Category: Legal

Categories
India News Legal Politics

Amartya Sen Lauds SC Ruling on Electoral Bonds

Amartya Sen expressed relief over the discontinuation of electoral bonds, highlighting the need for greater transparency in political support….reports Asian Lite News

Renowned economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen praised the Supreme Court’s recent ruling invalidating the electoral bonds scheme, labeling it a scandal.

Sen, speaking from Massachusetts, USA, emphasized the potential for enhanced transparency in electoral practices.

He expressed relief over the discontinuation of electoral bonds, highlighting the need for greater transparency in political support.

The apex court’s decision, citing violations of constitutional rights, mandates the State Bank of India to divulge details of encashed electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6.

Sen lamented the impact of party politics on India’s electoral system, underscoring the challenge faced by ordinary citizens in gaining representation.

He highlighted the influence of the government’s treatment of opposition parties on the electoral process, advocating for a free and fair electoral system.

Sen reiterated the constitutional goal of ensuring political freedom for all citizens, without favoring any specific community.

Notably, former finance minister P Chidambaram of the Congress party echoed Sen’s sentiments, hailing the court’s decision as a significant win for transparency.

The Supreme Court had observed that the majority of contribution through bonds has gone to political parties which are ruling parties in the Centre and the states.

It said that analysis of the annual audit reports of political parties from 2017-18 to 2022-23 reflects that there has also been a substantial increase in contribution and donation through electoral bonds.

For instance, in the financial year 2017-18, a sum of Rs 221 crore was donated through electoral bonds to different political parties across the spectrum, however, in the year 2021-22, the contribution through bonds multiplied more than 10 times to a whopping Rs 2,664 crore.

On the top of the list, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received a total of Rs 210 crore in 2017-18 through bonds and the donation rose to Rs 1,294 crore in 2022-23.

The table contained in the judgment, among other data, indicated that in 2021-22, Indian National Congress (INC) received Rs 236 crore; Trinamool Congress – the ruling party in West Bengal – obtained Rs 528 crore; Tamil Nadu’s ruling party DMK received Rs 306 crore.

The Supreme Court said that the share of income from unknown sources for national parties rose from 66 per cent during the years 2014-15 to 2016-17 to 72 per cent during the years 2018-19 to 2021-22.

“Between the years 2019-20 to 2021- 22 the Bond income has been 81 per cent of the total unknown income of national parties,” it added.

Further, it said that the total unknown income, that is donations made under Rs 20,000, sale of coupons etc., has not shown ebbing and has substantially increased from Rs 2,550 crore during the years 2014-15 to 2016-17 to Rs 8,489 crore during the years 2018-19 to 2021-22.

The apex court noted that the Bonds income between the years 2018-19 to 2021-22 constitutes 58 per cent of the total income of the national political parties.

In his separate concurring opinion, Justice Sanjiv Khanna based on the analysis of the data arrived at the conclusion that the electoral bonds scheme fails to meet the balancing prong of the proportionality test.

“However, I would like to reiterate that I have not applied proportionality stricto sensu due to the limited availability of data and evidence,” Justice Khanna said.

His opinion contained the data as available on the website of the Election Commission (EC) and the data submitted by the petitioners.

However, Justice Khanna clarified that the court had not opened the sealed envelope given by the EC.

ALSO READ: AAP’s top panel to discuss Delhi candidates

Categories
India News Legal Politics

SC Pulls Up Centre on Permanent Commission For Women in ICG

The Attorney General informed the bench about an Indian Coast Guard board addressing pertinent issues…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court, affirming women’s inclusion, directed the Centre to ensure permanent commission for women in the Indian Coast Guard, warning intervention if necessary. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, alongside Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed operational challenges cited by Attorney General R Venkataramani, emphasizing the inadequacy of such arguments in 2024. “Women cannot be left out. If you do not do it, we will do it,” remarked the CJI.

The Attorney General informed the bench about an Indian Coast Guard board addressing pertinent issues. Asserting the necessity of women’s inclusion, the bench scheduled further proceedings for Friday due to time constraints. Earlier, the bench stressed the need for a fair policy within the maritime force, questioning the persistence of patriarchal attitudes despite prior judgments favoring permanent commission for women in the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

The bench challenged the patriarchal stance, urging the Indian Coast Guard to adopt a more inclusive approach. It questioned why only one Short Service Commission woman officer, Priyanka Tyagi, pursued permanent commission, highlighting the need for her case’s consideration. The court reiterated the imperative for a comprehensive policy from the Coast Guard.

Previously, the bench requested a review of judgments granting permanent commissions in other defence services. It probed the Coast Guard’s provision for permanent commissions, questioning the rationale behind a mere 10% allocation for women officers. The court demanded parity with the Indian Navy’s policy and directed the Centre to formulate a gender-neutral policy.

