Tag: SC

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

Categories
-Top News PAKISTAN

Pakistan SC to Take Up Lifetime Disqualification Matter

Pakistan Supreme Court.

Justice Athar Minallah pointed out that the case was connected to the 2018 elections and inquired if it was still admissible for the upcoming polls…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday took notice of the discrepancy between the judicial decision on lifetime disqualification under Article 62 (1) (f) and the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017, ARY News reported.

The top court scheduled the hearing for January 2024 and referred the matter, pertaining to ascertaining the period for disqualification, to the judges’ committee for the constitution of a bench.

It also issued notices to Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, advocate generals of all the provinces and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to assist the SC, as per Dawn.

The Supreme Court’s notice came on a petition filed by a former MPA of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), Shamona Badshah Qaisrani, who was disqualified over a fake degree in 2007.

During the hearing on Monday, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa remarked that the Supreme Court’s verdict on lifetime disqualification and the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017 could not co-exist.

The chief justice observed that either the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict or the Election (Amendment) Act, 2023, could be upheld. He noted that discrepancies in the SC’s interpretation and the law could result in “confusion” in general elections in 2024.

CJP Isa inquired why the petitioner was disqualified, to which Advocate Saqib Jilani replied that Qaisrani was disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution based on a fake degree in 2007, as per Dawn.

In 2018, the Lahore High Court granted the former lawmaker permission to contest polls.

Meanwhile, Justice Athar Minallah pointed out that the case was connected to the 2018 elections and inquired if it was still admissible for the upcoming polls.

Responding to the query, Jilani said that the current case would have an impact on the upcoming elections as well.

“How can lifetime disqualification continue if a person’s sentence comes to an end?” Justice Isa asked.

To which the lawyer replied that a person should be disqualified for submitting nomination papers on false affidavits and pointed out the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Panama Papers case on the interpretation of Article 61(1)(f).

Later, CJP Faez asked if a new law pertaining to Article 62(1)(f) and lifetime disqualification had been passed recently, to which the lawyer said the Elections Act was amended and disqualification was limited to five years.

Justice Minallah, on the other hand, noted that the SC’s verdict on lifetime disqualification had become “ineffective” after amendments to the Elections Act.

“As general elections draw near, a confusion would be created whether they should rely on the SC 2018 verdict or the Election Act amendments. This is not good for democracy,” Justice Isa replied, according to Dawn.

Justice Minallah remarked that there was no uncertainty regarding the next elections, and anyone trying to encourage them will be in contempt of the apex court.

The court observed that the current matter will not be allowed to be used as a tool to delay the February 8, 2024, polls, urging for notices regarding the case to be published in two mainstream English dailies, Dawn reported. (ANI)

ALSO READ-Pakistan Gears Up for General Elections

Categories
-Top News India News

SC upholds abrogation of Article 370

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of the Union government’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Monday said Article 370 of the Constitution was only temporary. The decision by Supreme Court implies that Article 370 cannot be restored in Jammu and Kashmir.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of the Union government’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution which conferred the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, while pointing out that Article 370 is a “temporary provision”.

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant said, “It can be garnered from the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution that it is a temporary provision.”

Meanwhile, on Supreme Court constitutionally validating the removal of Article 370, Group Captain Mahesh Upasani (Retd) said, “The nation welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision on Article 370’s abrogation. The abrogation itself was a death knell for the separatists and today’s decision of Supreme Court is a historic decision on a historic initiative of Modi Government. I construe it as a tribute to those who have laid down their lives in protecting the unity of a country and also J&K especially…”

Furthermore, Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Mahesh Jethmalani termed it as “historic decision.”

“It’s a historic decision. The whole country should be very happy. It marks the Supreme Court has given its imprimatur, its seal on the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the country and they’ve upheld even the reorganization aspect part of it. They’ve recognized the validity of Ladakh being a separate Union territory,” he added.

YSRCP MP V Vijayasai Reddy said that the mistakes that Nehru ji and Indira ji committed insofar as Kashmir is concerned, that can never be forgotten in the annals of Indian history.

