parentage.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for the woman, had also sought cremation of Jayalalithaa as per Hindu rites since she was an Iyengar Brahmin.The court, however, said the petitioner is at liberty to approach the high court.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The BMC on Monday told the High Court that it was willing to take over a garden plot in Cuffe Parade which is allegedly being used as a private space by a housing society, and make it available to the public.Senior Advocate Milind Sathe, appearing for the civic body, said it is willing to take over the garden if there has been a breach in conditions of the garden’s caretaker policy.A division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice MS Sonak said, “The public has not been allowed to use the garden. The developer or the society has posted security guards outside the garden allowing only society members to access it what more breach is required The developer can also be made to pay for the breach committed over several years.”The court has asked the court commissioner to visit the area and place on record various details about the garden and its use. Following this, the court may on Friday pass an order directing the corporation to take over the garden and maintain it.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The case of a Hindu girl marrying a Muslim guy by changing the religion of the girl has turned heads in the city. Rajasthan High Court has asked the state government to answer whether there is any religious conversion law in the state or not. Meanwhile, Pratap Nagar Police presented the girl in the court in tight security. Some of the documents presented in the High Court have also been found to be fake. On this, the High Court sent the girl to Nari Niketan till Monday and both the families have been barred from meeting her.On Wednesday, Senior Advocate MR Singhvi presented the facts in the court and simultaneously cited the laws of Gujarat, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. When it was told in court that the girl got married after accepting Muslim religion on the 10 rupees stamp paper, Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas remarked saying that tomorrow I could also say that I am Gopal Mohammed. How can anyone change his religion? What is the rule about it? On this, the government lawyer told them that there are rules about Religious conversion in some states, but this rule is still stuck in files in Rajasthan. On this, the judge ordered the state government to clarify the information about the rules for Religious conversion. Judge Gopal Krishan Vyas, while questioning the affidavit, asked the police to carry out a detailed investigation and submit a report.The family of the young woman had an objection that she took the affidavit in her name in which she mentioned herself as Afrana, and nikah date as April 13. However, Date of April 14 is mentioned in the nikahnama. There is a difference in the name of the three witnesses mentioned in the affidavit submitted by the woman and the three witnesses in the nikahnama. The girl was also living with her family till last month. The court asked the police to complete the investigation of the nikahnama and submit the report on November 6.What’s the case?Advocate Nilkamal Bohra and Gokulesh Bohra filed habeas corpus petition on behalf of a youth who lives in Narpat Nagar area of Pratapnagar police station and told the court that the petitioner’s sister lives with her. She has completed her M.Com and was preparing for RAS exam. When she used to go to college, then accused Faiz’s son Ejaz Modi, a resident of Shanti Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, used to harass her. He clicked some of her photographs and threatened to make it viral on social media. In return, he also demanded some money and despite taking money, did not give the photograph and started blackmailing. It was told in the petition that one day she was going to college, and then Faiz and his friends kidnapped her and forcibly took her sign on some papers and made fake marriage document.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Friday directed state-run television network Doordarshan to use it prime time slot to broadcast programming warning viewers of the dangers of the so-called Blue Whale Challenge that has claimed a number of lives across the country.A bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has given the national broadcaster a week’s time in which to prepare its material. The next hearing has been set for November 20.The Blue Whale Challenge essentially goads players into carrying out a series of tasks, the final one being suicide.”The idea behind the programme is to make parents and children aware of the dangers of online games like Blue Whale. The message of the programme should be that children should not be trapped by the game. There are children who are lonely and frustrated. Definitely, visuals will have more impact,” Chief Justice Misra noted.The court made its observations while hearing a petition filed by advocate Sneha Kalita who sought immediate measures to ban/block all sites linked to the Blue Whale online game and other similar games.The apex court has also asked DD to consult with the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Human Resource Development, and the Information and Broadcasting Ministry while preparing its programming.In a bid to increase the reach of the programming, the bench, which included Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, directed the “competent authority” to explore the possibility of doing so on private channels, as well as on other platforms.While explaining the dangers of the game, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria outlined the various steps – 50 in all – that culminate in the player’s suicide.