Urging for immediate indulgence of the apex court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state government, mentioned the matter before a Bench presided over by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Explaining the urgency, Singhvi said that the state police had been ordered by the Calcutta High Court to hand over all the case-related documents to the CBI on Tuesday itself.
At this, the Justice Khanna-led Bench which was rising for the day, asked the West Bengal Government to approach the Registrar (Judicial) of the apex court for obtaining directions from Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, for urgent hearing on the issue.
Earlier in the day, a Bench of Chief Justice, TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court, had ordered an independent CBI probe and directed the West Bengal Police to hand over the accused mastermind behind the attack, Sheikh Shahjahan, from the custody of the CID to the central investigating team.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had moved the Calcutta High Court seeking an independent CBI probe into the matter.
Expressing concern over the delays caused by adjournments sought in the apex court, the CJI said that this cannot become "tareek pe tareek court".
The CJI said that this defeats the trust of citizens in our court.
He further requested the members of the bar to not file adjournment slips unless "very very necessary".
Saying that he has been personally monitoring the filings to first hearing of matters to ensure that period was reduced to minimum, the CJI said that there were 178 adjournment slips in the day.
On an average per miscellaneous day from September 1 - 3, a total of 154 adjournments were circulated.
He pointed out that from September to October there were 3,688 adjournment slips circulated. Whereas, 2361 matters have been mentioned since September. On an average 59 matters were being mentioned everyday.
On the one hand matters are listed on an expedited basis, on the other hand they are mentioned then get listed and then they are adjourned, said the CJI.
"This defeats the purpose of filing and listing," the CJI said.
"We are a group of former judges, the conscientious and concerned citizens of India appreciate the Supreme Court verdict on same-sex relation delivered on 17 October 2023 has received overwhelming applaud from the society except the LGBTQ+ community and minuscule section thereof."
The letter called the judgement a blend of interpretation of statutory provisions, culture and morality.
"It is relevant in the context of Indian culture, ethos, and heritage. Honourable Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that right to marriage is not a fundamental right. On the question of same-sex marriage, the court has again unanimously held that marriage being not a fundamental right, such a right can only be conferred and regulated by the statute enacted by appropriate legislative body (the subject being in concurrent list), both Parliament and state assembly are competent to legislate." the letter said.
The letter said that it also convincingly ruled that it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to make provisions for recognising such marriages either by interpreting or down reading the existing statutes (in particular reference to (The Special Marriage Act 1954) and it is within the domain of Parliament? Hon’ble Court has reconfirmed the well settled principle of separation of power enshrined in the constitution holding that the jurisdiction of the court is to interpret the constitutional/statutory provisions, and not to venture into legislative domain, which solely vests with the competent legislature.
On the minority judgements delivered by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Kaul, the letter said: "Thrust of minority view on equality, individual dignity, choice of civil union irrespective of sexual orientation and privacy emanating from Articles 19, 21 and 25 of constitution of India did not find favour with the majority in the bench."
The judges in the appreciation letter further said that an important feature of the majority view is recognition of the marriage as a social institution in existence from times immemorial, pre-dating the concept of state. This gives credence to the bond of marriage between a man and a woman constituting family as a primary unit.
The letter also praised the judgement for not recognising adoption rights for Queers.
"Queers right to adoption has also not been recognised by the Apex Court and rightly so. Even existing statutory provisions also restrict the rights of single person to adopt e.g. under the section 57 of The Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act 2015, a single male is prohibited to adopt a female child." the letter read.
The letter concluded by appreciating the majority judgement for representing Indian traditions.
"Notwithstanding the debate, unanimity in some areas and differing views on other issues, the judgement particularly the majority view representing Indian traditions and belles-letter deserves all appreciation."
On October 17, the apex court delivered four verdicts in the same-sex marriage case.
The four judgments were written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha respectively.
All five judges unanimously agreed that the right to marry is not a fundamental right.
Out of the five judges on the Constitution Bench, the majority verdicts delivered by three judges, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha held that civil unions between same-sex couples are not recognised under law and they cannot claim the right to adopt children either.
In two separate minority judgments, CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Kaul ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to recognise their relationships as civil unions and can claim consequential benefits.
Both the judges held that such couples have the right to adopt children and struck down Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) regulations to enable the same.
However, Justice Bhat maintained that CARA regulations were in fact not void for not allowing queer couples to adopt. Justice Kohli concurred with Justice Bhat. Justice Narasimha agreed with Justice Bhat's view and stated that CARA Regulations could not be held unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar said those who suffer permanent disabilities while cleaning sewers will be paid Rs 20 lakh as minimum compensation.
"The Union and the state governments must ensure that manual scavenging is completely eradicated," the bench said.
Pronouncing the judgement, Justice Bhat said the authorities will have to pay up to Rs 10 lakh if the cleaner suffers other disabilities.
Issuing a slew of directions, which were not read out, the bench directed that the government agencies must coordinate to ensure that such incidents do not occur and moreover, the High Courts are not precluded from monitoring the cases related to sewer deaths.
The judgement came on a PIL. The detailed order is awaited.
As many as 347 people died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks in India in the last five years with Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Delhi accounting for 40 per cent of these deaths, according to government data cited in Lok Sabha in July 2022.
"List on October 11, 2023 at 2 p.m.," ordered a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan after noting that it has received written submissions filed by petitioners, including Bilkis Bano.
Last week, the top court had directed petitioners challenging remission orders to file short written rejoinder arguments in the matter.
Earlier, the convicts had argued before the apex court that remission orders granting them early release have an essence of judicial order and cannot be challenged by way of filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra - who is one of the PIL petitioners, had argued that Bilkis Bano was five months' pregnant when she was gang raped and crime committed against her and her family was a “crime against humanity" perpetrated on the basis of religion.
The Centre, Gujarat government, and convicts have opposed the public interest litigations (PILs) filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool's Moitra, National Federation of Indian Women, Asma Shafique Shaikh and others, saying that once victim herself has approached the court, others may not be allowed to intervene in a criminal matter.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Centre, had argued that remission is reduction of sentence and a PIL cannot be entertained on the question of sentence.
The 11 men convicted in the case were released on August 15 last year, after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. The convicts had completed 15 years in jail.
A bench of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said that a bank and its authorised officer appointed under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act cannot act in a manner so as to keep the sword hanging on the neck of the auction purchaser.
"The law treats everyone equally and that includes the bank and its officers. The said enactments were enacted for speedy recovery and for benefitting the public at large and does not give any license to the bank officers to act de hors the scheme of the law or the binding verdicts," the bench held.
In the instant case, the borrowers had availed a credit facility in 2017 to the tune of Rs 100 crore from the bank.
An amount of Rs 65 crore was adjusted against the existing LRD (Lease Rental Discounting) facility and the balance amount of Rs 35 crore in the form of a simple mortgage as a security.
The bank issued a demand notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002 after the borrower defaulted in repayment and decided to put the secured asset to auction.
In the meantime, the borrowers preferred a securitisation application challenging the demand notice and quashing of sale notice. The bank decided to go for auction at a reserve price of Rs 105 crore and in June, the appellant submitted its bid of Rs 105.05 crore, along with a deposit of Rs 10.5 crore as earnest money.
"Later, the Bank sent a 'Sale Confirmation Letter' declaring him as the highest bidder and asked for a deposit of 25 per cent of the total bid amount."
In the wake of such development, the borrowers sought redemption of the mortgage by payment of the total outstanding sum of Rs 123.83 crore.
As on April 2023, a sum of Rs 123.83 crore was due and payable by the borrower to the bank. While the parties were awaiting for the DRT to pass orders, borrowers approached the High Court seeking directions to the Bank to permit them to redeem the mortgage by offering 129 crore.
"The bank, which had earlier opposed the plea for redemption of mortgage before the DRT for some good reason, expressed its willingness before the High Court to accept the offer of the borrowers. The bank perhaps got lured by the fact that the borrowers were paying almost Rs 23.95 crore more than what was paid by the appellant herein and Rs 5 crore more than the outstanding amount," noted the Supreme Court.
In August this year, the High Court "allowed the writ petition and permitted the borrowers to redeem the mortgage of the secured asset subject to payment of Rs 25 crore on the same day and the balance amount of Rs 104 crore on or before 31.08.2023, failing which the sale of secured asset in favour of the appellant herein would be confirmed".
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order passed by the High Court, the appellant preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
In its judgment, the top court ordered that "the respondent Bank shall refund the entire amount deposited by the borrowers i.e., an amount of Rs.129 crore paid by them in lieu of the redemption of mortgage of the secured asset at the earliest. The appellant herein shall pay an additional amount of Rs 23.95 crore to the Bank within a period of one week from today and subject to such deposit, the Bank shall issue the sale certificate in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002."
