Tag: SC

Categories
India News Politics

Kejriwal moves SC, terms arrest as assault on democracy

Assailing the HC verdict, Delhi CM’s plea said the judgement failed to appreciate that the statements made before the probe agency are not held to be gospel truth…reports Asian Lite News

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the excise policy case.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed his plea, saying Kejriwal’s arrest is not in contravention of law and remand can’t be termed “illegal”.

The high court further stated that this court is of the opinion that the accused has been arrested and his arrest and remand have to be examined as per law and not as per the timing of elections.

Kejriwal’s challenge to the timing of arrest before general elections in the absence of any mala fide on the part of ED is not sustainable, said the court.

Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21. The trial court sent him to judicial custody till April 15. ED alleged that the Aam Adami Party (AAP) is the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the alleged liquor scam.

The agency also claimed that Kejriwal was directly involved in the formation of the excise policy. The case pertains to alleged irregularities and money laundering in framing and implementing the Delhi Excise Policy 2022, which was later scrapped.

While Kejriwal was not named in the FIRs registered by the ED or the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Delhi excise policy case, his name first found a mention in the ED’s chargesheet, wherein the agency claimed that he allegedly spoke to one of the main accused, Sameer Mahendru, in a video call and asked him to continue working with co-accused and AAP communications-in-charge Vijay Nair.

In the appeal filed in the top court, Kejriwal said his arrest on March 21 after the announcement of the general elections is “obviously motivated by extraneous considerations”.

“The intervention of this court is urgently warranted, as over and above the issue of illegal curtailment of liberty, the petitioner’s arrest also constitutes an unprecedented assault on the tenets of democracy, free and fair elections and federalism, both of which form significant constituents of the basic structure of the Constitution,” it said.

The arrest was made solely relying on subsequent, contradictory and highly belated statements of co-accused who have now turned approvers, it said.

Moreover, such statements and material were in possession of the Enforcement Directorate since the last nine months and still the arrest has been made illegally in the middle of general elections 2024, the plea said.

“The petitioner’s arrest bears serious, irreversible ramifications for the future of electoral democracy in India and if he is not released forthwith to participate in the upcoming elections, it will establish a precedence in law for ruling parties to arrest heads of political opposition on flimsy and vexatious charges before elections, thereby eroding the core principles of our Constitution,” the plea said and sought his immediate release by terming the arrest as illegal.

Assailing the high court verdict, the plea said the judgement failed to appreciate that the statements made before the probe agency are not held to be gospel truth and can always be doubted by the courts.

“The High Court in the impugned judgement failed to appreciate that such statement of co-accused  later- turned approver statements cannot be the starting point for ascertaining the guilt of the accused person, and also the HC has failed to appreciate the procedure adopted by the ED in procuring such statements by coercion,” the plea said.

HC dismisses plea seeking Kejriwal’s removal

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea moved by Delhi’s former Minister Sandeep Kumar, seeking direction to remove Kejriwal from holding the post of Chief Minister.

The Court said, “This is the third petition with identical prayers. We will impose a Rs 50,000 fine on the petitioner. Stop making a mockery of the system. Costs are the only way to curb such petitions.”

The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora showed displeasure with the petitioner and stated that the Governor will take a call on this.

“We won’t. Don’t give political speeches in court. You’re trying to involve us in political tricket,” it said.

An ex-minister in the Aam Aadmi Party government and former MLA has recently filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from holding the post of Chief Minister.

The petition claims a writ of quo-warranto against Arvind Kejriwal, alleging that he has incurred the incapacity to hold the office of Chief Minister of Delhi after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in Excise Policy case.

Petitioner Sandeep Kumar, former Minister for Women and Child Development, Social Welfare, SC/ST Govt of NCT of Delhi in Aam Aadmi Party government and former MLA from Sultanpur Mazra Vidhanbasa Delhi, through plea stated that Arvind Kejriwal, while lodged in jail, has incurred an incapacity to carry out his constitutional obligations and functions under Articles 239AA (4), 167 (b) and (c) and proviso to sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and hence he can no longer function as the Chief Minister of Delhi. (ANI)

ALSO READ-Kejriwal is a lion, wouldn’t be in jail for long, says Sunita  

Categories
Crime India News Legal

SC dismisses voter breathalyser test plea

Judges deemed the plea as more of a publicity stunt than a genuine legal concern…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court recently rejected a plea advocating for breathalyser tests of voters queued at polling booths during elections. The petition, presented by the Andhra Pradesh unit of the Janavahini Party, argued that voters should not be permitted to cast their ballots under the influence of alcohol, especially given the imposition of the model code of conduct.

However, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta deemed the plea as more of a publicity stunt than a genuine legal concern, echoing the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s earlier decision to dismiss the petition.

The bench expressed skepticism towards the petition’s motives, asserting that the demand for breathalyser tests appeared to be aimed at garnering attention rather than addressing a substantial issue.

They pointed out the existing measures on polling days, such as the enforcement of dry laws and the deployment of police personnel across voting precincts, as sufficient deterrents against alcohol-related interference in the voting process.

Initially filed in the high court, the plea failed to convince the judiciary of its legal merits. The court noted the absence of specific legal provisions obligating the Election Commission of India to implement breathalyser tests at polling booths.

The Janavahini Party’s representation, issued on January 6, urged the Election Commission to adopt such measures to ensure that only sober voters exercised their franchise. However, the high court found this representation lacking in legal grounds.

The Janavahini Party persisted in challenging the Election Commission’s inaction, seeking a court order mandating the deployment of breathalyser devices at polling booth entrances. Their objective was to restrict voting rights to individuals unaffected by alcohol consumption, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process

 Despite their efforts, both the high court and the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the plea, underscoring the absence of legal mandates compelling such measures and considering the existing election day protocols as adequate safeguards against alcohol-related disruptions.

‘No anonymous political hoardings’

 The Election Commission of India (ECI) has cracked down on anonymous political hoardings while issuing directions for disclosure of publishers and printers on them for traceability and accountability.

The ECI on Wednesday directed all states and Union Territories to make it mandatory for all parties to clearly publish the identification of the printer and publisher on printed election-related material.

According to the ECI, the directions will be implemented on all political hoardings, ensuring accountability and transparency in the campaign communications.

The decision was taken by the Commission consisting of Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar, and Election Commissioners Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu after representations were received in the poll panel stating that in advertising spaces controlled by Municipal authorities, hoardings without the identity of the printer or publisher had been noticed.

The poll panel said that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unequivocally prohibits the printing or publishing of election pamphlets, posters, placards, or banners without prominently displaying the name and address of the printer and publisher.

This requirement of disclosing the identity of publishers serves as a cornerstone for regulating campaign financing and fixing of responsibility in case content is found unbecoming of the framework of Model Code of Conduct or the statutory provisions, the ECI official added.

It may be recalled that CEC Rajiv Kumar highlighted addressing the issue of misinformation as one of the challenges, along with money and muscle power, for a level playing field.

With this directive, the Commission now has put the accountability on printers, publishers, licensees, contractors of Urban Local Bodies renting out outdoor advertising space for political advertisements published on outdoor media.

This is in continuation of the ECI’s recent advisory vide press note dated 02.04.2024 to editors of all newspapers to be cautious while publishing political advertisements in newspapers.

ALSO READ: DMK has first copyright on corruption: Modi

Categories
India News Politics

SC to hear plea for cross-verification of EVMs with VVPAT

Justice Khanna, who was sitting in a special bench along with Justice MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, said the court is aware of the situation and would hear the matter next week…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would hear next week a plea seeking cross-verification by the voters of votes cast by them as “counted as recorded” in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

A bench headed by Justices Sanjiv Khanna said this after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms pleaded that the matter should be heard urgently in view of upcoming elections.

If the case is not heard, the plea would become infructuous, the bench was told.

Justice Khanna, who was sitting in a special bench along with Justice MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, said the court is aware of the situation and would hear the matter next week.

The seven-phase Lok Sabha polls will begin on April 19.

In July last year, the apex court asked the Election Commission of India to respond to the plea.

The NGO had sought direction from the Election Commission and the Centre to ensure the voters are able to verify through VVPATs that their vote has been “counted as recorded”.

Declare unconstitutional the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the practice and procedure of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to the extent that they violate the fundamental right of the voters to verify through VVPATs that their vote has been “recorded as cast” and “counted as recorded”, the plea said.

The requirement of the voters verifying that their votes have been “recorded as cast” is somewhat met when the VVPAT slip is displayed for about seven seconds after pressing the button on the EVM through a transparent window for the voters to verify that their vote has been recorded on the internally printed VVPAT slip before the slip falls into the ‘ballot box’, it stated.