In a plea filed by Priyanka Tyagi, the Supreme Court championed gender equality, urging the Coast Guard to address the disparity. The bench highlighted the solitary case of Tyagi pursuing permanent commission, underscoring the need for broader policy reform within the Coast Guard. It reiterated the imperative of a gender-neutral approach, aligned with judgments in other defence services.

The court’s stance underscores a commitment to gender equality within the armed forces, advocating for policies that accommodate women’s participation on equal footing. It emphasizes the judiciary’s role in ensuring equitable opportunities, signaling a pivotal moment in advancing gender parity within India’s defence institutions.

ALSO READ: AAP’s top panel to discuss Delhi candidates

Categories
-Top News Legal USA

‘Embryos Are babies’: Haley Sides With Alabama Court Ruling

The court’s decision, which deemed such embryos as children, has stirred debate within the medical and legal communities….reports Asian Lite News

Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley supported a controversial Alabama Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday, asserting that she considers frozen embryos created through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) as babies.

The court’s decision, which deemed such embryos as children, has stirred debate within the medical and legal communities.

In an interview with NBC News, Haley defended the court’s stance, stating, “Embryos, to me, are babies.” Although she conceived her son via artificial insemination, a different procedure, she aligned with the court’s perspective on IVF embryos.

Haley, a key contender in the 2024 Republican presidential race, is set to confront frontrunner Donald Trump for the third time.

Trump has remained silent on the Alabama ruling, prompting speculation on his stance. The decision has caused confusion and concern in Alabama, leading to the suspension of in-vitro fertilization procedures at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticized the ruling, linking it to the broader repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade.

With reproductive rights at the forefront, Republican candidates have largely avoided the abortion debate, potentially impacting their electoral performance.

Haley, the lone female Republican candidate, advocates for finding common ground on this contentious issue.

While Trump takes credit for appointing conservative Supreme Court justices, his stance on a national abortion ban remains undisclosed.

Meanwhile, Haley has said that she is not dropping out of the presidential race despite badly trailing former US president Donald Trump.

Haley made the remarks on Tuesday in a “State of the Race” address in Greenville, South Carolina, just days ahead of the Republican primary in the southeastern state, where she served as the first female Governor from 2011 to 2017, Xinhua news agency reported.

“When the country’s future is on the line, you don’t drop out. You keep fighting. In fact, you fight harder than ever. That’s why I refuse to quit,” she said in the speech delivered at Clemson University at Greenville ONE.

“South Carolina will vote on Saturday. But on Sunday, I’ll still be running for President. I’m not going anywhere,” she added.

ALSO READ: US Destroys Missile Launcher in Yemen

Categories
-Top News India News Legal

SC for same treatment to ayurvedic, allopathic doctors

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation had argued before the top court that classification of Ayush doctors and doctors under the CHS in different categories is reasonable…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the doctors, both under Ayush and the central health services (CHS), render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish between them as it held that ayurvedic doctors are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), at par with allopathic doctors.

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation had argued before the top court that classification of Ayush doctors and doctors under the CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law.

A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy said: “This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients.”

It emphasised that the only difference is that Ayush doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like ayurveda, unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using allopathy for tending to their patients.

“In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia,” said the bench, in its 19-page judgment.

It added that such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench said the municipal corporation not paying the ayurvedic doctors their salary and benefits, while their counterparts in CHS received salary and benefits in full, “must be seen as discrimination”.

It emphasised that ‘no work should go unpaid’ should be the appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where the service rendered by the ayurvedic doctors have been productive both for the patients and also the employer.

The top court said they must be paid their lawful remuneration, arrears and current salary, as the case may be. “The state cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise, it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution,” it said.

It directed that doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and the same is ordered to be disbursed, within 8 weeks from Tuesday, and any late payment will carry 6 per cent interest from the date of this order until the date of payment.

The top court judgment came on an appeal by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation against a Delhi High Court judgment which had upheld a Central Administrative Tribunal order holding that applicants, who were ayurvedic doctors under Ayush, are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, like allopathic doctors.

ALSO READ: India takes over UNSC presidency
Categories
-Top News India News Legal

Can’t detain person on possible apprehension of breach of law, order: SC

It noted this may be a good ground to appeal against the bail orders granted or to cancel bail but certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that a possible apprehension of breach of law and order cannot become a ground to detain a person under a preventive detention law, as it rejected the contention that a liberal meaning must be given to the expression “public order” in the context of such a statute.

A bench of Justices R.F. Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy said: “It is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the detenu, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons.”

It noted this may be a good ground to appeal against the bail orders granted or to cancel bail but certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute.

The bench pointed out that mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects “law and order”, but before it can be said to affect “public order”, it must affect the community or the public at large.

The Telangana government counsel argued that the detenu was a habitual fraudster who had created fear amongst the gullible public, and since he was likely to commit similar offences in future, it was important to preventively detain him, as the ordinary law had no deterrent effect on him.

