Tag: court

Categories
-Top News UK News

Court quashes convictions for wrongly imprisoned asylum seekers

It is thought that as many as 67 people could have been jailed for such offenses. Many of those wrongly jailed will already have served all or the majority of their sentences…reports Asian Lite News

Seven asylum seekers in the UK have had their convictions quashed after being wrongly jailed for steering small boats across the English Channel.

Their case was thrown out on Tuesday over an “error of law” that saw five others have their convictions thrown out late last year for the same activity.

Lord Justice Edis found in those cases that the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service had “misunderstood” the law, and that a “heresy about the law had been adopted” and then conveyed to “those who were investigating these cases, and passed on to those who prosecuted them.”

Two more such cases are known to be heard by courts later this year, though a higher number of wrongly convicted asylum seekers are believed to exist. Each must submit their own individual appeal before their cases can be quashed.

It is thought that as many as 67 people could have been jailed for such offenses. Many of those wrongly jailed will already have served all or the majority of their sentences.

Nima Bari, an Iranian man who was jailed for three years in January 2021 and falsely labeled a “small boat people smuggler” by the Home Office, said: “I lost 20 months of my life for no reason.”

Bari was cleared of facilitating illegal entry by steering a boat, but he must take further legal action to overturn a separate charge of entering the UK illegally himself because he mistakenly pleaded guilty.

The other men who had their convictions quashed were Altaib Mobarak, Mohammed Naeemaee, Amir Keshavarz, Khedr Mohamed, Mohsen Babakhani and Sayed Hossein Daroubord — their nationalities are not known, but many appear to have Iranian names.

Speaking during Tuesday’s ruling, Lord Justice Edis said these seven convictions were “in all relevant respects indistinguishable” from those who had their convictions similarly quashed last year,” adding: “In each, the crown court proceeded on an error of law.”

The last ruling he was referring to deemed that “an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the United Kingdom in order to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully.

“Even though an asylum seeker has no valid passport or identity document or prior permission to enter the United Kingdom this does not make his arrival at the port a breach of an immigration law.”

The government has struggled to deal with a growing number of asylum seekers arriving via the English Channel, and the arrivals have become a hot-button issue in certain sections of the public.

Home Secretary Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill aims to curb arrivals with an array of changes to immigration law.

The bill would also increase the maximum sentence for the offense of assisting unlawful immigration to life in prison, and raise the penalty for illegal entry from six months to four years.

Patel continues to label all Channel crossings as illegal, despite the growing number of court judgments that suggest otherwise.

ALSO READ-Boris assembles new cohort of business leaders to turbocharge economy

Categories
-Top News UK News

Prince Harry files court claim over police protection

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

The claim to a judicial review was filed in September to challenge the British government’s decision-making behind the security procedures…reports Asian Lite News

Prince Harry has filed a claim for a judicial review against the British government’s decision not to let him personally pay for police protection while in the U.K.

The Duke of Sussex’s legal representative said Saturday that Harry wants to bring his children Archie and Lilibet to visit his home country from the U.S. but that is too risky without police protection.

The representative said Harry wanted to fund the police protection himself. His private security team in the U.S. doesn’t have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to U.K. intelligence information, they said.

“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K.,” a statement said.

“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”

The claim to a judicial review was filed in September to challenge the British government’s decision-making behind the security procedures.

Harry and his wife Meghan lost publicly funded police protection in the U.K. when they stepped down as senior working royals and moved to North America in 2020. The couple said their decision was due to what they described as unbearable intrusions and racist attitudes of the British media.

The couple first went to Canada before settling in the United States. They stated that they privately funded security for their move to the U.S. after then President Donald Trump said his government wouldn’t pay for their protection.

The statement said Harry’s security was “compromised due to the absence of police protection” during a short visit to the U.K. in July, when his car was chased by photographers as he left a charity event.

Harry and Meghan’s 7-month-old daughter Lilibet has yet to meet her great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, and other members of the royal family.

The statement said Harry first offered to personally pay for U.K. police protection for himself and his family in January 2020, during talks with the queen over the Sussexes’ future. The offer was “dismissed,” the statement said.

“The goal for Prince Harry has been simple – to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country,” it said. “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.”