It said there is a complete vacuum in law as the poll panel has provided no procedure for the voter to verify that his or her vote has been ‘counted as recorded’ which is an indispensable part of voter verifiability. (ANI)

‘11 states have more women than men electors’

Eleven states have more women than men electors in 2024, and Kerala accounts for the highest number, according to a report on Wednesday, that showcased the role and participation of women in the upcoming General Elections of 2024.

The four-part series report by Quantum Hub, a New Delhi-based public policy research and consulting firm, showed that Kerala has 51 per cent more women than men electors, followed by Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu.

Conversely, states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, and Uttarakhand have the lowest share of women electors.

Moreover, the 2024 elections also have the highest share of women electors — 48.6 per cent — in the last two decades. Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar have the most number of new women electors since 2019.

“Women as an electorate have become more important than ever. This is also reflected in pre-poll promises by all regional and national parties,” said Aparajita Bharti, Founding Partner at TQH Consulting.

“We are trying to spotlight and track the growing significance of the women voter through this series. Political participation and representation is key to continued progress towards women empowerment in the country,” she added.

The report also revealed that the representation of women from service and overseas sectors, such as the Armed Forces and paramilitary, remains notably low at 3.5 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.

EC hold meeting with all States and UTs

The Election Commission of India on Wednesday convened a crucial meeting with all states and union territories to review and assess the law and order situation, prevention of illicit activities, seizures and strict vigil across inter-state and international borders in the ongoing General Elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies 2024 for a free, fair, peaceful and inducement free elections.

The purpose of the combined review was to bring all concerned stakeholders together on the same platform for a seamless coordination and cooperation amongst officials of the neighbouring states/UTs along with central agencies guarding the borders. The Commission, in detail, reviewed critical issues pertaining to each State/UT.

The meeting chaired by Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar along with ECs Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu was attended by top officials from States/UTs and central agencies guarding the borders.

CEC Rajiv Kumar in his opening remarks underscored Commission’s commitment to ensuring free, fair, peaceful, and inducement-free elections, and called upon all stakeholders to work together seamlessly to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and ensure level playing field.

He directed States/UTs to ensure that every voter can exercise their right to vote without fear or intimidation. CEC Shri Kumar called on all States/UTs and agencies to convert their ‘resolve’ into concrete ‘actions’ for a free, fair, peaceful and intimidation-free elections.

ALSO READ-SC grants bail to AAP’s Sanjay Singh

Categories
India News Politics

SC Notice to Centre on CAA

Citizenship Amendment Act: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s reply on pleas seeking stay on CAA Rules 2024…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on the applications seeking stay on the Citizen Amendment Rules 2024, brought to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked the Centre to respond within three weeks and will take up the hearing on April 9, 2024.

Even though the petitioners were persistent on stay of rules in the meantime, the bench didn’t pass any such order.

Petitioners then said that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, be asked to give an undertaking that rules will not be implemented and citizenship will not be granted till the petitions are pending before the apex court.

However, Mehta refused to make statement that Centre will not grant any citizenship in the meantime.

He said whether migrants are granted citizenship or not, none of the petitioners are affected. He clarified that the CAA doesn’t take away citizenship from anyone.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, asked what the sudden urgency was to notify the rules nearly four years after the CAA was passed.

“What’s the urgency after four years? If any process of citizenship starts and people get citizenship, it will be irreversible. So the process shouldn’t start. Once you grant citizenship, you can’t take it back,” Sibal said.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for migrants, said, “I am from Balochistan, I came to India because I was persecuted. If I am given citizenship, how is it affecting them?”

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the petitioners, replied, “They will get the right to vote.”

Jaising said, “This court must say that citizenship granted during this period will be subject to orders of this court. We cannot go on with hope and trust jurisprudence anymore.”

To this, the CJI replied, “But the infrastructure of state-level committees, etc., is not in place.” Sibal then said that if something happens, they will approach the top court.

In it’s order, the bench said, “Let submissions be made on the stay application limited to five pages till April 2. Let respondents file a 5-page reply to the application by April 8.”

The Central government on March 11 notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 which effectively brought into force the controversial CAA of 2019.