The apex court noted the state government rejected the remission plea without recording any reasons.
"We have impressed upon the Solicitor General (Tushar Mehta), who appears for the state government, that this is an extremely undesirable state of affairs. It is not an appreciation of the law laid down on the issue. There must be some special reasons why despite the recommendation of the state sentence review board, recommendation was not accepted. It cannot be ipse dixit (an assertion made by an individual based solely on their own authority, without any supporting evidence or proof) of the officer examining the file ," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
The bench noted that the issue was re-examined by the authorities and remission granted to the convict.
Mehta told the court he has advised the state government that there must be a proper process or standard operating procedure (SOP) for the exercise.
The bench directed that the SOP be brought in place within a maximum period of four weeks so such cases are not repeated in future.
Justice Kaul pointed out that this has happened in more than one case and the court's time has been wasted.
The bench also warned the officer concerned of ordering an inquiry against him.
"I would have directed an inquiry against you, the way you conducted. This is not fair. Please do your job," Justice Kaul said.
The top court was dealing with a plea by convict Rajan Mishra, who was held guilty by a trial court of the charge of kidnapping for ransom in September 2007 and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The convict, in his plea filed through advocate Anilendra Pandey, challenged the "non-speaking" remission rejection order of May 24 which was passed by the state authorities. A non-speaking order is an order which does not mention the reason for arriving a particular decision.
The plea said the state authorities ignored the recommendation of the sentence review board which had in January this year recommended Mishra's premature release on the ground that he has spent more than 20 years of incarceration including remission.
In November last year, the apex court had directed the state government to consider his case in accordance with the norms within three months.
Mishra had contended he was under detention for 20 years, and in case the detention period was more than 20 years including remission, a person is entitled for the relief unless he falls within the exceptions. He said his case did not fall within any category of exceptions.
On the other hand, the state's counsel had submitted his case lay within the exception clause of the guidelines as he was an alleged gangster. However, nothing was placed before the court to substantiate the contention.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi issued notices on a plea filed by B Jagannath seeking an FIR against the Tamil Nadu minister on grounds that the remarks are akin to hate speech and that the top court had in similar matters passed several directions, including registration of FIR.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the minister allegedly asked school students to say that this religion is not good and that the other religion is good.
"This court has taken note of similar matters where individuals make such a statement against another's faith but in this case it is a minister making the statement. Here it is a state, which is telling the school students that so and so religion is wrong," Naidu said.
The bench asked Naidu what was he seeking from the court, to which the senior lawyer said he is seeking a restraining order against the minister (Stalin) from making any such statement and secondly that an FIR be registered.
"We are also seeking that students should be kept out of this," he said.
The bench said, "Although we are issuing notice, you are turning the Supreme Court into a police station by approaching it for registration of FIR. You should have gone to the high court."
Naidu said they were compelled to approach the court as he is a minister and when they went to register FIR, no one registered it.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was recently apprised by the poll body that over 66 crores Aadhaar numbers have already been uploaded in the process of finalising electoral rolls.
Further, the Election Commission submitted before the top court that it is looking into issuing "clarificatory changes in the forms" as submission of the Aadhar number is not mandatory under Rule 26-B of the 2022 Rules.
A plea was moved by the Congress' Telangana unit Senior Vice President G. Niranjan seeking direction to the EC to amend the Form-6 (Application Form for New Voters) and Form-6B (Letter of Information of Aadhaar Number for the purpose of Electoral Roll Authentication).
It said that the present forms compel the voter to provide Aadhaar though the EC claims that the submission of Aadhaar particulars is voluntary.
The writ petition filed under Article 32 alleged that EC has been insisting its officials to collect Aadhaar numbers of voters and the state officers are forcing the village, and booth level officials to collect Aadhaar number from the voters.
It claimed that "the ground level officials are forcing the voters to submit their Aadhaar numbers and threatening the voters that if the Aadhaar card number is not provided then the voter will lose the vote".
As per the cause list published on the website of the apex court, a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi will hear the matter on September 22.
Last week, the Supreme Court had declined to pass any orders directing urgent listing of the plea.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud did not accede to the unlisted mentioning and asked senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu to follow the procedure enumerated under the SoP providing for urgent listing of the matters.
The plea, filed through advocate G. Balaji, sought a declaration that participation of state ministers in the Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference held on September 2, was unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Further, it sought investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to enquire if there is any element of terror funding involved from across the border & outside India, especially Sri Lanka Tamil LTTE funds.
Also, the petition demanded that these conferences against any Hindu dharma should not take place in secondary schools of the state as per the judgment of the Supreme Court judgement in the hijab case.
Earlier, a similar application seeking initiation of legal action against Stalin Jr. over his controversial statements was filed by a Delhi-based advocate. The plea is most likely to be tagged with the case of Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India and Ors., where Justice Sanjiv Khanna-led bench is dealing with the larger issue of hate speech.
It said that NBDSA does not have any statutory or legal status and takes action only in respect of the internal guidelines or ethics framed by the association and not in respect of the Programme Code laid down under the CTN Act.
The Centre told the top court that the News Broadcasters Association (NBA, now renamed as NBDA- News Broadcasters & Digital Association) is not the sole association having all broadcasters as its members and is a “trading organisation” having only 71 members out of the 394 news broadcasting channels.
The affidavit said that NBDA is not registered with the Central government under Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021 and “has always asserted that it is not obliged to follow the rules relating to complaints redressal structure and further that its members are not obliged to comply with the CTN (Amendment) Rules, 2021.”
It added that NBDA is trying to create monopolistic rights in the arena of "complaints redressal mechanism of news broadcasters," which would operate without any statutory or governmental control.
“It is submitted that conduct of the NBDA manifests that it is trying to project and establish itself as the sole private tribunal of complaints redressal of aggrieved viewers of news broadcasters, which would be self governed and free from any statutory accountability and action,” read the reply document filed by the Centre.
In relation to the News Broadcasters Federation (NBF), the Centre said that NBF is formally registered with the Central Government under the CTN (Amendment) Rules, 2021 and has been following the statutory regime of the Central Government.
It said that an opportunity was given to self-regulating bodies to get registered with the Ministry of I&B under CTN rules and “the NBDA having not applied for registration… (is) not a legal or statutory body under the CTN Act and hence not part of the regulatory mechanism laid down under the law.”
Notably, the CTN (Amendment) Rules, 2021 provides a statutory framework for grievance redressal and gives a legal space to the self-regulating bodies to give appropriate advice to the broadcasters for taking rectificatory action in case of violation of the Programme or Advertising Code.
The Central government said that there is no statutory vacuum for grievance redressal mechanism or for regulation of the broadcast of irresponsible reporting.
“It is respectfully submitted that there is sufficient regulatory framework in place for regulating electronic media which primarily consists of "statutory regulation" and "self regulation". It is stated that the statutory regulatory framework is contained, inter-alia, in the CTN Act and the Rules framed there under read with the Up- linking and Down-linking guidelines for the TV channels,” it said.
The reply was filed by the Centre before the Supreme Court in response to News Broadcasters Association plea against an order passed by the Bombay High Court in a PIL saying that the self-regulation regime adopted by the News Channels lack statutory sanctity.
On September 18, the top court had stressed that the self-regulatory mechanism of monitoring TV news channels should be “sufficiently strengthened” and asked the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) to come up with the fresh guidelines within a period of four weeks.
It said that for academic year 2023-24, so far the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and National Medical Commission (NMC) have not lowered the minimum qualifying percentile criteria in any of the category for PwD candidates.
This decision of the MoHFW and NMC is also a clear departure from their last six years trend.
“Since 2017 from the start of NEET PG Exam to the last year NEET PG Exam 2022, MoHFW and NMC while invoking the proviso of Regulation 9 (3) of PG Medical Exam Regulation 2000 have always lowered the cut-off criteria every year in second round of PG Counselling in order to fill the vacant PG Seats,” stated the plea filed through advocates Rohit Singh and Ritu Reniwal.
It said that a lot of seats are still lying vacant in the current academic 2023-24, as per the website of the Medical Counselling Committee, MoHFW and NMC have not taken any decision to reduce the minimum percentile criteria in any of the category.
The plea anticipated that there is every likelihood that MoHFW and NMC will reduce the minimum percentile criteria before the start of the stray vacancy round because a lot of PG Seats are still lying vacant in the third round of PG Counselling.