“The mistakes that Nehru ji and Indira ji committed insofar as Kashmir is concerned, that can never be forgotten in the annals of Indian history. The problems faced by Kashmiris till Article 370 was abrogated, are also because of Congress’ misdeeds and misrule. Now that Article 370 has been abrogated, the blunders that Nehru ji and Indira ji committed have to be undone. So, the present government has to undo the blunders committed by Nehru family who I have described as ‘pseudo secularists’…Now that the BJP has taken appropriate measures in abrogating Article 370, the issues would be sorted out and peace would prevail in Kashmir…Opposition walked out because they were not in a position to respond to the issues that had been raised by the treasury benches and the Home Minister…They walked out on flimsy grounds,” he added.

Meanwhile, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut reminded PM Modi that he had given a guarantee in 2014 that Kashmiri Pandits would be rehabilitated back at their home in the Valley.

“This is a very important verdict. PM Modi had given a guarantee in 2014 that Kashmiri Pandits would be rehabilitated back at their home in the Valley. That the Kashmiri Pandits would be rehabilitated in 2024 and they would also receive their right to vote – PM Modi would have to give the guarantee. Otherwise, he should tell the country that he lied and this was just ‘jumlebaazi’ on Kashmiri Pandits. If you can bring PoK to India by 2024, do it and our dreams for ‘Akhand Hindustan’ would be complete. Have elections in J-K in 2024,” he said.

During Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s reply to the discussion on J-K Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and J-K Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Opposition’s walkout from Rajya Sabha on which JMM MP Mahua Maji said that some words were objectionable.

“They were very insulting. So, it was decided to walk out. The address was very one-sided. Attempts were being made by the current government to take all credit. It seemed as if the previous governments did nothing in all these years,” she added.

Congress MP Rajiv Shukla said that Opposition MPs walked out because when there was a discussion going on J-K’s issue, he (Amit Shah) constantly kept saying ‘Ghamandiya gathbandhan.’

“Our LoP stood up and asked him to speak on Kashmir’s issue, and why he had so many issues with the INDIA alliance,” he added.

Congress MP Pramod Tiwari said that there was no reply, it was “gaalion ki bauchhar”.

“The one who is no more in this world was also abused. We walked out as ‘ghamandiya’ term kept being used even when the entire House raised an objection. But he didn’t withdraw the remark as he was drunk in arrogance. So, we thought it better to boycott the House and not listen to abuses,” he added.

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi said, “Whenever we were diverting from J&K’s issue, we were getting reminders from the Chairman not to divert away from the topic but when Union HM in his reply, diverted from J&K’s issue and started speaking on Dheeraj Sahu and his corruption, we decided to walk out from the Parliament…” (ANI)

ALSO READ-Special Counsel Takes Trump Immunity Case to Supreme Court

Categories
-Top News Europe UK News

SC Unanimously Rejects UK’s Rwanda Migration Plan

Last year, a record 45,775 people were detected arriving without permission in Britain in small boats. So far this year, more than 27,000 have arrived this way…reports Asian Lite News

In a big setback to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government, the UK’s Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected plans to send migrants to Rwanda as unlawful as it would put them at risk.

Issuing a unanimous judgement, the country’s highest court said that the policy would put asylum seekers at “risk of ill-treatment” as they could be sent back to their home countries once they land in Rwanda.

Sunak, who has vowed to stop migrants reaching Britain in small boats across the English Channel, said the ruling “was not the outcome we wanted”.

“We have seen today’s judgment and will now consider next steps. This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats,” he said in a statement.

The Prime Minister, however said that his “commitment to stopping the boats is unwavering”.

“The Government has been working on a new treaty with Rwanda, and we’ll finalise that in light of today’s judgment. If necessary, I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks,” Sunak wrote on X on Wednesday.

The development comes just after sacked Home Secretary Suella Braverman, in a searing letter, accused Sunak of betraying his pledge to do “whatever it takes” to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

Braverman said that the PM had no “Plan B” if the government lost the Supreme Court case.

Since Brexit, net immigration has continued to mount, touching a record of 606,000 in 2022.

Last year, a record 45,775 people were detected arriving without permission in Britain in small boats. So far this year, more than 27,000 have arrived this way.

Launched in April 2022 by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the Rwanda plan aims to discourage asylum seekers from making the perilous journey of about 20 miles across the Channel from Europe in small boats or inflatable dinghies to England’s southern beaches.