The Rules opened implementation of CAA granting speedy citizenship to members of persecuted minority in Islamic countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

A day after the Central government issued the Rules for the CAA, Kerala-based political party Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of Rules.

The Kerala-based political party demanded that the impugned statute and regulations be stayed, and that no coercive steps be taken against persons belonging to Muslim community who have been deprived of the benefit of this law.

Apart from IUML, Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), Leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saika, and Congress MP from Assam, Abdul Khaleque, and others also filed applications seeking stay on rules.

The plea stated that rules are manifestly arbitrary and create an unfair advantage in favour of a class of persons solely on the ground of their religious identity, which is impermissible under articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

CAA, passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019 and getting the President’s assent the following day, met with protests all across the country. The CAA came into effect on January 10, 2020.

The law fast-tracks the process of granting citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.

The 2019 Act amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, which makes illegal migrants eligible for citizenship if they (a) belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities, and (b) are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. It only applies to migrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. As per the amendment, certain areas in the Northeast are exempted from the provision. (ANI)

ALSO READ-Understanding the Legal Foundation and Implications of the CAA

Categories
-Top News India News

SC Pulls Up SBI On Poll Bonds

A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked SBI’s Chairman to file a compliance affidavit 5 pm of March 21…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all details to the Election Commission of India which are in its possession, including the Electoral Bonds’ unique alphanumeric numbers corresponding to each bond.

A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked SBI’s Chairman to file a compliance affidavit 5 pm of March 21.

The Chairman has to file affidavit indicating that SBI has disclosed all details of Electoral Bonds which were in its possession and custody and no details have been withheld, the court said.

It further asked the Election Commission of India to upload the details on its website forthwith upon receipt of information from the SBI.

There is no manner of doubt that SBI was required to disclose all details available with it. This, we clarify, will include the alphanumeric number and serial number, if any, of the bonds purchased,” the bench ordered.

It added, “In order to avoid any controversy in the future, the Chairperson of the bank should file an affidavit by 5 pm on Thursday that it has disclosed all details in its custody and that no details have been withheld.”

The bench said that its February 15 judgment mandated the SBI to disclose all details including the date of purchase/redemption, name of purchaser/recipient, and the denomination of Electoral Bonds.

The use of the word including means that the details specified in the judgment are illustrative and not exhaustive, the apex court said.

The bench, during the hearing, observed that SBI should not be selective on disclosing the details.

Last week, the apex court took exception to SBI for not furnishings Electoral Bonds data with unique alphanumeric numbers, which help identify the bond, and issued notice to it.

It had said that the SBI has not fully complied with its March 11 order in which it had ordered the bank to disclose all details concerning Electoral Bonds.

During today’s hearing, the top court also expressed displeasure on SCBA President Adhish Aggarwala writing letter to CJI DY Chandrachud for suo motu review of Electoral Bonds judgement, and CJI said these are all publicity related issue and we will not get into this.

CJI told Aggarwala, “Apart from being a senior counsel, you are president of SCBA. You have written a letter invoking my suo Motu powers. These are all publicity related… and we will not get into this. Do not make me say anything more. It will be distasteful.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, told the apex court that ultimate aim was to curb black money and top court must be aware of how this judgment is being played outside the court.

“Now the witch hunting has started on another level and not at the level of the Central government. Those before the court started giving press interviews and deliberately embarrassing the court. A series of social media posts, at least intended to cause embarrassment, started,” Solicitor General said and asked it to consider issuing some direction in this regard.

To this, CJI DY Chandrachud said that as judges we are only on the rule of law and work as per the Constitution.

“Our court is only to work for the governance of rule of law in this polity. As judges we are also discussed in social media but our shoulders are broad enough to take this. We are only on enforcing our directions of the judgment,” said the CJI.

The Supreme Court by its February verdict had struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme which allowed for anonymous funding to political parties, and ordered the SBI to stop issuing Electoral Bonds immediately.

It had unanimously quashed the Electoral Bonds scheme as well as amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act which had made the donations anonymous.

It had asked SBI to furnish the details about each Electoral Bonds encashed by the political parties, which shall include the date of encashment and the denomination of electoral bond.

An Electoral Bond is an instrument in the nature of a promissory note or bearer bond which can be purchased by any individual, company, firm or association of persons provided the person or body is a citizen of India or incorporated or established in India. The bonds are issued specifically for the purpose of contribution of funds to political parties.