“In the New NEET PG Counselling Scheme 2023, a seat Conversion Algorithm is provided in Chapter-3. According to this Algorithm all the PwD seats including PwD SC/ST/OBC will be transferred to their higher Non-PwD Category in third round of Counselling. Therefore, at the end of third round of counselling there will be no seats available in the category of PwD,” claimed the petition.
It said that this Conversion Algorithm is taking all the fundamental rights of petitioners herein to claim a seat in PwD category as the same was given to them in the reservation policy of NEET PG 2023 Exam.
“The persons with body disability form the weakest section of the society. It is the responsibility of the State to protect the Constitutional and Fundamental Rights of the disabled persons in every aspect of life as per the mandate of Article 21 & 14 of Constitution of India,” the petition said, adding that reservation in education and Public Employment to person with the body disability gives them an opportunity to live a dignified normal Life like their general counterparts.
The matter is likely to be mentioned for urgent listing on September 18 and 19.
During the hearing, a bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, and comprising J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, questioned the criminal prosecution of journalists under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the IPC for making an incorrect statement in the report.
"Making a false statement in an article is not an offence under Section 153A. It may be incorrect. Will you prosecute journalists for 153A?" orally observed the bench.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Manipur government, requested the top court to restrain itself from entering into the merits of the case while hearing the writ petition instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Further, he urged in anticipation that if the apex court proposes to order transfer of the petitioners’ plea to the Delhi High Court, the same should not be construed as a reflection on the Manipur HC.
The Supreme Court extended its order granting interim protection for another two weeks and asked Manipur Police and the complainant to file their response in the meantime setting out how the offence of promoting enmity between different ethnic groups and other charges were made out against the accused journalists for releasing the report.
On September 11, the top court had indicated that it may transfer the plea seeking quashing of FIRs and other ancillary relief to the Delhi High Court and asked Mehta to obtain instructions from the Manipur government in that regard by September 15.
Mehta had then insisted that the matter should be remitted back to the Manipur High Court for adjudication where petitioners may appear virtually through the facility of video conferencing.
On the contrary, the petitioners had argued that the state government cannot initiate penal action against the three-member fact-finding team for merely publishing a report.
In its initial order passed on September 6, the top court issued notice and directed Manipur Police to not take any coercive steps against president of the EGI and three editors -- Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan, and Sanjay Kapoor till further orders.
The Supreme Court had agreed to urgently hear the plea filed by the EGI members who visited the northeastern state last month to study media reportage of the ethnic violence and the circumstantial aspects, who later published a report in New Delhi claiming that the media's reports on the ethnic violence in Manipur were one-sided, and accused the state leadership of being partisan.
"It should have avoided taking sides in the ethnic conflict but it failed to do its duty as a democratic government which should have represented the entire state," the 24-page EGI report had said in its conclusions and recommendations.
The recent judgment by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar came as it considered a writ petition filed by a life-sentence convict seeking verification of his claim of being a juvenile as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
In a report prepared by an Additional Sessions Judge pursuant to the top court’s direction, it came out that the date of birth of the petitioner is May 2,1989.
"If the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.05.1989, he was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of the crime, i.e., 21.12. 2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence," the Supreme Court held.
It said that as per the law, the petitioner could not have been in custody beyond three years.
"However, as the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition before us, the process of criminal law, which commenced in 2005, led to the petitioner being convicted and sentence for life imprisonment concurrently by the trial court, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court," it said.
The claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court and at any stage, as prescribed under Section 7A(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
In 2014, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had upheld a 2009 decision of a fast track court sentencing the petitioner and other co-accused persons to undergo imprisonment for life on charges of murder.
The special leave petition filed against the concurrent findings was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2022.
"Having accepted the report of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated.… we allow the Writ Petition and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith," ordered the Supreme Court.
The FIR was registered against the president of the EGI, and three editors -- Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor.
The four had visited Manipur last month to study the media reportage of the ethnic violence and the circumstantial aspects.
During the hearing, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was apprised by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra that convicts have approached the trial court in Mumbai and have deposited the fine imposed upon them.
He contended that though non-deposition of fine does not affect the decision on remission, he had advised his clients to deposit the fine to "reduce the controversy".
However, the bench questioned the deposition of the fine without awaiting the outcome of their application filed before the court.
"You seek permission and then you deposit without getting permission?" it asked.
The top court noted that the fine was not paid when the Gujarat government allowed release of these 11 convicts under its remission policy on August 15 last year.
Luthra told the apex court that the sessions court in Mumbai accepted the fine in normal against their apprehensions. He repeatedly argued that deposition or non-deposition of fine does not have any "legal consequence" in extending remission to a convict.
He reiterated that applications seeking early release were considered by the Gujarat government pursuant to an earlier order of the top court and remission order having an essence of judicial order cannot be challenged by way of filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Earlier, it was pointed out before the Supreme Court that the convicts did not pay the fines imposed on them and non-payment of fine renders remission order illegal.
The court fixed the next hearing on September 14 and asked convicts to conclude their submission on that day.
The Centre, Gujarat government, and the convicts have opposed the public interest litigations (PILs) filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, National Federation of Indian Women, Asma Shafique Shaikh and others, saying that once the victim herself has approached the court, others may not be allowed to intervene in a criminal matter.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju had argued that remission is reduction of sentence and a PIL cannot be entertained on the question of sentence.
"Insofar as the quantum of sentence is concerned, a third party can never have a say," he had said.
The 11 men convicted in the case were released on August 15 last year, after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. The convicts had completed 15 years in jail.
The state was downgraded into two union territories (UTs) -- J&K and Ladakh -- post abrogation of Article 370 in 2019.
“We are progressively proceeding to make J&K a complete state. But, I am unable to give the exact time period right now about the complete statehood, as per my instructions. Union Territory status is a temporary status because of the peculiar status, the state had passed through repeated and consistent disturbances of decades,” submitted Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta before the Constitution Bench hearing pleas against abrogation of Article 370.
Mehta added that the Central government is ready for elections at any time as updation of the voter list is substantially over by the Election Commission. He said that the call for election will be taken by the State Election Commission and the Election Commission of India.
“The government is ready and it is for the Election Commission of India and Election Commission of the state to take the call …The updating of the voter list is yet to be completed and in process. It will be over in a month or so. They (Election Commissions) will take the call considering the situation,” he said.
SG Mehta told the Supreme Court that a total of three elections -- Panchayats, District Development Councils and Legislative Assembly -- are due, after the panchayat system was introduced in 2019. Under Ladakh UT, elections for hill development council are over in Leh, while in Kargil, the elections are due in September, he added.
He said that the area is continuously progressing by citing different figures and apprised that in the previous year around 1.88 crores tourists visited J&K and the one crore mark has been crossed till date for year 2023.
Mehta said that on comparing the present situation with 2018, terrorist initiated instances are reduced by 45.2 per cent, infiltration has been reduced by 90.2 per cent, stone pelting reduced by 97.2 per cent, security persons casualty reduced by 65.9 percent. "These are factors which agencies would take into consideration… In 2018, stone pelting was 1,767 and it is nil now and calls of organised bands (protest) by secessionist forces were 52 and now it is nil," he said.
He reiterated that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had already made a statement on the floor of Parliament that after the situation returns to normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir, it would become a state again.
The Constitution Bench clarified that the development work undertaken by the Centre post August 2019 will not be relevant in deciding the constitutional challenge abrogation of Article 370.
On Tuesday, the Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud asked the Attorney General and Solicitor General to seek instructions from the Central government over the timeframe to restore statehood of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Centre said that the “Union Territory is not a permanent feature” and it will make a positive statement on August 31 before the court regarding Jammu and Kashmir.
During the hearing, the top court had stressed that the erstwhile state cannot be a “Union Territory in permanence", adding that the restoration of democracy was very important. In relation to Ladakh, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that it would continue to remain a Union Territory.
The Centre had told the Constitution Bench that for the first time in the history of J&K, local government elections took place in 2020 where around 34,000 people were elected, adding that no “hartal (strikes), stone pelting or curfew” had been there in the valley post revocation of Article 370.
Notably, a 5-judge Constitution Bench is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the 2019 Presidential Order taking away the special status accorded to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and its bifurcation into two Union Territories.
In its affidavit filed before the top court, the Central government has defended the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir saying that its decision to dilute Article 370 has brought unprecedented development, progress, security, and stability in the region.
The Union Home Ministry said the street violence, engineered and orchestrated by terrorists and secessionist networks has now become a thing of the past and and the “organised stone pelting incidences connected with terrorism-separatist agenda, which were as high as 1,767 in 2018 has come down to zero in 2023 till date”.