Under the plan, anyone who arrived in Britain illegally after January 1 last year faced deportation to Rwanda.

Following a last minute injunction from the European Court of Human Rights, the first deportation flight in June 2022 was blocked.

According to media reports, UK is presently spending over three billion pounds per year on dealing with asylum applications, and the cost of housing migrants as their claims are processed runs at about 6 million pounds per day.

ALSO READ-Strong and united team is going to deliver, says Sunak

Categories
-Top News India News Media

SC revokes ban on Kerala news channel MediaOne

Supreme Court.

The court noted that the file does not contain any evidence of the alleged link between the shareholders and JEI-H and the report of IB is purely an inference drawn from information that is already in the public domain…reports Asian Lite News

Stressing that the independent press is vital for democracy, and criticising the practice of sealed cover, the Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted the telecast ban on Media One, and said that national security claims cannot be made out of thin air and there must be material backing such an inference.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said that an independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic.

“Its role in a democratic society is crucial for it shines a light on the functioning of the state. The press has a duty to speak truth to power, and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction,” the court said. “The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenised view on issues that range from socio-economic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy,” the court stated.
“The critical views of the Channel, Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, ‘anti-establishment’. The use of such terminology in itself represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment,” the court said as it came down heavily on the action of the MIB by denying security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press freedom. Criticism of governmental policy can by no stretch of imagination be brought within the fold of any of the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2),” the court further said.

The court noted that the file does not contain any evidence of the alleged link between the shareholders and JEI-H and the report of IB is purely an inference drawn from information that is already in the public domain.

“There is nothing ‘secretive’ about this information to attract the ground of confidentiality. Additionally, it cannot be argued that the purpose of national security will be served by non-disclosure merely by alleging that MBL is involved with JEI-H which is an organisation with alleged terrorist links. While we have held above that it would be impractical and unwise for the courts to define the phrase national security, we also hold that national security claims cannot be made out of thin air. There must be material backing such an inference.

The material on the file and the inference drawn from such material have no nexus,” the court noted. The court also opined that the non-disclosure of this information would not be in the interest of any facet of public interest, much less national security.

ALSO READ-CJI Ramana: Media must confine to honest journalism

Categories
-Top News India News Social Media

SC directs WhatsApp to give publicity to its undertaking to Centre  

Apex court passed an interim direction in a batch of petitions challenging the privacy policy of WhatsApp and scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 11…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed WhatsApp to give wide publicity in the media that users aren’t bound to accept its 2021 privacy policy and also WhatsApp’s functionality would not be affected till the new data protection bill comes into effect.

In May 2021, WhatsApp, in a response to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s letter, had assured that the messaging service will not limit functionality for its users if they do not accept the new privacy policy update.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph observed that giving wide publicity to the WhatsApp undertaking would benefit those who have not agreed to the terms of its 2021 privacy policy. The top court asked WhatsApp to give advertisements in five newspapers regarding its undertaking given to the government.

The bench – also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C T Ravikumar – said: “We further direct that WhatsApp will give publicity to this aspect to the customers of WhatsApp in five national newspapers on two occasions.”

The bench said it has recorded the stand taken in the response to the government and “we record the submission of the senior counsel for WhatsApp that they will abide by the terms of the letter till next date of hearing”.

The apex court noted that it Centre’s counsel has brought to its notice that a digital personal data protection bill 2022 is about to be placed before the Parliament, and it is there contention that bill would cover most of the aspects which are subject matter of petitions before this court and the matter may be taken up at a later stage. This request was echoed by WhatsApp counsel too.

However, the petitioners’ counsel vehemently contested this aspect and submitted that law should not come in the way of addressing issues raised in the petitions before the apex court. The petitioners’ counsel said the stand by WhatsApp for its customers in Europe stands in stark contrast with its stand taken here, and urged the court to hear the matter. The petitioners’ counsel stressed that the privacy policy should have an option to opt out from data sharing.

After hearing day-long arguments, the apex court passed an interim direction in a batch of petitions challenging the privacy policy of WhatsApp and scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 11.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented WhatsApp and senior advocate Arvind Datar represented Meta. Senior advocates Shyam Divan and K.V. Viswanathan represented the petitioners’ along with other counsel.