Various petitions were filed before the top court challenging amendments made to different statutes through Finance Act 2017 and Finance Act 2016 on the ground that they have opened doors to unlimited, unchecked funding of political parties. (ANI)

ALSO READ-Complied With SC Direction on Electoral Bonds Data, Says SBI

Categories
India News Kerala Politics

Kerala Govt to Move SC Against CAA

According to MHA, the applicants will be able to get information related to CAA-2019 by calling free of cost…reports Asian Lite News

Kerala Law Minister P Rajeev on Thursday informed that the State government will challenge the Centre’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act in the Supreme Court, adding that it will pray to the apex court to declare the act as “anti-Constitutional”.

“Earlier, we had approached the Supreme Court, against the CAA. Our prayer was that it was against the basic structure of the Constitution. It is against the basic fundamental principles of the Constitution, and we pray to declare the CAA anti-Constitutional. Now we have decided to approach the Supreme Court again and we have a ligated advocate general to interact with our senior counsel in the Supreme Court and take proper action to approach the SC,” Kerala Law Minister P Rajeev told ANI.

Earlier today, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Wednesday that helpline numbers will be launched soon to assist applicants for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA-2019).

According to MHA, the applicants will be able to get information related to CAA-2019 by calling free of cost.

“Helpline numbers to assist applicants for Indian citizenship under CAA -2019 will be launched soon. Applicants will be able to get information related to CAA-2019 by calling free of cost from anywhere in India. The service will be available from 8 am to 8 pm,” MHA posted on X.

AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Tuesday slammed the Bharatiya Janata Party over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and said that a law cannot be formulated in the country on the basis of religion.

“This is not a matter restricted to political parties. This is a matter for the whole nation. Do you want to make 17 crore Muslims stateless? This is against the fundamentals of the Constitution. This won’t pass even the reasonable test,” Owasi said while addressing a press conference.

Citizenship (Amendment) Act aims to provide Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim migrants – including Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians – who migrated from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and arrived in India before December 31, 2014. (ANI)

ALSO READ-Chennithala to Lead Polls Campaign in Kerala

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
India News

Parliament panel flags bias against SC, ST faculty candidates

New Delhi: Members of Parliament in the new Parliament building during a special session of Parliament, in New Delhi, Tuesday, September 19, 2023. (Photo: IANS/Sansad Tv)

Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma…reports Asian Lite News

A parliamentary panel disclosed that selection panels often unfairly label Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) candidates as “not suitable” for faculty roles due to biased assessments, depriving them of rightful opportunities.

The report, submitted to the Lok Sabha, scrutinised the role of various educational institutions in the socio-economic development of SC/ST communities. It dismissed the government’s claim of a scarcity of qualified candidates, asserting that SC/ST applicants are often equally competent but fall victim to prejudiced evaluations.

The panel, led by Lok Sabha MP Kirit Premjibhai Solanki, highlighted the absence of SC/ST representation in selection committees, urging mandatory inclusion to ensure fair representation and policy participation. Furthermore, it criticised the lack of reservation in super-specialty courses, resulting in the exclusion of SC/ST candidates and the dominance of unreserved faculty members.

The report advocated for the enforcement of reservation policies in all super-specialty fields, proposing specialized training opportunities abroad to enhance SC/ST representation.

Meanwhile, the Central Government on Wednesday submitted before the Supreme Court that it is in favour of doing sub-classifications among Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta informed a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The Seven Judge Constitution Bench was dealing with issues relating to the sub-classification of reserved communities like SCs and STs.

Appearing for Centre, SG Mehta said that the reservation benefits available are limited in nature.

He submitted that the enabling of sub-classification of SC/ST and other backward classes would provide the Central government and the State government, with the appropriate free-play in joints, to frame appropriate policies in furtherance of the high constitutional ideal of social justice, which seeks to achieve de-facto equality of opportunity.

The State can only provide for a limited number of seats in government higher education institutions and posts in the government services which are reserved.

The said seats and the posts are even otherwise a scarce commodity and therefore required to be re-distributed rationally. Considering the scarce nature, the community must be distributed efficiently and for the actual purpose it seeks to achieve, he said

To achieve the actual objective behind reservations, rationalisation is key and proliferation and deepening of the reservation benefits are necessary. The sub-classification of the benefits is a key measure that goes a long way to achieve the said objective. This ensures that there is a trickle-down effect of reservations, SG Mehta submitted.