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Married Hindu women in various parts of the country observed a day long fast on Sunday. Marking the day as Karwa Chauth women were on a fast and prayed for the long lives and well being of their husbands. External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj also observed the fast for her husband on Karwa Chauth. Like a typical Indian wife she was draped in a red saree and was seen performing all the rituals with great devotion. Sushma Swaraj well known for her prompt replies and rescue operations was all dressed best for the day and celebrated the festival with other married women in Delhi. Married to former Mizoram Governor Swaraj Kaushal, both of them tied a knot during the times of emergency on 13th July 1975. Swaraj Kaushal is an Indian criminal lawyer practising in New Delhi. He was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court of IndiaThe couple have a daughter, Bansuri, who is a graduate from Oxford University and a Barrister at Law from Inner Temple.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Observing that the post of a Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and the Vigilance Commissioner (VC) is a ‘serious issue’, the Supreme Court asked the Centre why the candidature is considered once someone applies for it.The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and MM Shantanagouder on Thursday asked, “Why are people who have impeccable integrity, but may not have applied considered for the same?””This is a very serious issue that you invite applications like this. If a person of impeccable integrity will not apply, he cannot become a CVC or VC,” the bench said. “If only 10 persons apply for the post, you will select one out of them. But there may be many who are more eligible than those who applied for this post. For CVC, you are confining your selection,” the bench said.NGO Common Cause had challenged the 2015 appointment of CVC KV Chaudhary and VC TM Bhasin claiming that their record was not clean and that the appointment procedure was opaque.Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO, had contended that the appointment was arbitrary and violated the principle of institutional integrity. Bhushan further alleged that Chaudhary had influenced the investigation against the infamous liquor baron Ponty Chaddha.Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani and BJP MP Subramanian Swamy had also opposed Chaudhary’s plea in 2015.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh has sought compensation to the tune of Rs 10 lakh under the victim compensation scheme a day after the 10-year-old rape survivor gave birth to a baby girl.Jaising who is an amicus curiae in an ongoing petition, mentioned her plea before a bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta who then issued notice to Chandigarh and the Centre.The apex court has sought replies from all concerned by August 22. Seeking compensation for the child, Jaising said that she was only a 10-year-old and cannot look after the child. Jaising referred to an apex court judgment delivered on Wednesday, where a destitute woman’s plea for abortion was also turned down, and was awarded a compensation of Rs 10 lakh.”A ten-year-old mother cannot look after the child. Nothing has been paid to her so far,” Jaising told the bench. Last month, acting on a medical board’s advise, the top court had turned down the 10-year-old rape survivor’s plea for an abortion who was already 32-weeks pregnant by then.The petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena is part of a batch of six petitions, five writ petitions, and a special leave petition filed in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya case.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In an oral observation, the Delhi High court remarked that Arvind Kejriwal was “not being reasonable” and neither was his conduct “reasonable.” The court made these remarks with regard to the civil defamation case filed against the Delhi Chief Minister by Union Minister Arun Jaitley, which it was hearing.Justice Manmohan told the lawyers defending Kejriwal, “You (defendant 1 – Kejriwal) are not being reasonable. Your conduct is not reasonable. It cannot be like this. We cannot have proceedings go on in this manner. Otherwise tomorrow we will have a fist fight in court. Whole system is on the brink of collapse.”The observations came after Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had moved an application stating to expedite the recording of evidences in the defamation case. The case was filed by Jaitley against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders after they alleged that the BJP leader had been “corrupt.”Appearing for Jaitley, his counsel Rajiv Nayyar contended that they were compelled to move the application for speedy trial as every hearing cannot prompt a fresh defamation case.The court has sought the reply of Kejriwal and the matter has been listed for July 24.Jaitley moved an application seeking that the recording of evidence should be done in a time-bound, fair, dignified, and bonafide manner. The application also contended that intention of Kejriwal is to delay the conclusion of recording of evidence by posing irrelevant questions which are designed to be insulting and annoying.The application comes after Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani had called Jaitley a ‘crook’.In the defamation case, besides Kejriwal, the five other accused are AAP leaders Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai. The AAP leaders had accused the BJP leader of corruption when he was the President of the DDCA, a post he had held from 2000 to 2013.Jaitley, who had denied all the allegations levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had claimed that they had made “false and defamatory” statements in the case involving DDCA, thereby harming his reputation.