The top court was hearing petitions, which included a plea filed by two students, Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi, against the contract entered into between WhatsApp and its parent Facebook to provide access to calls, photographs, texts, videos, and documents shared by users. The petitioners claimed it is a violation of their privacy and free speech.

ALSO READ-WhatsApp working on ‘Block’ shortcut

Categories
-Top News London News UK News

HC bars Nirav Modi from moving Supreme Court

Nirav Modi.

The bench of Justice Stuart Smith and Justice Robert Jay of the High Court said there are “no features of psychotic illness”…reports Asian Lite News

In a setback to fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, his plea to move the UK Supreme Court against his extradition to India on charges of fraud and money laundering was denied on Thursday.

Modi lost the bid to take his fight against extradition to India on charges of fraud and money laundering to the UK’s Supreme Court. “The appellant’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused,” Lord justice Stuart Smith said in his statement.

The diamantaire, who fled India in 2018 before details of his alleged involvement in large-scale fraud at the Punjab National Bank became public, has argued there is a high risk of suicide if he is extradited.

In November, Nirav Modi filed an application before the UK High Court for permission to appeal against his extradition to India in the UK Supreme Court. He lost the appeal on Thursday to take his fight against extradition to the UK Supreme Court.

Nirav Modi reportedly filed an application in the High Court in London, seeking permission to appeal against his extradition order, two weeks after a UK court dismissed his plea against extradition back to India.

On November 9, Nirav Modi lost his appeal against extradition to India with a United Kingdom court dismissing his plea. Earlier, the High Court of London (United Kingdom) dismissed the appeal of Nirav Modi, who is wanted in India to face money laundering and fraud cases.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) later welcomed the UK High Court’s decision to reject Nirav’s plea.

“India has been vigorously pursuing the extradition of economic fugitives so that they face justice in India. We welcome the decision of the UK High Court. We want to bring him to India as soon as possible,” said MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi during a press conference.

Nirav Modi, who is a prime accused in the Rs 13,500 crore PNB scam, had fled India. He lost his appeal after he had moved the High Court in London against extradition on mental health grounds.

The bench of Justice Stuart Smith and Justice Robert Jay of the High Court said there are “no features of psychotic illness”.

The court rejected Nirav Modi’s counsel’s claims that he will die by suicide due to severe depression and said “Nirav Modi neither is nor is very likely to be at the most severe end of the scale of depressive illness”.

“He has so far displayed no features of psychotic illness. Although he has exhibited persistent suicidal ideation, he has neither attempted suicide or deliberate self-harm nor disclosed plans to do so, except in the vaguest and general way,” the court said.

The High Court also noted the steps taken to render Barrack 12 safe and to ensure that there is effective constant monitoring to reduce both the risk of attempted suicide and the prospect of suicide being committed.

The court noted that the Government of India sought the appellant, Nirav Deepak Modi.

Nirav Modi last year had moved the UK High Court against District Judge Sam Goozee’s Westminster Magistrate Court ruling in favour of his extradition. He is presently behind bars at Wandsworth Prison in southeast London. (ANI)

ALSO READ-India submits reply in Nirav Modi’s extradition appeal

Categories
-Top News India News

Sedition law: ‘Something may happen’ in Winter Session

Senior advocate R Venkataramani.

The apex court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises the offence of sedition…reports Asian Lite News

The Central government on Monday sought time from the Supreme Court to review Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises the offence of sedition saying “something may happen” in the upcoming Winter Session of the Parliament.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, appearing for Centre, told a bench headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit that the issue is engaging the attention of relevant authorities and some changes in relation to the sedition law may happen in the next Parliament Session.

AG requested for additional time to be granted to the Centre so that appropriate steps may be taken.

The bench also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi adjourned the case to the second week of January 2023.

It also issued notices to the Centre on some pleas in which notices were not issued earlier.

During the hearing, the CJI enquired if a directive had been issued by the Centre to put in abeyance all pending proceedings and prevent the filing of any fresh cases under the law to prevent its usage.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also representing the Centre, said that directions regarding keeping the law in abeyance were sent to all Chief Secretaries.

The law will be kept in abeyance till further hearing.