Britain’s government said its security system is “rigorous and proportionate” and declined to comment on details. It also said it was inappropriate to comment on any legal proceedings.

ALSO READ-Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Under The Scanner

Categories
India News

Need umbrella body for judicial infrastructure requirements: SC

It also urged the government for a rethink in terms of infrastructural requirements of the judiciary…reports Asian Lite News.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that when the government is focusing on ease of doing business, settling disputes through arbitration, and the like, then it cannot leave high courts at the mercy of state governments for funding judicial infrastructure, and suggested that it contemplate creating an umbrella body for this purpose.

A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath also recommended the creation of a specific cadre for tribunals and also suggested that the Centre can contemplate creating an All India Tribunal Service for the effective administration of tribunals.

It also urged the government for a rethink in terms of the infrastructural requirements of the judiciary.

The top court cited that the government is talking about ease of doing business, inviting foreign investment, speedy disposal of corporate cases, and also a settlement of disputes through arbitration. It added therefore it is essential for the government to have a centralised mechanism for the development of the infrastructure and allocation of funds. It said a mechanism is required for monitoring allocation of funds by the Centre and states, and the disbursal of funds and their utilisation.

The bench said: “We have found that infrastructure work gets completed fast when funds are allocated by the Centre.” It also appreciated the Centre’s efforts for speedy allocation of funds for creation of court infrastructure.

Citing a meeting held with various high court chief justices, the bench said they don’t know when the state governments will allocate funds. “So, don’t leave the High Courts at the mercy of state governments for funds. You must create a centralised mechanism for development of judicial infrastructure,” it added.

The bench asked Centre’s counsel to seek instruction on creation of a body like the National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation, and a sub-committee at the national and state levels. It further added that there should be a central mechanism for allocation of funds for creation of infrastructure. The top court was examining the recommendation of retired Justice A.K. Sikri on the national court management system.

The bench also pointed out that problem is also at the end of the judiciary, after allocation of funds — they remain unutilised.

ALSO READ-US, EU to discuss Taiwan during dialogue on China

Categories
India News Lite Blogs

SC: Father liable to take care of son till he becomes major

The apex court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, confirmed the divorce decree awarded to the husband and wife by the family court and the high court. It also directed the father to provide Rs 50,000 maintenance per month…reports Asian Lite News.

The Supreme Court has said a child should not suffer in the dispute between a husband and wife, as it held that it is the responsibility of the father to maintain the son till he attains the age of majority.

A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna said: “Whatever be the dispute between the husband and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority. It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father.”

The bench noted that the mother of the child is not earning and she is residing at her parental house at Jaipur.

“Therefore, a reasonable/sufficient amount is required for the maintenance of her son including his education etc. which shall have to be paid by the respondent-husband, irrespective of the decree of dissolution of the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband,” it added.

The apex court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, confirmed the divorce decree awarded to the husband and wife by the family court and the high court. It also directed the father to provide Rs 50,000 maintenance per month.

The bench took into consideration the estranged couple has not been staying together since May 2011 and therefore, there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between them.

The bench noted since December 2019, the father had stopped paying the amount, which was being paid under the order passed by the Army authorities on November 15, 2012.

“The respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs 50,000 per month with effect from December 2019 to the appellant-wife towards the maintenance of the son as per the status of the respondent herein. The arrears @ Rs 50,000 per month from December 2019 to November 2021 shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.”

The marriage between the couple was solemnised on November 16, 2005, and the man was then serving as a Major. The couple’s child is now aged 13 years.

In May 2018, the family court passed a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the husband and wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife, and it was confirmed by the high court.

ALSO READ-SC announces nine recommendations for elevation to top court

Categories
-Top News India News

Life imprisonment means rigorous imprisonment for life, rules SC

In Singh’s case, the top court noted that one of the points argued by the petitioner relates to sentence of imprisonment for life not to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life…reports Asian Lite News.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that a sentence of imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life.

A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai declined to reopen the debate whether a life sentence should be treated as rigorous imprisonment for life.

“In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this court on the issues that arise for consideration in these SLPs, there is no need to re-examine the limited point for which notice was issued. Therefore, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed,” it said.

The top court judgment came on two separate appeals, where questions were raised whether life sentence awarded to them would be treated as rigorous imprisonment for life.