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The din against mandatory use of Aadhaar will increase in the coming days with yet another petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the provisions of the Act in its current avtar.The top court on Tuesday will hear a new petition, drawn by advocates Udayaditya Banerjee and Samiksha Godiyal, challenging the Aadhaar Act and the notifications issued under section 7, days after it reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Act and the compulsory enrolment for Aadhaar under the Finance Act.In the petition, Shanta Sinha and one Kalyani Sen Menon have contended that the Act violates their fundamental right to self-determination among others. “There are certain things the government simply cannot do because it fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. The wholesale collection of biometric data including finger prints and storing it at a central depository per se puts the state in an extremely dominant position in relation to the individual citizen,” the petition read.The petitioners have stated that the Centre, by issuing notification through its various ministries and making enrollment for Aadhaar compulsory, has flouted various interim orders passed by a three-judge bench and concurred upon by a constitution bench which asserts that Aadhaar is voluntary.”Further the State cannot put itself in a position where it can track an individual and engage in surveillance…the notion of limited government would mean that every individual citizen and citizenry collectively are entitled to live work and enjoy their varied lives without being under the continuous gaze of the State,” focusing on the right to self-determination and an individual’s right to privacy.The petitioners have also contended that the Centre has resorted to coercive measures in an attempt to compel the citizens to enroll for Aadhaar, a clear contradiction of the provisions of the Act. Besides, the petitioners have contended that the impugned Act coerces an individual to part with their personal information.”No democratic country in the world has devised a system similar to Aadhaar which operates like an electronic leash to tether every citizen from cradle to grave. There can be no question of free consent in situations where an individual is coerced to part with its biometric information (a) to be eligible for welfare schemes and or (b) under the threat of penal consequences.”The petitioners have thus prayed for several measures of relief which will be argued upon before the same bench that has already heard a matter pertaining to a similar batch of petitions.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, who concluded his fiery argument against the Aadhaar Act, is expected to lead the charge for this petition as well.Representing a batch of petitioners Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had submitted that unless the court intervened, if the government invalidated the Permanent Account Number (PAN) card if it was not linked to the Aadhar card — one of the provisions of the Finance Act, then an individual would be crippled.While Datar restricted his arguments on the merits of the law, Divan took the opportunity to highlight how dangerous it would be to allow private entities — who have been contracted by the government to make Aadhar cards, access to your most important and personal details of your life.”We gave birth to a state. We are sovereign. Is the state by an electronic leash, going to walk us around like a dog for the rest of our life?,” he submitted. “No where in the world, electronic tagging to this extent is taking place. The last time citizens were numbered it was in Nazi concentration camps,” Divan had said.& ANALYSISWhile in earlier petitions only certain sections of the Finance Act were challenged, the new petition challenges the Aadhaar Act itself.The petitioners contend that the Centre has resorted to coercive measures in an attempt to compel the citizens to enroll for Aadhaar, a clear contradiction of the provisions of the Act.The Centre, however, had earlier itself submitted that the Aadhaar Act was not voluntary as it has been perceived and that the citizen has no absolute right over his body.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid’s offer to assist in the triple talaq case. Since the deadline to file the submissions has lapsed, the top court gave the former union minister an extension of two days to advance the same.”We will take it on record. It’s not an issue,” a bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India JS Khehar, Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kisan Kaul said.A five-judge bench will hear the constitutional validity of polygamy and Muslim personal laws like triple talaq, and nikah halala from May 11 onwards. The triple talaq issue is one of the three main issues that will be heard by constitutional benches in this summer vacation.On March 30, the top court pushed for an expeditious hearing of the triple talaq case rebuffing the attempts by the government and other senior counsels to defer it.In their submissions, the Centre informed the SC that practices of ‘triple talaq’, ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy are patriarchal and traditional in notion which must be struck down.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, arguing for one of the petitioners who challenged Aadhaar-PAN linking under the Income Tax Act, on Thursday stressed upon the dangers to a citizens’ right to privacy if they were forced to submit to the draconian act of enrolling for Aadhaar cards.A Supreme Court bench comprising justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan are hearing three pleas challenging the government’s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns (ITRs) as well as for obtaining and retaining PAN (permanent account number). On Day II of the Supreme Court hearing on the issue, Divan said, “We gave birth to a state.”