The bench said while it cannot seriously be disputed the detenu may be a “white collar offender” as defined under the Act, yet a preventive detention order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

It noted that detention order would makes it clear that it is not based on any apprehension of widespread public harm, but the detenu was successful in obtaining anticipatory bail from the courts.

The bench observed to argue that a liberal meaning must be given to the expression “public order” in the context of a preventive detention statute is wholly inapposite and incorrect.

“On the contrary, considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder, the court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger, or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large,” said the top court in the 30-page judgment.

It made these observations while quashing a detention order passed against a person under Section 3 (2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The detention order was dated September 28, 2020 and it was connected with five FIRs that have been filed against the person, under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC. The accused’s wife moved the top court challenging the high court order, which did not quash the detention order.

ALSO READ: India, China agree to resolve border issues
Categories
Legal USA

Sarala Nagala nominated as US federal judge

Nagala is currently the Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Unit in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Connecticut…reports Asian Lite News

President Joe Biden has nominated Indian-American civil rights attorney Sarala Vidya Nagala as a federal judge in the State of Connecticut, media reported.

If confirmed by the Senate, federal prosecutor Nagala would become the first judge of South Asian descent to serve on the District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Nagala is currently the Deputy Chief of the Major Crimes Unit in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Connecticut, a role she has held since 2017.

She joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2012, and has served in a number of leadership roles in the office, including as Hate Crimes Coordinator.

Previously, Nagala was an associate at Munger, Tolles, & Olson in San Francisco, California from 2009 to 2012. She began her legal career as a law clerk for Judge Susan Graber on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2008 to 2009.

ALSO READ: Biden claims NATO consensus on Afghans

Nagala received her J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 2008 and her B.A. from Stanford University in 2005.

Nagala’s nomination came along with another four candidates for the federal bench and two new candidates for District of Columbia courts, “all of whom are extraordinarily qualified, experienced, and devoted to the rule of law and our Constitution,” according to a White House statement.

Myrna Perez nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sarah A. L. Merriam and Omar A. Williams for the District Court for the District of Connecticut, and Jia M. Cobb for the District Court for the District of Columbia.

This is President Biden’s fourth round of names for federal judicial positions, bringing the number of announced federal judicial nominees to 24.

ALSO READ: EU, US agree to end trade disputes

Categories
Asia News Legal

Setback for Pakistan in Reko Diq case

TCC has filed an appeal against the High Court of Justice order in the BVI Court of Appeal, as per the latest updates….reports Asian Lite News

The strength of Pakistan’s claim of success in the Reko Diq mines case might just be fading out as the Tethyan Copper Company (TCC) has challenged the ruling of a British Virgin Islands (BVI) court, which had allowed Pakistan to retain its assets, which were attached in connection to the case for the settlement of a $6 billion award.

TCC has filed an appeal against the High Court of Justice order in the BVI Court of Appeal, as per the latest updates.

Earlier, TCC had sought attachment of Pakistan’s assets for the enforcement of the $6 billion award that was given by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on July 12, 2019. The award was slapped on Pakistan for revoking a contract for mining at Reko Diq in Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

On December 10, 2020, the BVI High Court had attached the Roosevelt Hotel in New York and the Scribe Hotel in Paris to enforce the award. Both the hotels were owned by Pakistan’s flag carrier airline Pakistan International Airlines (PIA).

However, the same court later changed its order and ruled that PIA could retain its two assets, a news that was celebrated in Pakistan as a victory in the case.

As per the BVI ruling, TCC’s plea was not only rejected, but a fine of $5 million along with a $50,000 penalty was also imposed on the company.

“The BVI Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction, and the all ex-parte orders obtained by the TCC were based on an incorrect reading of law,” said a senior member of Pakistan’s Ministry of Law.

The rejection of the TCC plea also came because Pakistan has already initiated the process for the annulment of the $6 billion award in the Reko Diq case, a decision on which is awaited.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s legal experts say that the probability to have the $6 billion penalty annulled has certainly come as a booster for the country, which is already suffering from an economic crisis.

The international arbitration tribunal of the ICSID had slapped a $6 billion penalty on Pakistan on July 12, 2019, for a decision taken in 2011 to deny a mining lease for the Reko Diq project to the TCC.

Pakistan was ordered to pay over $4 billion in damages and $1.7 billion in pre-award interest to TCC, after it was found that Pakistan reportedly took an unlawful decision to deny TCC a lease to mine copper and gold deposits at the Reko Diq mine.

While Pakistan’s leverage given by the court and chances of annulment of the $6 billion award will be a great booster for the country’s economy, TCC’s latest appeal may just ruin Islamabad’s success claims and further hurt its crippling and worsening economic crisis.

ALSO READ: KSA lifts ban from 11 countries excluding Pakistan