The bench said the issue raised has been authoritatively decided in various verdicts including the one involving younger brother of Nathuram Godse, convicted in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case. The appeals were filed challenging two high courts judgments which upheld the conviction and sentence of petitioners for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

The top court said it had relied upon on earlier judgements –1945 Privy Council case of Pandit Kishori Lal versus King Emperor and 1961 case of Gopal Vinayak Godse versus Maharashtra – while dealing with same question of law in 1985 case of Naib Singh versus Punjab, and held that “the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life”.

In Singh’s case, the top court noted that one of the points argued by the petitioner relates to sentence of imprisonment for life not to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life. “The law laid down by this Court in Naib Singh was followed by this Court in three judgments – Dilpesh Balchandra Panchal v State of Gujarat, Sat Pal alias Sadhu v State of Haryana and Mohd. Munna v Union of India,” it said.

The top court junked the appeal filed by Md Alfaz Ali, who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. In 2016, the Gauhati High Court had dismissed his appeal against the conviction and sentence. In July 2018, the top court had agreed to hear his appeal restricted to the question of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing life sentence.

The top court also dismissed another appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court verdict, which upheld a man’s conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

ALSO READ-Nothing on record to show Tharoor incited Pushkar to commit suicide: Court

READ MORE-SC announces nine recommendations for elevation to top court

Categories
India News

Reply in English to representations in English, Madras HC to Centre

The court also directed the Union government and all its instrumentalities to follow the Official Languages Act, especially its Section 3, which says that both the Hindi and English languages should be used for the official documents…reports Asian Lite News.

The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Central government to respond in English to a representation in English, and follow the provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963, strictly.

“Once a representation is given in English, it is the duty of the Union government to reply in English only,” it said.

The direction by a division bench of the High Court’s Madurai bench comprising of Justices N. Kirubakaran and Justice M. Duraiswamy came on a Public Interest Litigation filed by Madurai MP, Su Venkitasan, seeking English alone be used in all communications between the Centre and state governments.

Venkitasan had approached the court after the Minister of State for Home had replied to his letter, seeking setting up of examination centres for CRPF paramedical staff recruitment at Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, in Hindi only.

Justice Kirubakaran, citing Article 350 of the Constitution, said that every person is entitled to give representation in any languages used in the Union or the state. He said that once a question is given in English, it is the duty of the Union government to reply in English only. He added that this was in consonance with the Official Languages Act.

The court also directed the Union government and all its instrumentalities to follow the Official Languages Act, especially its Section 3, which says that both the Hindi and English languages should be used for the official documents.

Justice Kirubakaran also said: ” There are several languages in India which are hundreds or even thousands of years old” and that governments should take efforts to preserve the language.

ALSO READ-VP Naidu makes case for using native languages in judiciary

READ MORE-Mind Your Language

Categories
-Top News India News

SC announces nine recommendations for elevation to top court

Currently, the top court has only one woman judge, Justice Indira Banerjee, who is set to retire in September 2022. There have only been eight women judges appointed in the Supreme Court till date…reports Asian Lite News.

Putting end to all speculation, the Supreme Court on Wednesday published on its website names of nine persons, including three women, it recommended for appointment as judges to the top court.

The names, finalized by Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising the four senior most judges of the top court, are: Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Bela Trivedi, and senior advocate P.S. Narasimha.

The list includes three women judges, include Justice Nagarathna from the Karnataka High Court, who if elevated now, could become the country’s first woman CJI in February 2027. Her father, Justice E.S. Venkataramiah, had been the CJI for a few months in 1989.

The other two women judges selected by the collegium are Justice Kohli, who is the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court, and Justice Trivedi, of the Gujarat High Court.

Senior advocate Narasimha is the collegium’s choice for direct appointment to the bench. His recommendation has come nearly a week after the retirement of Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, who was the fifth lawyer to be directly appointed from the bar.

Of the other names finalised by the collegium are: Justices Oka, Vikram Nath, and Justice Maheshwari, are the Chief Justice of the Karnataka, Gujarat, and Sikkim High Courts, and Justices Ravikumar, and Justice Sundresh, both of the Kerala High Court.

These recommendations have been sent to the Law Ministry, which has the option of sending the recommendations back to the collegium for review. However, if these recommendations are re-submitted by the collegium, then names have to be approved.