The apex court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises the offence of sedition.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had ordered that sedition law will be kept in abeyance till the government’s exercise of reviewing the law is complete.

It had asked the Central government and States not to register any cases under Section 124A.

It had added that if such cases are registered in future, the parties are at liberty to approach the court and the court has to expeditiously dispose of the same.

Allowing the Central government to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of Section 124A, the apex court had said that it will be appropriate not to use the provision of law till further re-examination is over.

Earlier, the Centre had told the top court that the government cannot prevent police from registering a cognisable offence under the sedition provision, but an FIR under Section 124A would be registered only if the area Superintendent of Police (SP) is satisfied that the facts of a case involve sedition offence.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for petitioners had told the bench that the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had termed Section 124A as the most obnoxious provision aimed at stifling dissent and Mahatma Gandhi had termed this as the most potent weapon to silence opposition to govt.

Solicitor General Mehta then replied that this government is trying to do what Pandit Nehru could not do then.

In the affidavit, the Centre had said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is of the firm view that the baggage of colonial-era laws, which outlived their utility, must be scrapped during the period of ‘Azadi Ka Marti Mahotsav’ (75 yrs of independence).

In that spirit, the government of India has scrapped over 1500 outdated laws since 2014-15, it stated.

However, before that the Central government took a stand that the 1962 verdict of the five-judge Constitution bench case which upheld the validity of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, is binding and continues to be a “good law and needs no reconsideration”.

It had said that the 1962 five-judge bench judgement of the top court in the Kedar Nath Singh v/s State of Bihar case which upheld the validity of Section 124A of IPC has stood the test of time and applied to date in tune with modern constitutional principles.

Various petitions were filed in the apex court challenging the constitutional validity of sedition law. The pleas were filed by former army officer Major-General SG Vombatkere (Retd), former Union minister Arun Shourie, NGO PUCL, Editors Guild of India, Journalists Patricia Mukhim, Anuradha Bhasin, Manipur-based journalist Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh.

The then CJI NV Ramana had questioned the Central government on the requirement of sedition law even after 75 years of independence and observed that it was colonial law that was used against freedom fighters.

While pointing out that sedition law was used against freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the apex court had asked Centre, why it can’t be repealed. It observed that the Centre has repealed many stale laws and enquired why the government is not looking into repealing Section 124A of the IPC.

It further said that the court was concerned about the misuse of such laws.

CJI had said, “use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself”.

Section 124-A (sedition) under the IPC is a non-bailable provision. (ANI)

ALSO READ-SC puts sedition law on hold

Categories
India News

SC delivers split verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

The petitioners had moved the apex court, challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state…reports Asian Lite News

Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in the split verdict on Karnataka hijab ban, on Thursday said by asking girls to take off their hijab before they enter school gates is an invasion of privacy, attack on dignity, and denial of secular education.

He said this is the time when children should learn not to be alarmed by our diversity but to rejoice and celebrate this, and also this is the time when they must realise that diversity is our strength.

Justice Dhulia said: “By asking the girls to take off their hijab before they enter the school gates, is first an invasion of their privacy, then it is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21 and Article 25(1) of the Constitution”.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Dhulia. While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment, Justice Dhulia set aside the high court judgment and quashed the Karnataka government order dated February 5.

The petitioners had moved the apex court, challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

Justice Dhulia said there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in schools and colleges in Karnataka. He added that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that they would have denied education to a girl child.

“A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate. This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school. The question this court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!” he said.

He added that the constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of choice and it may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression.

Justice Dhulia said if a girl wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education.

In a 73-page judgment, he said, “fraternity, which is our constitutional value, would therefore require us to be tolerant, and as some of the counsel would argue to be, reasonably accommodating, towards the belief and religious practices of others. We should remember the appeal made by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Bijoe Emmanuel — our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”

He emphasised that the Government Order dated 5 February, 2022, and the restrictions on the wearing of hijab, also goes against constitutional values of fraternity and human dignity.

Justice Dhulia said: “Liberty, equality, fraternity, the triptych of the French Revolution is also a part of our Preamble. It is true that whereas liberty and equality are well established, properly understood, and recognised concepts in politics and law, fraternity for some reasons has largely remained incognito. The framers of our Constitution though had a different vision. Fraternity had a different, and in many ways a much larger meaning with the main architect of our Constitution, Dr Ambedkar”.