The Centre stressed that it has adopted a policy of zero tolerance against terrorism and after constitutional changes, the security situation in Jammu and Kashmir has improved significantly.
In the pending matter, intervention applications have also been filed by Kashmiri Pandits supporting Centre’s move stripping special status accorded to the erstwhile state of J&K.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued a notice seeking response from the Centre and all states and Union Territories on the plea filed by a transgender individual from Kerala.
Responding to a similar plea, the Union government had said in July that transgender persons can avail the already earmarked reservations in jobs and educational admissions and there is no separate reservation being provided to them.
In March this year, the Supreme Court had issued a contempt notice on a petition alleging non-compliance of its order rendered in the 2014 landmark case of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs Union of India.
The affidavit filed by the Secretary in the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment said that “transgenders belonging to SC/ST/SEBC communities are already entitled to reservations earmarked for these communities".
Further, it added that any transgender outside the SC/ST/SEBC communities with annual family income of Rs 8 lakh is automatically covered in the EWS category.
In its landmark judgment, the top court had directed the Centre and the state governments to treat transgenders as “socially and educationally backward classes" and extend all kinds of reservation to them in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
The historical verdict recognised the “third gender” and granted legal recognition to their gender identity.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra sought response from the Centre, all state governments, Ethics and Medical Registration Board (erstwhile Medical Council of India) and others in the matter.
Advocate K.C. Jain, the petitioner, apprised the bench that regulations emphasizing the importance of prescribing generic medicines, which were notified back in 2002, remain largely unimplemented in practice.
He said that the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which highlight the significance of prescribing drugs by their generic names, exist solely within legal frameworks.
The plea said that affordability of medicines is a vital factor that contributes to effective healthcare delivery and the realization of the ‘right to health’.
“Generic drugs, which have the same active ingredients as their branded counterparts but are not marketed under a specific brand name, are often significantly cheaper. The prices of generic medicines (off-patented) can be 50 per cent to 90 per cent lower than those of branded medicines,” stated the petition.
It sought directions to the National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Authority to fix the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Non Scheduled formulations and off-patented generic medicines.
“By prescribing generic drugs, healthcare professionals can help alleviate the financial burden on patients and facilitate their access to vital medications,” the plea said.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the above observation while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the remission granted to 11 convicts by the Gujarat government in the case of gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of her family members during the 2002 post-Godhra riots in the state.
“Why is the policy of remission being applied selectively? The opportunity to reintegrate and reform should be given to every prisoner, and not only to a few convicts. Are all life sentence convicts after 14 years being given the benefit of remission," the bench asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the state of Gujarat.
ASG Raju argued that the 11 convicts deserved the chance of reformation and their applications seeking remission were considered pursuant to an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court.
In that judgement, the top court had directed the Gujarat government to consider and decide the application for pre-mature release within two months in terms of remission of 1992 policy.
“If a specific mandamus (order of the court) cannot be removed by legislation, it cannot surely be done by a judgment,” argued the ASG.
He said the opinion rendered by the Sessions Judge in Maharashtra against remission will not be relevant as it was passed mechanically without entering into merits.
“He gave this opinion because the convicts did not fit into the (Maharashtra’s remission) policy,” he added.
Further, the ASG said that the trial judge while awarding the sentence did not impose death penalty or specify that life sentence will run without remission.
The Centre, Gujarat government, and the 11 convicts have opposed the PILs filed by CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, National Federation of Indian Women, Asma Shafique Shaikh and others, saying that once the victim herself has approached the court, others may not be allowed to intervene in a criminal matter.
Last week, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, had said that the crime committed against Bilkis Bano was a "crime against humanity" perpetrated on the basis of religion.
The final hearing is underway in the batch of petitions filed against the release of convicts, including the one filed by Bilkis Bano.
The court posted the matter for next hearing on August 24 to allow the counsels for Centre, Gujarat government and the convicts to advance their arguments.
The 11 men convicted in the case were released on August 15 last year, after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. The convicts had completed 15 years in jail.
During the Constitution Bench hearing on Article 370, senior advocate Dushyant Dave suggested if the technology-driven hybrid hearings could also be extended to the district judiciary.
“If you could carry this (virtual hearing) to the lowest of the courts, including mofussil courts. It would be the greatest contribution,” he said.
At this, CJI Chandrachud said: “In Phase-III of eCourts (Project), we have a huge budget, so we are in process of setting up our own cloud software for video conferencing.”
In a short exchange, he recollected as to how state governments play a vital role in providing funds for judicial infrastructure in courts.
“Some state governments are very supportive, others you know are… I remember at the time of pandemic, I won’t name the High Court. They did not have the money to pay for licenses of these video (conferencing) platforms,” CJI Chandrachud said.
“They (that HC) were absolutely in a dire state. There was a lockdown and it was impossible to run the court without video conferencing,” he said, adding that the Supreme Court transferred its video conferencing license to them.
In his recent address to the convocation ceremony of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, the CJI had said that during the pandemic, courts across India held as many as 43 million hearings through virtual mode.
He said that these virtual hearings helped female lawyers in particular, as they otherwise face difficulties appearing physically in court due to the gender demands of domestic work and caregiving.
At an earlier occasion, CJI Chandrachud had pointed out that between March 23, 2020 and October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court alone heard 3.37 lakh cases through video conferencing.
While hearing a plea for declaring virtual hearing as a part of fundamental rights, a CJI-led bench had stressed that technology is not just for the pandemic and High Courts should not insist on physical presence of lawyers.
It had also asked the Chairman of Bar Council of India to call a report from Bar Councils of various states on steps to be taken to improve the use of technology for the lawyers.
In its e-initiative measures, the Supreme Court began live streaming proceedings of the Constitution Bench on YouTube and used artificial intelligence and natural language processing technology for live transcription of such hearings of national importance.
Notably, the Union government in its budget has announced that Rs 7,000 crore would be made available for eCourts Project, which will be used for infrastructure improvement in all the district courts also.
Talking to IANS, a top BJP leader said: "The party will not comment on the apex court verdict, but the question will now definitely be asked to Rahul Gandhi, that what are his thoughts about the Supreme Court, on which he used to make comments from the Ramlila Maidan to across the country and even to London and America, going to the extent of contempt of the apex court?"
He said that this question will be asked to Rahul Gandhi, who is excited only by the stay on conviction, that what is his thinking now on the independence of the judiciary and other constitutional institutions of the country and his continuous derogatory statements about democracy in India.
On the other hand, a minister in the Union government, while talking to IANS, targeted the double standard of Rahul Gandhi. He said: "When the court punishes you, you speak rubbish about it and when your punishment is stayed, you call it truth and justice. If this is not a double standard, then what is it?"
It is being said that from Monday, in the last week of the monsoon session of the Parliament, the BJP leaders will start cornering Rahul Gandhi and the Congress in both the Houses - Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, regarding this double standard.
Amidst the possibilities of Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership being restored, the discussion on the no-confidence motion brought by the opposition is to begin in the Lok Sabha from Tuesday.
According to sources, the BJP has included MPs from more than 12 states in the list of leaders supporting the party in the House during the discussion on the no-confidence motion. The list of leaders includes BJP MPs and ministers from poll-bound states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Telangana as well as from West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and northeastern states.
As per sources, MPs who will speak in Lok Sabha on behalf of BJP, are also preparing to attack Rahul Gandhi regarding his old statements and the statement given after the Supreme Court's decision on Friday.
BJP will not only target Rahul Gandhi on his statements but will also attack states rules by the Congress and its allies on increasing atrocities against women in Rajasthan, scams in Chhattisgarh, violence during West Bengal panchayat elections, situation in Bihar, 'corruption' of Kejriwal government. It will also target the opposition-led alliance INDIA on the condition of the states ruled by its allies.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, would hear the matter consecutively starting from August 2, except for Mondays and Fridays.
The petitioners' side has submitted a note to the Constitution Bench, through the nodal counsel appointed by the court, saying that it will take around 60 hours for oral arguments.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, Shekhar Naphade, Dinesh Dwivedi, Zafar Shah, C.U. Singh, Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sanjay Parikh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Nitya Ramakrishnan, P.V. Surendranath will advance arguments on behalf of the petitioners and other intervenors in the case.
On the other hand, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta primarily will defend the stand of the Union government.
The clutch of petitions was recently heard on July 11 to complete the necessary pre-hearing formalities since March 2, 2020, when another Constitution Bench ruled against the necessity of referring the matter to a seven-judge bench.