Currently, the top court has only one woman judge, Justice Indira Banerjee, who is set to retire in September 2022. There have only been eight women judges appointed in the Supreme Court till date.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court’s Justice Navin Sinha retired, leaving 24 judges in the top court, which has a total strength of 34 judges. There has been no appointment after September 2019 as Chief Justice Ramana’s predecessor, Chief Justice S.A. Bobde did not make a single appointment during his 17-month tenure, as he couldn’t build a consensus on several names, stalling appointments in the top court.

ALSO READ-Threat to human rights highest in police stations, says CJI

READ MORE-CJI slams lack of quality debate in Parliament

Categories
-Top News India News

Tight-rope walk for judges, more so for a SC judge, says CJI

He stressed judges must not forget the social dimensions that is at the heart of every case before us. “This is our sacred duty and a burden that we bear gladly,” he added…reports Asian Lite News.

Chief Justice N.V. Ramana on Wednesday said the process of decision-making goes beyond the knowledge and application of principles of law, as he emphasised how judges are often caught in the dilemma of morality versus legality, in the quest to deliver justice.

In his remarks at Supreme Court judge, Justice Navin Sinha’s virtual farewell function, organised by Supreme Court Bar Association, he cited a quote: “Doing the right thing is not the problem. Knowing what the right thing is, that’s the challenge. We judges are often caught in the dilemma of morality versus legality, in our quest to deliver justice. There are multiple sleepless nights, that we go through to resolve such issues. It is often a tight-rope walk, more so, for a Supreme Court judge. After all, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.”

Chief Justice Ramana emphasized the process of decision making goes beyond the knowledge and application of principle of law. “It needs moral courage to render an opinion which might displease many. It is imperative for judges not to be swayed by these external pressures”, he said.

He noted that impartiality is not an easy quality to possess or apply to the cases before them.

“We often carry our individual baggage, our biases and prejudices which can unconsciously affect the decision-making process. Our social conditions, upbringing and life experiences often colour our opinions and notions. But, when we adorn the robe of a judge, we must make a conscious effort to cast aside our biases and prejudices,” said the CJI, adding equality, objectivity and even-handedness form crucial aspects of fairness.

He stressed judges must not forget the social dimensions that is at the heart of every case before us. “This is our sacred duty and a burden that we bear gladly,” he added.

Justice Sinha was elevated to the top court on February 17, 2017. During his tenure, he penned 114 judgments on diverse topics including intellectual property, criminal law, and many more. He has disposed of over 13,671 cases in the Supreme Court.

In his farewell speech, he emphasised on training young lawyers to benefit both the bar and the bench. “Humility lies in recognising one’s own shortcoming and address it. In today’s time when competition is stiff and laws are tough, I believe younger generation of lawyers need to be trained,” said Justice Sinha.

He further added that young lawyers must be taught manner and demeanour of a lawyer. “When the lawyer appears, a judge should be able to trust him..,” Justice Sinha said.

ALSO READ-CJI slams lack of quality debate in Parliament

READ MORE-Threat to human rights highest in police stations, says CJI

Categories
-Top News India News

Threat to human rights highest in police stations, says CJI

Justice Ramana was delivering the keynote address at an event organised by the National Legal Services Authority of India…reports Asian Lite News

Chief Justice N.V. Ramana on Sunday said the threat to human rights and bodily integrity are the highest in police stations and even the privileged are not spared the third-degree treatment.

Justice Ramana was delivering the keynote address at an event organised by the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) to launch the “vision and mission statement” and the mobile app for NALSA.

Emphasizing human rights and dignity are sacrosanct, the Chief Justice said: “The threat to human rights and bodily integrity are the highest in police stations. Custodial torture and other police atrocities are problems which still prevail in our society. Going by the recent reports even the privileged are not spared third-degree treatment”.

He stressed that in spite of constitutional declarations and guarantees, lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to arrested or detained persons. He emphasized that the decisions taken in these early hours will later determine the ability of the accused to defend himself.

“To keep police excesses in check dissemination of information about the constitutional right to legal aid and availability of free legal aid services is necessary. The installation of display boards and outdoor hoardings in every police station/prison is a step in this direction”, he said.