He added that schools, in particular our pre-university colleges are the perfect institutions where children, who are now at an impressionable age, and are just waking up to the rich diversity of this nation, need to be counselled and guided, so that they imbibe our constitutional values of tolerance and accommodation, towards those who may speak a different language, eat different food, or even wear different clothes or apparel!

“This is the time to foster in them sensitivity, empathy and understanding towards different religions, languages and cultures. This is the time when they should learn not to be alarmed by our diversity but to rejoice and celebrate this diversity. This is the time when they must realise that in diversity is our strength,” he said.

ALSO READ-Anti-hijab protests grip Iran

Categories
India News

TV channels chief medium of hate speech, says SC

The bench was hearing a clutch of petitions on alleged hate speech via some TV shows. The petitioners have sought directions from the court to the Centre to take steps to curb incidents of such speech…reports Asian Lite News

Expressing its anguish and displeasure over hate speeches via debates on TV channels, the Supreme Court Wednesday called the “visual media” the “chief medium of hate speech” and questioned the government why it is “standing by as a mute witness when all this is happening” and treating it as “a trivial matter”.

Pointing out that “hate speech can be in different forms… sort of ridicule a community” and its spread through the visual media can have a “devastating effect”, the bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, inclined to regulate such debates, asked the Centre to state whether it proposed to come up with any law on the subject.

The bench underlined that “hate drives TRPs, drives profit” and said it will consider laying down some guidelines which will hold the field until the legislature comes up with a law on the matter.

“What… we have in mind, for example, when you conduct an interview, what is important is laying down the methodology. Now the methodology would be: What is the role of the anchor? If the anchor is going to take the lion’s share of the time of the debate, if the question of the anchor is so long, finally the time which is given to the person who is giving the answer is so short. And even in that short period, he is actually run down, he is made into some kind of a rogue,” Justice Joseph said.

“You have to be fair to everyone. So that is what we are interested in saying, apart from the contours of hate speech till it is defined appropriately by the competent legislature,” he said.

The bench was hearing a clutch of petitions on alleged hate speech via some TV shows. The petitioners have sought directions from the court to the Centre to take steps to curb incidents of such speech.

Justice Joseph said the problem will go on “unless there is an institutional mechanism to deal with it”, and “what can be done till the government acts is” to “possibly consider” acting on the lines of the Vishaka case where the top court laid down guidelines to deal with sexual harassment at workplace.

“Let us try and do what we can. We can’t be taking over the powers of the legislature… I think Vishaka is the best model,” he said.

The counsel for the broadcast regulator apprised the bench how it had been acting with regard to the channels, including by levying penalties.

But Justice Roy said “unless the consequences of infringement come hard on the person who is violating, how will the message go? You have passed 4,000 orders. Has there been any effect of the 4,000 orders that you have passed?”

“Hate drives TRPs, drives profit. So this chicken feed kind of a penalty is flimsy. Their pockets will not even get a little tear there,” he said.

Justice Joseph said, “The most important point is where is our nation headed. If it is hate speech that we are actually feeding on, where is our nation headed?”

Turning to the Centre’s counsel, he asked, “What is your stand? Have you filed a counter-affidavit? What is the stand taken by the Government of India? Why is the Government of India standing by as a mute witness when all this is happening?”

“Political parties will come and go. But the nation will endure. The press is a very important institution. Without an independent and totally free press, no nation can go forward. It’s absolutely important that we have true freedom. The government should actually come forward, not to take an adversarial stand but to assist. To say that you have put in place an institution which will be abided by all. What is the problem? Why should the Government of India have a problem with that?” and asked “why do you take it such a trivial matter”.

The counsel said the government had not treated it as a trivial matter. He pointed out that on the previous occasion, the Supreme Court had asked the government to collate information from the states on compliance of some of the court’s earlier directions and added that only 14 states had responded so far.

The court asked the government to submit a response within two weeks with whatever information it had collected and to “clearly indicate its stand with regard to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India (in this regard) and whether it is contemplating any legislation in terms of the recommendations”.

ALSO READ-Hate speech: EC slaps 24-hr ban on BJP lawmaker