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> The Supreme Court Monday will hear the plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a direction to make Hindi a compulsory subject nationwide for students up to class eight. Upadhyay said that the study of Hindi should be compulsory for students of Class I-VIII in all schools across India, in order to promote fraternity, assuring dignity of individual and unity and national integration. In his plea, Upadhyay referred to various constitutional provisions and non-execution of the three-language formula enunciated in the 1968 National Policy Resolution. He argued that at the time of framing and adoption of the Constitution, it was predicted English will continue to be used for executive, judicial and legal purposes for an initial period of 15 years but it didn?t happen. Senior Advocate Harish Salve will argue the matter.(This article has not been edited by DNA’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The Chief Justice of India (CJI), JS Khehar on Saturday slammed political parties for treating manifestos as mere pieces of paper, and called for making them accountable.”Electoral promises routinely remain unfulfilled. The reason for this gap between electoral promise and its fulfillment does not become an electoral issue,” the CJI said at a seminar on ‘Economic Reforms With Reference To Electoral Issues’ here.Taking a strong stand against the current practice of electioneering by major political parties, the CJI said that religion instead of social reforms has taken centre stage during poll campaigning. Mentioning the electoral manifestos released by two major political parties during the 2014 general elections, the CJI said though promises were made for a strong economic growth, they lacked “constitutional goal of socio-economic justice.””Caste issues are projected in different ways, to ensure a majority in each constituency. No consequences occur, whether promises are fulfilled or not. Every political party brazenly finds an excuse for not reaching consensus amongst allied partners,” he added in his most scathing attack since he assumed office earlier this year.The CJI said that “even our legal system, provides for no consequences to be suffered by political parties, if promises made in manifestos are not fulfilled.”According to the guidelines issues by the Election Commission, parties are urged to avoid making promises that cannot be fulfilled to seek votes.Chief Justice Khehar said that in a democratic system based on political parties, it was “difficult to uphold the principle of free and fair elections if the financing and economy of political parties, are not known to the voters.”The CJI also spoke at length on social issues plaguing our society. He spoke of the plight of Dalits, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, women as well as children who are forced to work due to financial compulsions. He added that it was necessary to bring about a synergy between the social, economic and political measures with the ground realities of life.Echoing the sentiments of the CJI, Justice Dipak Misra called for decriminalisation of politics. He underlined the need for “free and fair elections” since it was “imperative for the growth of a healthy democracy.” Justice Misra also called for the need for “economic unity.”Invoking Winston Churchill’s quote, “At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross, on a little bit of paper – no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point,” Justice Misra and the CJI spoke off the “power of the little voter.”President Pranab Mukherjee and Senior Advocate Harish Salve also spoke on day one of the two-day seminar organised by the Confederation of the Bar at the Vigyan Bhavan in the national capital.President Mukherjee advocated the need for strong electoral reforms to strengthen the democratic process. He said, it was time the country relooked at legal provisions to increase the number of parliamentary seats.”Chief Justice of India very emphatically and relevantly pointed out accountability, but the system of parliamentary governance is such that if somebody gets 51 (majority) out of 100, 51 has all the rights and authority and in our electoral process, less than 51 have all the rights and authorities but no responsibility,” President Mukherjee said.Talking about the inadequacies of the parliamentary system, the President said though political parties with less number of seats enjoyed equal rights and authority with those in power, they had “no responsibility”.”A strong electoral system and timely reforms are necessary to strengthen the democratic structure of India. Timely reforms are necessary which not only would give justice to people but also to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution of India,” the President added stressing on reforms.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Pursuant to an earlier Supreme Court (SC) order, the Centre, women’s rights’ bodies, aggrieved petitioners, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and other concerned parties will submit their responses before Thursday, in matters pertaining to the triple talaq case.However, almost all have dug in their heels and reiterated their known stand in front of the SC on the issue of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy. While the Muslim Personal Law Board defended triple talaq, it toned down its rhetoric on nikah halala.Fresh from its victory of the recently concluded Uttar Pradesh state elections, the government however took refuge behind its international commitments to defend its stand against triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala. Apart from stressing on gender equality and secularism, the Centre further submitted