A large number of petitions have been filed by political parties, private individuals, lawyers, activists, etc., challenging the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which downgraded and split Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
In an affidavit filed recently before the top court, the Central government has defended the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir saying that its decision to dilute Article 370 has brought unprecedented development, progress, security, and stability in the region.
The Union Home Ministry said that the street violence, engineered and orchestrated by terrorists and secessionist networks has now become a thing of the past and and the “organised stone pelting incidences connected with terrorism-separatist agenda, which were as high as 1,767 in 2018 has come down to zero in 2023 till date”.
In the pending matter, intervention applications have also been filed by Kashmiri Pandits supporting Centre’s move stripping special status accorded to the erstwhile state of J&K.
The affidavit filed by the Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change said that “the NTCA today has no reason to believe that the mortalities were caused on account of any inherent unsuitability at the Kuno” and “cheetahs in general have very low survival rates, i.e., less than 50 per cent in adults in non-introduced populations.”
Further, the additional reply stated that in the case of introduced population, the survival rates may lead to about 10 per cent survival in cubs.
The Union government submitted that the veterinary care, day to day management and monitoring and other aspects relating to ecology and behaviour of cheetahs is being done by NTCA in consultation with international experienced experts.
On July 20, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to take some positive steps over the death of eight cheetahs at Kuno in a span of four months and called for an updated status report in the matter.
“Two more deaths last week. Why is this becoming a prestige issue? Please take some positive steps,” had said a bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The bench had suggested the government to consider if cheetahs could be relocated to other locations, like in Jawai National Park in Rajasthan.
The NTCA told the Supreme Court, after consulting experts, that the Mukundra Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan is not suited to accommodate cheetahs as there were five tiger deaths/disappearances in 2020 within a very short span of time.
The tiger reserve has a large number of feral cattle carrying a significant amount of parasitic load which can be detrimental to the survival chances to the cheetahs, it added.
Five adult cheetahs among the 20 brought into Kuno from Africa and three of the four cubs born in Kuno have died since March.
Wildlife experts suspect that the two most recently-deceased male cheetahs -- Tejas and Suraj -- suffered maggot infections due to their radio collars (fitted with GPS) and had similar organ damage.
As per experts, while the radio collar may not be the fatal issue, it can be a contributing factor and it must be addressed. Notably, every cheetah in Kuno is fitted with an African Wildlife Tracking (AWT) collar that provides location during movement and their behavior.
A total of 20 cheetahs were introduced at Kuno National Park in two phases. In the first phase, eight cheetahs were translocated from Namibia and they were released by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 17 last year. In the second phase, 12 cheetahs were brought from South Africa on February 18.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued a notice on the question as to whether the conviction should be suspended or not.
The bench was not inclined to pass any interim relief on Gandhi's prayer for suspension of his sentence. The High Court's refusal to stay his conviction and two-year jail term in a criminal defamation case, has cost the Congress leader his Lok Sabha membership.
"Issue Notice. The complainant, who appears on caveat, waives notice. Liberty to serve the state of Gujarat through the standing counsel. Learned Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani seeks 10 days time to file written submissions," recorded the top court in its order.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, requested the court for an early hearing as Gandhi could not attend the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament and the Election Commission could anytime announce bypoll to the Wayanad constituency.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the complainant BJP MLA in the defamation case, sought a period of at least 10 days to assist the court on questions of law and facts involved in the case.
The court sought responses of the Gujarat government and others on Rahul Gandhi's plea. It posted the matter for hearing on August 4.
At the outset, Justice B.R. Gavai offered to recuse from hearing the matter on the ground of political affiliation of his family members.
"My father was associated with Congress. He was not a member but he was closely associated. My brother is still in politics and he is in Congress. Please take a call if you want me to hear this," he said.
However, neither side raised any objection on hearing of the plea by Justice Gavai.
Earlier, the Supreme Court on Tuesday had agreed to hear on July 21 after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, sought urgent listing of the matter.
On July 15, the Congress leader had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat high court's order where a bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak had observed that granting a stay on his conviction would be an exception, and not a rule.
Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as a Member of Parliament in March, after a Surat court convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison for his "How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname" remark made during an election rally in Karnataka in April 2019.
Rahul Gandhi's 2019 remark was interpreted as an attempt to draw an implicit connection between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and fugitive businessmen Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi.
In March, the sessions court in Surat had dismissed Rahul Gandhi's plea seeking suspension of his conviction by the magistrate court, stating that his disqualification will not result in an irreversible loss to him.
The Congress leader was disqualified under a rule that bars convicted MPs from holding Lok Sabha membership.
This was informed by Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik while addressing the meeting of Tribes Advisory Council here on Tuesday.
“My government has been taking sustained interventions to improve the socio-economic conditions and realize the educational needs of our tribal communities. Education, livelihood and protection of their rights have been our focus area,” he said.
Patnaik said his government has set up Special Development Councils (SDCs) for promotion, protection and preservation of the tribal culture and traditions, heritage, and identity by involving tribal people.
This year, the programme has been expanded to 172 blocks of 23 districts, covering more than 84 lakh tribal people, he pointed out.
Stating that education is key to socio-economic upliftment, the Chief Minister said Odisha is one of the leading states in providing residential facilities to tribal students. Hostel facilities are available to more than 6 lakh students from 4.2 lakh households in 1735 schools functioning under the SC, ST Development department.
In the last 20 years, the number of high schools under the department has almost doubled, increased from 215 to 422.
Similarly, 62 higher secondary schools have been opened, he stated.
Odisha is considered as a pioneering state in the implementation of Forest Rights Act.
The state has launched a new scheme ‘Mo Jungle Jami Yojana’ to ensure right to hold and live in forest land to all eligible ST forest dwellers. It would ensure recognition of community rights over forest land, he added.
Further, the CM said his government has introduced its own funded scheme—Mukhya Mantri Jeevika Mission, which is one of the largest exclusive tribal livelihood promotion initiatives.
With a budget allocation of Rs 500 crore, the scheme will provide support to 1.5 lakh tribal households in 121 tribal sub-plan (TSP) blocks of the state over a three-year period from 2022-23 to 2025-26.
The state has submitted a proposal to the union government for expansion of the Odisha PVTG Empowerment & Livelihoods Improvement Programme for implementation in newly notified 1,138 PVTG villages for a period of 7 years from 2024-25 onwards, he informed.
A bench of justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed the issuance of notices to the convicts, who remained unserved even now.
The bench also directed the publication of notices in local newspapers, including in Gujarati and English, against the convicts who could not be served notices, including one whose house was found by the local police to be locked and his phone was switched off.
It directed that the next date of hearing of the matter - July 11 - shall also be published in the notices to be carried in the newspapers.
"We are adopting this process so that time is not wasted on the next date of hearing of the matter and the matter could proceed," the bench said.
On July 11, a new bench is likely to hear the matter as Justice Joseph who is heading the bench is set to superannuate on June 16, with May 19 being his last working day.
The Supreme Court will go on summer vacation from May 20 till July 2.
On May 2, the top court deferred the hearing after some of the counsel for the convicts raised objections about not being served notices on the pleas.
The top court had then observed, "It is obvious, rather more than obvious, that you all (convicts) do not want the hearing to be conducted by this bench."
The Centre and the Gujarat government had told the court that they are not claiming any privilege and not filing any plea for a review of the court's March 27 order, asking for the production of the original records with regard to the remission granted to the convicts.
The Gujarat government had raised preliminary objections with regard to the petitions filed in the matter other than the one by Bano, saying it will have wide ramifications as every now and then, third parties will approach courts in criminal cases.
On April 18, the top court questioned the Gujarat government over the remission granted to the 11 convicts, saying the gravity of the offence should have been considered, and wondered if there was any application of mind.
Asking for the reasons for the premature release of the convicts, the top court had also questioned the parole granted to them during their incarceration period. "It(remission) is a kind of grace, which should be proportional to the crime," it had said.
The Centre and the Gujarat government had then told the court that they might file a plea seeking a review of its March 27 order, asking them to be ready with the original files on the grant of remission.
On March 27, terming Bilkis Bano's gang rape and the murder of her family members during the 2002 post-Godhra riots a "horrendous" act, the apex court had asked the Gujarat government whether uniform standards, as followed in other murder cases, were applied while granting remission to the 11 convicts.
It had sought the responses of the Centre, the Gujarat government and others on the plea filed by Bano, who has challenged the remission of the sentences.
All 11 convicts were granted remission by the Gujarat government and released on August 15 last year.
PILs were filed by CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, independent journalist Revati Laul, former vice-chancellor of the Lucknow University Roop Rekha Verma and Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra against the release of the convicts.
Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang raped while fleeing from the riots that broke out after the Godhra train-burning incident. Her three-year-old daughter was among seven family members killed in the riots.
On Tuesday, a full court, which comprised all judges of the apex court, discussed the matter and decided on live-streaming proceedings.
According to people familiar with the development, judges agreed that live-streaming could begin from September 27, with the broadcasting of constitutional cases on a regular basis.
Last week, senior advocate Indira Jaising wrote to the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court to begin live-streaming proceedings of matters of public and constitutional importance, and also to keep a permanent record of the arguments by counsel on all sides along with the proceedings of the court.
Jaising said a number of matters of national importance, which includes petitions challenging the EWS quota, hijab ban, Citizenship Amendment Act, are being heard by the apex court and urged it to allow live-streaming of cases as per the 2018 judgment, as a part of the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of information and also the right of access to justice. "There is no substitute for first-hand knowledge, especially in the era of what has come to be known as 'fake news' and hence, there is an urgent need for real time information. Since the judgement was pronounced, I have made repeated requests to the Hon'ble court to commence live-streaming cases of national importance," said Jaising.
The cases likely to be live-streamed include petitions challenging the EWS quota law, the Centre's petition on enhanced compensation for victims of 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and the apex court's power to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Jaising had said the apex court should have its own channel and, in the meantime, the court can start streaming its proceedings on its own website, as well as on YouTube. She added there is adequate infrastructure and the ceremonial proceedings were live-streamed on the date of retirement of a former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana
Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Patna, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts live-stream their proceedings through their YouTube channels.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Hima Kohli and C.T. Ravikumar said: "Why is Baba Ramdev accusing allopathy doctors? He popularised Yoga. That is good. But he should not criticise other systems."
When informed about Ramdev's advertisement in the media against allopathy, the Chief Justice said, "what is the guarantee that Ayurveda will cure all diseases".
The Chief Justice did not mince any words in criticising Ramdev for deriding other medicine systems and added that he is accusing doctors, as if they were "killers".
The counsel appearing for the Indian Medical Association (IMA) pointed at the advertisements, where Ramdev had made disparaging statements against allopathy. He added that representations were made to the authorities but there was no response, and citing advertisements, the counsel added that 'they say that doctors were taking allopathy, but still they died due to Covid'. "If this goes on unabated...then it will cause serious prejudice to us," said advocate Prabhas Bajaj, representing the IMA.
The Chief Justice told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, to take instructions on misleading advertisements by Patanjali. He emphasized Ramdev must exercise restraint while abusing modern medicine systems, like allopathy.
The bench asked Mehta, how can Ramdev and Patanjali allege through advertisements in the media that allopathic doctors are killers? The bench said, "What is this?...It is better the Centre restrains him."
After hearing the arguments, the top court sought Centre's response on the plea by IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.
Upholding the validity of some provisions of the PMLA, a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar also said Section 5 of the Act relating to the attachment of property of those involved in money laundering is constitutionally valid.
The apex court said the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory. The ECIR is the ED's equivalent of a police FIR.
The bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, said it is enough if the ED discloses grounds at the time of arrest.
Rejecting the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the PMLA Act 2002, the apex court said, "The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness."
A special court can look into the relevant records presented by the ED when the arrested person is produced before it, the Supreme Court said. This will answer the need for the person's continued detention in connection with the alleged offence of money laundering, it said.
"Section 5 is constitutionally valid. It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interest of the person as also ensures that proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided under the Act," the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.
The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions on the interpretation of certain provisions of the PMLA.
During the hearing, the apex court deliberated on Section 45 of the Act as well as Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and also on balancing the rights of the accused.
While Section 45 of the PMLA deals with the aspect of offences to be cognisable and non-bailable, Section 436A of the CrPC deals with the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.
The apex court also heard arguments on Section 19 of the PMLA, which deals with the aspect of power to arrest, as well as Section 3 that provides the definition of a money laundering offence.
The Centre had earlier told the apex court that 4,850 cases have been taken up for investigation under the PMLA in the last 17 years and proceeds of crime of Rs 98,368 crore identified and attached under provisions of the law.
The government had told the court that investigation in these offences was carried out under the PMLA, including 2,883 searches.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said out of the Rs 98,368 crore identified and attached, proceeds of crime of Rs 55,899 crore have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli deferred till Thursday the matter after senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the BCCI, sought adjournment.
The counsel for the Bihar Cricket Association said that office bearers are continuing in office after their terms have ended technically.
"Tomorrow! one day nothing will happen! What is the hurry? the bench said.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy also appeared in the matter seeking to implead himself.
Earlier, the bench had agreed to list the plea of BCCI for urgent hearing.
The cricket body seeks to amend its constitution with regard to the tenure of its office bearers.
Senior advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the BCCI, had said that their application was filed two years ago and direction was given by the court to list the matter after two weeks.
"But then Covid happened and matter could not be listed. Please list this matter for urgent hearing because amendments to the constitution are in pipeline for two years now," he had said.
Patwalia had said the earlier order of the court says that amendment to the constitution can only be done with prior permission of the court.
Earlier, the Justice RM Lodha led committee had recommended reforms in the BCCI which have been accepted by the top court.
According to the recommendations, there should be a three-year cooling off period for the office bearers of the BCCI after a tenure of six years once a post comes to an end at the state cricket association or at the BCCI level.
The BCCI, in its proposed amendment, has sought abolition of cooling off period for its office bearers which would enable BCCI president Ganguly and secretary Shah to continue in office despite them having completed six years at respective state cricket associations.
The constitution of the BCCI, which has been approved by the top court stipulates, a mandatory three-year cooling off period for anyone who had served two consecutive terms of three years each in state cricket association or in BCCI.
While Ganguly was an office bearer in the Cricket Association of Bengal, Shah had served in the Gujarat Cricket Association.
A vacation bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose told the MCC counsel, "Even if the single course has remained vacant...It's your duty to see that they don't remain vacant."
The bench got irked to learn that 1,456 seats have remained vacant in medical colleges in the 2021-22 session. It said the MCC and Centre are playing with the life of students by not conducting a mop up round of counselling for students. "You're playing with the future of students...," said the bench, adding that in May, the authorities learnt that seats were vacant, so why didn't they conduct a mop up round.
The bench told the MCC counsel, "Why during the midst of the counselling, you're adding the seats? There must be a cut off that as on date there are a number of seats..." The MCC counsel submitted that orders in the matter would lead to cascading effect and requested the court to allow him to place an affidavit on record to explain the matter.
The top court emphasized that the country needs doctors and super speciality medical professionals, and told the MCC counsel that if the students are not given admission, then it will pass an order and also grant them compensation. The top court directed officers concerned to remain present in the court tomorrow, when it will pass order in the matter. "We'll pass orders for paying compensation... Who's responsible for this situation? ...Call your officer tomorrow...," said the bench.
The bench further added, "We need doctors...Why is there no streamline?... Do you know the stress level of the students and the parents?"
The bench allowed the MCC counsel to file its affidavit during the course of the day and emphasized, "these are very important matters related to rights of the students".
The top court made these observations while hearing a plea by a doctor Atharv Tungatkar, who appeared for the NEET PG-2021 and qualified it.
The plea, filed through advocate Kunal Cheema, said: "The petitioner is constrained to approach this court since precious medical seats may go unfilled/improperly filled and merit may be the casualty, since the modified scheme placed before this court by the Respondent no.1 in the matter of Nihil a P.P. v/s The Medical Counselling Committee...salient features of which are recorded by this court in order dated 16.12.2021 passed in the said matter, does not provide for, as to what happens to those AIQ seats which remain vacant despite the fourth round."
The plea added, "The chances of many seats remaining vacant after the fourth round is inevitable for the reasons stated hereinafter and the hence the petitioner is filing the present writ petition for appropriate writ praying for direction that the same shall revert back to the states, so that meritorious candidates would get a chance to avail the same".
A vacation bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi noted that the high court had itself in its order of May 13 said it would first decide the maintainability of the PIL filed by one Shiv Kumar Sharma and then it will go into the merit of the allegations levelled in the petition.
We are of the considered view that the high court would first deal with the preliminary objections on the maintainability of the writ petition and then proceed further in accordance with law , the bench said.
The top court also made it clear that it has not made any observation with regard to the merit of the case and has not dealt with the allegations made in the petition.
The Jharkhand government has moved the top court against the orders of the hgh court.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka said Anganwadi centres also perform statutory duties and have become an extended arm of the government.
"The 1972 (Payment of Gratuity) Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs(Anganwadi Workers) and AWHs (Anganwadi Helpers)," the bench said.