For a society to remain governed by the rule of law, the Chief Justice said it is imperative to bridge the gap of accessibility to justice between the highly privileged and the most vulnerable.

“The realities of socio-economic diversity which prevail in our nation, cannot ever be a reason for denial of rights. If, as an institution, the judiciary wants to garner the faith of the citizens, we have to make everyone feel assured that we exist for them. For the longest time, the vulnerable population has lived outside the system of justice,” he added.

He added that despite the Covid-19 pandemic, we have successfully been able to continue our legal aid services.

“Majority of those who do not have access to justice are from rural and remote areas which suffer from lack of connectivity. I have already written to the government emphasizing the need to bridge the digital divide on a priority basis”, he added.

Citing NALSA has roped in Department of Post, the Chief Justice said: “The services of the existing postal network can be utilized to spread awareness regarding the availability of free legal aid services and to increase the outreach of legal services to the eligible category of persons, especially to the persons residing in rural and far-flung areas of the country”.

Concluding the address, he cited Martin Luther King Junior, “Every step towards the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle, the tireless exertion and passionate concern of dedicated individuals”.

ALSO READ: India approves J&J single-dose jab for emergency use
Categories
-Top News India News

Nobody too young to effectuate big change, says Justice Chandrachud

He said Ambedkar was from the Mahar caste, an untouchable Dalit caste, who significantly struggled in gaining access to even primary education…reports Asian Lite News.

Supreme Court judge Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said on Saturday that the example of Greta Thunberg, one of the strongest voices against climate change, shows that “nobody is too young to effectuate big change”.

Chandrachud was speaking virtually on the topic ‘Students as the Constitution’s Vanguards’ at a programme organised by the Shikshan Prasarak Mandali (SPM) on the occasion of the 101st birth anniversary of his father late Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, who was the longest-serving Chief Justice of India.

“In viewing our Constitution, as a primary spirit to counter majoritarianism, we can equip ourselves with a unique lens to view the world and balance competing interests,” Chandrachud said.

Speaking on climate change, Chandrachud emphasised that the world is in the midst of an accelerating climate change crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that ecological disruptions increase the existing inequalities.

Greta Thunberg

He added that to combat this crisis, a collective global action is required.

Chandrachud further said that Greta Thunberg, who is one of the strongest voices in the civil society against climate change, began her journey as a lone 15-year-old sitting outside the Swedish Parliament demanding government action against the imminent risks of global warming.

“Her example, in addition to that of many others, shows us how nobody is too young or insignificant to effectuate big change. My learning for life, at my age, is also that you are never too old to be the change,” said Chandrachud.

He insisted that majoritarian tendencies must be questioned against the background of “our constitutive promise”.

“Any semblance of authoritarianism, clampdown on civil liberties, sexism, casteism, otherisation on account of religion or region is upsetting a sacred promise that was made to our ancestors who accepted India as their Constitutional republic,” he added.

Chandrachud also cited Bhimrao Ambedkar and added that before mounting a ferocious battle against casteism, patriarchy and oppressive Hindu practices, his first struggle was gaining access to education.

He said Ambedkar was from the Mahar caste, an untouchable Dalit caste, who significantly struggled in gaining access to even primary education.

“His foremost memories of schooling are of humiliation and segregation where he had to attend his classes while sitting outside the classroom and ensuring that he does not touch the water or the notebooks that belonged to the upper caste students,” he added.

Chandrachud further said that just like Ambedkar, several revolutionaries in India and the world like Savitribai Phule, Jyotiba Phule, Nelson Mandela and even Malala Yousafzai heralded their emancipatory movements through a radical quest for education.

Chandrachud also said that irrespective of the electoral legitimacy of the government, the Constitution is the North Star against which conformity of every state action or inaction would have to be judged.

Citing the 71st year of the Constitutional republic of the country, he said that many may, on occasion, feel that the country’s democracy is no longer new and the need to study Constitutional history and engage with its framework isn’t as worthwhile.

“However, it is important to recognise that in times of peace or crisis, irrespective of the electoral legitimacy of the government, the Constitution is the North Star against which the conformity of every state action or inaction would have to be judged,” he said.

ALSO READ-Top court seeks suggestions on live streaming

READ MORE–Justice Chandrachud Overrules His Father