The Constitution permits reservations at the level of higher education, entry-level in the government service sector, and promotion in government services. The persons who would most likely be capable of taking benefit of this earmarking of seats/posts would be persons who are relatively “forward” within the backward class, the government said.

ALSO READ-EU, India join forces in New Delhi against terror drones

Categories
-Top News Asia News PAKISTAN

Imran Set to be Released After Pak SC Confirms Bail

As per Samaa TV, the PTI founder will remain in Adiala Jail despite bail as he has been arrested in Toshakhana in a 190 million pounds case…reports Asian Lite News

A Pakistan special court on Monday issued release orders for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan after his bail was confirmed by the Pakistan Supreme Court in an official Secrets Act case, alias the Cypher case, Pakistan based Samaa TV reported.

The process for Khan’s release is underway, as per Samaa TV.

The release orders were issued by special court Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain.

As per Samaa TV, the PTI founder will remain in Adiala Jail despite bail as he has been arrested in Toshakhana in a 190 million pounds case.

The Pakistan Supreme Court in December granted bail to Imran Khan and Pakistan ex-Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the Cypher case.

The court directed the PTI leaders to submit surety bonds of Pakistan Rupee (PKR) 1 million each.

The three-member bench, headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and including Justices Athar Minallah and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, issued the order based on a set of PTI petitions.

The cypher case involves a diplomatic document that the Federal Investigation Agency alleges was never returned by Imran, with the PTI asserting the document contained a threat from the United States to remove Imran as prime minister.

The Special Court (Official Secrets Act) restarted the cypher trial at Adiala district jail after Imran and Qureshi were indicted for the second time on December 13.

The trial had faced setbacks when the Islamabad High Court scrapped proceedings due to an “erroneous” government notification for a jail trial. The IHC endorsed Imran’s indictment, disposing of his plea, but instructed the special court judge to ensure a “fair trial.” (ANI)

ALSO READ-Pak Poll Body Indicts Imran, Fawad in Contempt Case

Categories
-Top News India News

SC declines to order SIT or CBI probe in Adani-Hindenburg row

The top court asked SEBI to complete within three months its probe into two cases pending out of 24 cases…reports Asian Lite News

In a relief to the Adani group of companies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to transfer the probe from Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or CBI into the Adani-Hindenburg issue over allegations of stock price manipulation by the Indian corporate giant. 

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, PS Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the scope of power of the apex court to enter into the regulatory domain of SEBI is limited.

It said the scope of judicial review is only to see whether any fundamental right has been violated. The SC said the facts of the case do not warrant the transfer of the probe to the SIT or other agency. The SC also said there was no material to doubt the investigation carried out by the SEBI.

The verdict of the top court came on a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation or CBI probe into the allegations made by US-based firm Hindenburg Research against the Adani group of companies regarding violations of the stock market.

The bench said there has been no regulatory failure by SEBI and the market regulator cannot be expected to carry on its functions based on press reports though such reports can act as inputs for SEBI.

The top court asked SEBI to complete within three months its probe into two cases pending out of 24 cases.

The case is related to the allegations (part of a report by short-seller Hindenberg Research) that Adani had inflated its share prices. After these allegations were published, it led to a sharp fall in the share value of various Adani companies, reportedly to the tune of USD 100 billion.

The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.

Various petitions were filed alleging that changes to the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act (SEBI) had provided a shield and an excuse for the Adani Group’s regulatory contraventions and market manipulations to remain undetected.

The apex court then asked SEBI to independently probe the matter and also constituted an expert committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice AM Sapre to look into the matter.

In May last year, the expert committee in its report had found no prima facie lapse on the part of the SEBI in the matter.

While reserving the verdict, the Supreme Court had said it has no reason to “discredit” SEBI, which probed allegations against the Adani group, as there was no material before it to doubt what the market regulator has done and the court does not have to treat what was set out in the Hindenburg report as a “true state of affairs”.

It had observed that it cannot ask a statutory regulator to take as a “gospel truth” something which was published in the media.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, had told the apex court that there were many factual revelations in the Hindenburg report.

He said it was for the top court to see whether the investigation done by the SEBI was credible or not and whether some other independent organisation or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) needs to be formed to investigate it. (ANI)

ALSO READ-India to scrap free movement along Myanmar border