The bench noted that the issue involved in these appeals is whether Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers appointed to work in Anganwadi centres set up under the Integrated Child Development Scheme are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The appeals arose out of writ petitions filed by the District Development Officer and two other officers for taking exception to the orders passed by the Controlling Authority which said that Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to gratuity under the 1972 Act.
"This finding was affirmed by a single bench of the Gujarat High Court. However, the division bench of the High Court, on appeals filed by the District Development Officer, set aside the single bench verdict and held that AWWs and AWHs could not be said to be employees as per Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, and the ICDS project cannot be said to be an industry," the apex court noted.
The top court said that because of the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and Section 11 of the Right To Education Act, Anganwadi centres also perform statutory duties.
"The Anganwadi centres have, thus, become an extended arm of the Government in view of the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat. The Anganwadi centres have been established to give effect to the obligations of the State defined under Article 47 of the Constitution. It can be safely said that the posts of AWWs and AWHs are statutory posts," Justice Oka said in a separate judgement.
The apex court said that Anganwadi workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi helpers (AWH) have been assigned all pervasive duties, which include identification of the beneficiaries, cooking nutritious food, serving healthy food to the beneficiaries, conducting pre-school for the children of the age group of 3 to 6 years, and making frequent home visits for various reasons.
"Implementation of very important and innovative provisions relating to children, pregnant women as well as lactating mothers under the 2013 Act has been entrusted to them. It is thus impossible to accept the contention that the job assigned to AWWs and AWHs is a part time job.
"The Government Resolution dated November 25, 2019, which prescribes duties of AWWs and AWHs, does not lay down that their job is a part- time job. Considering the nature of duties specified thereunder, it is full time employment," the bench said.
It said that in the State of Gujarat, AWWs are being paid monthly remuneration of only Rs 7,800 and AWHs are being paid monthly remuneration of only Rs.3,950 .
AWWs working in mini Anganwadi centres are being paid a sum of Rs 4,400 per month and the important tasks of providing food security to children in the age group of six months to six years, pregnant women as well as lactating mothers have been assigned to them, it said.
"For all this, they are being paid very meager remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society," the apex court said.
Justice Rastogi also penned a separate but concurring judgement and said the time has come when the Central Government/State Governments have to collectively find out modalities in providing better service conditions to the voiceless commensurate to the nature of job discharged by Anganwadi workers/helpers.
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai dismissed the plea filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari.
"You want inquiry to be headed by former CJI? Is anybody free? Find out...What kind of relief is this...Don't ask for such reliefs which can't be granted by this court. Dismissed," the bench said.
Tiwari, in his plea, had sought directions to hold an inquiry into the clashes that took place in Rajasthan, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat during Ram Navami.
The PIL also sought directions to set up a similar committee to inquire into the arbitrary action of 'bull dozer Justice' in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
"Such actions are absolutely discriminatory and do not fit into the notion of democracy and rule of law," the plea submitted.
Bulldozers tore down several concrete and temporary structures close to a mosque in Jahangirpuri on Wednesday last as part of an anti-encroachment drive by the BJP-ruled civic body, days after the northwest Delhi neighbourhood was rocked by communal violence.
A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justice Hima Kohli took note of the submissions of senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for one of the petitioners, that the plea needed urgent hearing in view of the delimitation exercise being carried out in the state.
This is the Article 370 matter. The delimitation is also going on, the senior lawyer said.
"Let me see," the CJI said, adding, This is a five-judge matter. I will have to reconstitute the bench.
The court agreed to re-constitute a five-judge bench to hear pleas after summer vacation.
Several petitions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which splits J-K into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh -- were referred to a Constitution Bench headed by Justice N V Ramana in 2019 by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
A three-judge bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and P.S. Narasimha sought assistance from Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, and also issued a notice to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
The bench indicated that it would lay down guidelines to be followed by courts across the country in connection with cases involving death sentences. The bench noted that convicts are at a stage where the litigation assistance is bare minimum.
The Attorney General concurred with the bench that the system -- to deal with issues pertaining with death sentences -- needs to be institutionalised.
During the hearing, amicus curiae advocate K. Parameshwar cited a policy in Madhya Pradesh under which public prosecutors are given increment based on the number of sentences awarded in matters prosecuted by them. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave is also an amicus curiae in the matter.
The bench said this policy should be brought on record and scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 10.
Last month, the top court initiated suo moto proceedings for revamping the manner in which death sentences are handed down by the courts. It noted that the process should have more objectivity.
The top court registered the case to examine how the courts, which deal with death sentence matters, can develop a comprehensive analysis on the nature of the crime and the accused. It also pointed at the mitigating circumstances, which the concerned court can look into, while deciding whether a death sentence should be awarded or not.
The top court initiated the process after an application was filed by anti-death penalty body, Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi.
The application complained about alleged inadequacies in the existing system of preparation of reports by the probation officers and other officials from the jail administration.
The top court was hearing a plea by one Irfan challenging the trial court that awarded him death sentence, which was later confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh expressed concern over the ongoing legal battle between Singh and the Maharashtra government, terming it a "messy state of affairs" and also a "very unfortunate situation".
"We have had occasion to say earlier that it is a messy state of affairs. Very unfortunate situation... having the propensity of shaking the confidence of people in the police system and the elected system. Process of law must carry on..."
Former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who was accused by Singh of corruption, is already under arrest for offences, including money laundering.
The top court also stayed all proceedings against Singh, probe and filing of charge sheet, and listed the case for final disposal on March 9 on the question of transfer of investigation of cases against Singh to the CBI.
The bench also asked the Maharashtra government to completely keep its hands off with regards to the ongoing investigation till the top court decides Singh's plea to transfer all cases against him to the CBI.
Justice Kaul told senior advocate Darius Khambata, representing the Maharashtra government: "Meanwhile, you please completely stay your hand. We do not know if the investigation has to be transferred to the CBI...".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, said all the FIRs must come to the central investigating agency. He added that there would be a possibility that statements may point to a particular direction or colour the case, making things difficult for the investigating agency.
The bench remarked that if it were to be inclined to pass an order of transferring the cases to the CBI, investigation being completed would cause problems. Khambata assured the bench that, in all senses, the matter will be on hold, and the court took it on record.
The bench noted: "We have now put down matter for final hearing and if we were to be inclined to pass an order as per what the CBI and petitioner says, investigation being completed would cause problems."
Senior advocate Puneet Bali, representing Singh, complained against the Maharashtra government, saying that it has filed challans in one of the FIRs. "They have presented challan in one of the FIRs. This is absolutely going out of hand," he said.
After hearing arguments, the bench said it will take a call as to whether the investigation is to be transferred to the CBI or not. Singh has claimed to be a whistle-blower in exposing the alleged wrongdoings of the former Home Minister. In November last year, the top court had granted him protection from arrest in the cases and directed him to cooperate in the investigations.
The bench was hearing a plea by Singh against the Bombay High Court judgment passed in September last year, dismissing his plea challenging the two inquiries ordered by the Home Ministry for allegedly violating service rules and corruption charges, as non-maintainable.
The three women judges were among the nine new appointees to the Supreme Court. The three women judges took oath as judges of the Supreme Court. With this addition, Supreme Court now has four women judges, which is the highest ever. As per reports, the Supreme Court so far has had 11 women judges including the new appointments.
Among the women judges to take oath on Tuesday was Justice Hima Kohli, who is the former Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. In 2006, Justice Hima Kohli had been appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court and was later made a permanent Judge the preceding year.
Justice Hima Kohli will have a term till September 2, 2024 at the Supreme Court. Justice BV Nagarathna, who also took oath as the judge of Supreme Court on Tuesday, might become the first woman Chief Justice of India (CJI) in September 2027, if as per appointments based on the seniority. With her possible appointment as the CJI, India would have its first woman CJI. However, her tenure of office would be for 36 days only.
Justice Bela M Trivedi who was the third among the three women judges taking oath at SC on Tuesday is the first woman judge from the Gujarat High Court to be appointed as the Supreme Court judge. The appointment of three women judges at the same time in Supreme Court is major step towards gender representation at the apex court.
The Centre informed the same in a letter to all the directors of IITs/NITs/IIITs/IIMs, all Vice-Chancellors of Central Universities and all heads of Centrally-funded Higher Education Institutions and Councils on Tuesday (August 24).
According to the letter, various faculty positions especially in the SC, ST, EWS and other backward classes category in institutions functioning under the Ministry of Education (MoE) are lying vacant. The Centre directed these institutions to fill these vacant positions in mission mode within a period of one year starting from September 5th 2021 till September 4th 2022.