that “the underlying idea behind the preservation of personal laws was the preservation of plurality and diversity among the people of India”.Representing Bebaak collective, a collective of Muslim women and Center for Islamic and Secular Studies, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising said that triple talaq was unconstitutional. “Section 2 of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, to the extent that it recognises triple talaq is unconstitutional,” said Jaising while speaking to DNA.”Even the Bombay High Court judgment State of Bombay vs. Narasu Appa Mali, was wrongly decided and is required to be over ruled,” she added.In their draft, the Centre stood behind principles of secularism, gender equality, international practices and three other issues in its draft submissions. “The issue of validity of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy needs to be considered in the light of principles of gender justice and the overriding principle of non-discrimination, dignity and equality,” the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government’s draft submissions read.The Centre questioned the validity of the aforesaid practices and its compatibility with contemporary constitutional morality and the principles of gender equality in today’s day and age. The union in its submission mentioned that six and a half decades after the constitution — ‘which has no religion’ — was written, the court needed to determine whether the status of women, “merely by virtue of their religious identity and/or the religion which they profess, could be relegated to a status significantly more vulnerable than their counterparts who profess any other faith”.The government then pointed out that in an August 2016 counter affidavit filed by the Muslim Personal Law Board, the practices of triple talaq and polygamy were referred to as ‘undesirable’. Hence, the Centre felt that no ‘undesirable’ practice could be elevated to the status of an ‘essential religious practice’, much less one that forms the substratum of religion.Lastly, the Centre submitted that “a large number of Muslim countries or countries with an overwhelmingly large Muslim population where Islam is the state religion, have undertaken reforms in this area and have regulated divorce law and polygamy”. The Centre referred to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt and Sri Lanka where reforms have taken place.”Algeria too has de-recognised a husband’s right to unilateral divorce by legislating that all divorces must go through a court,” the draft submissions read.The submission of these arguments, that would answer certain fundamental issues surrounding the practice of triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala, would pave the way for the final debate which would be heard by the constitution bench this summer.
<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The hearing in court number 13 was brief, yet packed a punch. Allegations of impropriety flew thick and fast. However, there was no conclusion and the matter was withdrawn.The issue listed before a Bench comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit involved a letter written by Dangwimsai Pul, wife of late Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul. In the letter, Pul sought permission from the Chief Justice to initiate an inquiry into the allegations of corruption her late husband had made against several sitting Supreme Court (SC) judges.The President and several top lawyers were also mentioned in the 60-page suicide letter that was typewritten in Hindi and bore the signature of the late CM on every page. On Thursday, almost a week since Dangwimsai made her husband’s suicide note public, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the widow, vehemently objected to the Bench hearing the matter.”The letter sought a redressal from the SC administration. We are surprised it is listed before your Lordships,” Dave said. “This is a very sensitive matter. Justice must be done. If you go ahead, it will send a wrong message,” the lawyer argued.”If your Lordships insist on hearing the matter, we will not participate in the proceedings and seek permission to withdraw our letter,” he said.Aggrieved that the matter was listed, Dave submitted that he was entitled to know who instructed the registry to treat the letter itself as a criminal petition and list it as such. Dave then questioned the Bench hearing the matter. After seeking recusal, the advocate submitted that if the matter was to be heard at all, there were several other Benches that would be more appropriate and in tune with an earlier judgment passed in a similar situation.The advocate, addressing the Bench in a crowded courtroom, then made a startling disclosure: “I cannot say much, but a former judge of this court approached me on Monday in this matter.” Dave, however, refused to divulge more details.Dave also questioned the quorum listening to the matter. Referring to Justice Karnan’s January letter, Dave alleged that even that letter which alleged corruption among several sitting and former judges, and invoked the wrath of the SC, was heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench consisting of seniormost judges. Here, when the allegations are far more grave, not even a full Bench of three judges is hearing the matter, let alone senior judges in the order of hierarchy.Submitting that the Veeraswamy judgment applied in this case, Dave said that the letter sought administrative redressal and not judicial.According to the Veeraswamy judgment, if there are allegations of corruption against a sitting Chief Justice, the President will consult senior justices and decide on an action.After the hearing, Dave addressed the media and stated that he would take one of the several avenues available to him, including approaching the country’s Vice-President.