According to national media reports (Times of India), at least 15 of 44 Central Universities, including Delhi University have over 40% vacant faculty positions. Meanwhile, the Central University of Odisha and the University of Allahabad reportedly have over 70% of the faculty positions vacant. As much as 41% of SC posts, 39% ST and 55% of OBC reserved posts in the 45 central universities, technical and research institutions are lying vacant currently.
Moreover, the top court also pulled up the Army for resisting opportunities to women. The apex court also asked the Army to change its attitude and not wait for judicial orders to be passed in such matters.
The petitioner in a fresh application pointed out that on June 9, 2021, UPSC had issued a notice declaring the date of examination for admission to the Army, Navy, and Air Force wings of the NDA. As per the application, the UPSC examination notice is in complete violation of Article 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution.
The notice had said that the candidate must be an unmarried male, which excludes eligible and willing female candidates.
The decision of the top court came in during the hearing of the plea which sought directions for necessary steps to be taken to allow eligible female candidates to appear for the NDA and Naval Academy Examination and train at the National Defence Academy.
In a directive to the State’s Chief Secretary AP Padhi, the apex court asked the government to mention a deadline by which the Lokayukta appointment will be done.
Despite four years and five months since the passage of the Lokayukta Bill in the State Assembly, the government is yet to appoint the Lokayukta.
On July 10, the Supreme Court had directed the State government to constitute the Lokayukta in three months and had set the deadline of October 10.
On October 6, the selection committee under the chairmanship of Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik finalized the name of the fifth member of the panel which will choose a five-member search committee to recommend the name of the Lokayukta and its members.
Other members of the selection committee which will finalise the search committee are the CM, Assembly Speaker, the Leader of Opposition and the Orissa High Court Chief Justice.
Declining to provide relief from arrest, the apex court said as the scribe has hurt religious sentiments of people, bail cannot be granted to him, said sources.
“I respect the Supreme Court order. I won't file a review petition in the case. Now it's the police to take a decision whether to arrest my client or not. My client will join the investigation,” said Nikhil Mehra, counsel of Abhijeet Iyer.
Iyer was arrested by the Odisha Police with the help of Delhi Police on September 20 on the charges of hurting religious sentiments of the people.
A Delhi court had later granted him bail against a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh and directed him to cooperate in the probe by Konark Police.
Iyer was criticised for a tweet posted on November 16, 2017 in which he wrote: “Odisha was discovered by Bengali explorers, who called it “OriShala!!! And it was named Orissa”.
He also wrote that Jagannath Temple was built by the Gangas, who were disgraced Pallava Tamil retainers. “…no such thing as Orissa, just the wild southern provinces of undivided Bengal,” Iyer had tweeted.
Such remarks triggered widespread resentment in Odisha. Later, Odisha speaker had constituted a House Committee led by leader of Opposition Narasingha Mishra to probe the matter. The House Committee formed by the Odisha Assembly has also issued notice to Abhijit Iyer asking him to appear before the panel members on October 11.
A bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta slammed the states and UTs saying housing was a basic need for everyone.
"Housing is a basic need for everybody. When there is a policy of the Union of India, it has to be implemented by all," said the bench, adding that people without shelter cannot be "left to fend for themselves".
The bench imposed a cost of Rs one lakh each on nine states and UTs of Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Manipur, Goa, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Odisha and Tripura, while slapping Rs 5 lakh cost on Haryana.
Initially, the bench imposed Rs 1 lakh cost on Haryana, but the counsel appearing for the state insisted that the name of civil society member has been notified, however, when the bench perused the document, the name was not there and it enhanced the amount of fine to Rs 5 lakh.
It, however, did not impose cost on Uttarakhand considering the "peculiar circumstances" in the state due to the flood.
Asking them to deposit the cost within three weeks to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority, the bench said: "We make it clear that unless necessary steps are taken by the states and Union Territories, we have no option but to impose heavy cost particularly since winters are coming and persons without shelter cannot be left to fend for themselves."
Also Read: No govt vehicle for Malkangiri ADM; officer walks to office
The court directed these states and UTs to issue notification in this regard within two weeks.
It also asked all the states and UTs to formulate a plan of action, if not already done, on or before October 31, 2018, which will also include identification of homeless persons, providing them with some identity cards, and the nature of shelter required.
On March 22, the court had directed the states and UTs to notify the names of civil society members, but on Friday it was told that 11 states did not notify the names.
It had earlier took into note that several states have not yet constituted the committee to deal with the issues of implementation of the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM).
Koraput: Congress MLA from Koraput Krushna Chandra Sagaria and his family members formally embraced Buddhism today at a special function at Burja village under Laxmipur block of the district.
The ceremony was attended by hundreds of devotees from Koraput and Buddhist monks from Chhattisgarh, Raipur and Nagpur.
Apart from Sagaria’s family, 100 more families embraced Buddhism during the ceremony.
Buddhist monk Bhonte Buddhaghosh initiated the conversion process. The MLA’s pledge was preceded by customary rituals—“Trisharan” and “Panchseel Shikshya.”
Although Sagaria himself did not cite any reasons for the conversions, sources said that he was pained with the atrocities and discriminations on SC STs. Moreover he believes that Odisha was the state that promoted Buddhism and it should continue to do so, sources said.
Responding to a question on whether he will involve himself in promoting Buddhism, the Congress MLA said, “I have no such plans as of now.”
It is not clear if Sagaria, who represents a Scheduled Caste constituency, will be able to hold his reserved category status.
Once a victim herself of the ‘unconstitutional practice’ some 14 years back, Nazma Bibi of Bhadrak heaved a sigh of relief after the apex court scrapped Triple Talaq till Parliament brings in legislation in six months.
The entire world had earlier turned upside down for Nazma after her husband Seikh Sheru had left her pronouncing the normal triple talaq. With the responsibility of four children, Nazma from Bhadrak had to fight against all odds alone for almost three years till the couple subsequently reconciled. They, however, got no help from voluntary organisations and even family court when the community resisted their decision to stay together again.
Later, the couple moved Supreme Court in 2005 which allowed them to stay together after scrapping the Talaq next year. The apex court had then also ordered for the protection of the couple.
“I had faced problems with small children and the Triple Talaq should be completely abolished so that other women do not have to undergo same trauma like me,” said Nazma.
In a historic judgement today, a five judge constitutional bench by a 3:2 majority judgement said there is no constitutional protection for Triple Talaq. Justices Kurien Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Udey Umesh Lalit held that Triple Talaq is not integral to Islam, is banned in law and lacks approval of the Shariat.
Instant Triple Talaq is a Muslim practice in which men are permitted to “instantly” divorce their wives by simply pronouncing ‘Talaq’, meaning divorce, three times.
The Centre had sought to de-link the social practice from the tenets of Islam by stressing that it was a violation of gender equality.
Besides, the apex court has also debarred sports administrator and former secretary of OOA & Odisha Cricket Association (OCA) Ashirbad Behera from contesting elections for any post in the OOA.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipak Mishra and PC Pant came out with the ruling basing on the report of the Accountant General (AG).
“It is directed that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) shall investigate the matter in view of the Accountant General (AG) report and other aspects which pertain to 23 shops and Kalyan Mandap (Barabati Palace),” read the court order.
The apex court’s order seeks ascertain as to whether litigious commercial complexes built by OOA are within the leasehold area and as per lease agreement as the sporting body has been claiming.
The bench has termed the agreement entered into by the OOA with M/s INCON Associates is absolutely illegal.
Earlier, the Odisha High Court in an order issued in November 2015 had directed the collector of Cuttack to take over possession of properties on 0.705 acres of encroached land adjacent to the 20.808 acres.
The land was granted on lease to the OOA in 1949 for construction of the stadium.
Sources said, OOA has built a commercial complex comprising 23 shops and a Kalyan Mandap, known as Barabati Palace on government land close to the stadium.
The Court also directed the Cuttack district administration to take possession of the 23 shops at Kalyan Mandap.
The Revenue department shall be entitled to continue the tenancy and maintain the Kalyan Mandap and manage its affairs through Cuttack Collector.
Ashirbad Behera (73) was at the helm of OCA for almost 16 years in a row. He was first elected as secretary in August 2012. He also served as secretary of OOA for 28 years since 1988.
Behera along with OCA president Ranjib Biswal and other officials had stepped down on January 4, 2017 following a Supreme Court order regarding implementation of the Lodha Panel reforms in cricket.
Reacting on the fresh order, Behera said that he had earlier also stayed away from OOA affairs following a SC order and further has no interest in holding any posts.
“I welcome the Supreme Court’s direction,” said Behera.