Tag: SC

Categories
-Top News India News

SC seeks Centre’s reply on Uniform Civil Code

A clutch of pleas filed by lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and another petitioner, Lubna Qureshi, pointed at anomalies in various laws on divorce, marriage, succession, adoption and maintenance prevailing for different religions…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to make its stand clear, within three weeks, on the feasibility of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) U U Lalit and justice S Ravindra Bhat was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking uniformity in laws for age of marriage, grounds of divorce, succession, adoption, guardianship and maintenance when it noted that these issues are various “facets” of UCC and directed the Centre to file its response on each aspect.

“These petitions are seeking common marriage, divorce, adoption, succession and maintenance laws. What is the difference between these matters? They are all facets of Uniform Civil Code,” the bench said.

“Let a comprehensive response be filed, indicating the stand of the Union government in respect of issues raised in this batch of petitions,” it added.

A clutch of pleas filed by lawyer and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and another petitioner, Lubna Qureshi, has pointed at anomalies in various laws on divorce, marriage, succession, adoption and maintenance prevailing for different religions.

In his plea, Upadhyay sought uniformity in grounds for which divorce is granted. Adultery is a ground for Hindus, Christians and Parsis but not for Muslims, he said.

Likewise, incurable leprosy is a ground of divorce for Hindus and Muslims but not for Christians and Parsis. Also, under age marriage is a ground of divorce for Hindus but not for Christians, Parsis and Muslims, he said.

In case of adoptions, only Hindus have a codified law under which an adopted child has the right to inherit property and be recognised as a biological child of the adopted parents, Upadhyay said. The case is not the same for Muslims, Christians and Parsis, he added.

Upadhyay’s petition also said women across religions ought to be treated equally. Religious practices which deny them their fundamental rights should not be protected, he said.

“We are considering what response the Centre will file and what kind of judicial process we can issue in this matter. Assuming we might issue a mandamus (writ giving a direction), can we issue a mandamus itself is in question and also whether you intend to place such a bill in Parliament,” the bench said.

Appearing for the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said it would essentially be a question of law. “If need be, we will put in a reply in three weeks,” he said.

Opposing the pleas, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and a Muslim woman, Amina Sherwani, filed intervention applications in the top court, alleging attempts were being made to bring in the UCC through the backdoor.

Appearing for the Muslim Personal Law Board, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi along with advocate M R Shamshad said Upadhyay, in 2015, had raised similar prayers in a writ petition filed in the top court which he withdrew.

The BJP leader later filed a petition seeking enforcement of UCC before Delhi high court, which is still pending, the lawyers said.

The petitioner has not mentioned this fact in the present set of petitions and should be asked to summon the record of his earlier petition, Huzefa told the bench.

Though the top court, in the past, had advised the Centre to give a thought for having UCC, the judiciary has left it to the legislative wisdom without entering the domain reserved for Parliament.

Taking note of the submissions, the bench told Upadhyay: “You should be fair to this court. Check your petition and file the same before us on the next date of hearing.”

Upadhyay said his earlier petition was on implementing Article 44 of the Constitution which says “the state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

He said he withdrew this (earlier) plea with a liberty to approach the Law Commission of India on this aspect. The present petitions are not on UCC, he said.

“I am not seeking UCC. In these petitions, I have endeavoured to show anomalies that exist in the country which make laws on marriage, divorce, adoption, maintenance, and succession apply differently to women of different religions. This violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (right against discrimination) and 21 (life and liberty),” he said.

To this, the bench said: “Even matrimonial issues are one of the facets of UCC.”

The Muslim Personal Law Board also informed the bench that the same petitioner has challenged ‘nikah halala’ and other forms of marriage under Muslim laws and that his prayers are of similar nature and pending before a Constitution Bench.

The bench sought details of the petitions, seeking uniform marriage laws pending in the Supreme Court, and directed them to be tagged with the present set of petitions.

ALSO READ-Rijiju drops hints on party’s stand on Uniform Civil Code

Categories
India News

SC imposes Rs 1 lakh cost on Centre for careless approach

The top court quashed the coal ministry’s demand for additional levy for the coal extracted by the company…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said due to careless and callous approach of the Centre, a company was included on the list of errant mine owners and it had to suffer loss and ignominy and slapped Rs 1 lakh litigation cost on the Centre.

The company’s name was included on the list of coal block allottees whose leases were cancelled by the top court in 2014.

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli said: “We are constrained to make certain observations regarding the conduct of the respondent no. 1 — UOI (Union of India). Here is a case where a private party followed all the rules and the law, as applicable, before investing large sums of money to undertake business.”

The top court quashed the coal ministry’s demand for additional levy for the coal extracted by the company.

It added: “In fact, it appears from the facts of the case that it was the respondent no. 1 – UOI that did not follow the letter of the law. But ultimately, it was the private party that had to suffer the consequences of the careless and callous approach of the respondent no. 1 – UOI.”

Justice Kohli, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said to compound the petitioner’s woes, the Centre filed an affidavit before the top court including the petitioner in the list of errant mine owners, based on its own unlawful conduct.

“It did not undertake the necessary due diligence to determine as to whether the petitioner had been allotted the mine through the lawful procedure. As a result of this callous, careless and casual approach of the respondent no. 1 – UOI, the present petitioner had to suffer loss and ignominy,” said justice Kohli.

The petitioner, BLA Industries Private Limited, had moved the top court under Article 32 of the Constitution raising a grievance against Ministry of Coal, Union of India for having included its name and mining lease area in the schedules appended to the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 , even though, the screening committee constituted by the Ministry of Coal, had not allocated any coal block to it.

In 2014, the apex court had cancelled allocation of coal blocks — Gotitoria (East and West) in Mahapani coalfields of Madhya Pradesh — which were granted to BLA Industries on a PIL alleging the blocks were arbitrarily allocated between 1993 to 2011. The PIL claimed blocks were granted without adhering to the mandatory legal procedures in order to favour companies, which were not ineligible.

The company’s coal block was also on the list of 46 coal blocks that could have been “saved” from cancellation on imposition of certain terms and conditions.

The conditions included payment of additional levy compensatory amount at the rate of Rs 295 per MT on the allottees of the coal blocks for coal produced from September 25, 2014 till March 31, 2015.

Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari instructed by advocate Ayush Aggarwal, representing BLA industries, argued that the erroneous inclusion of the name of his client on the list of 46 allottees of coal blocks and its mining lease area in the schedule appended to the Ordinance as also the erroneous inclusion of its name in annexure-1 filed by the respondent No. 1 – UOI before the top court, has resulted in cancellation /quashing of the lease that was validly granted in its favour.

“The petitioner was neither the beneficiary of the screening committee route nor of the Government Dispensation Route. It had followed the correct procedure prescribed under the MMDR Act/MC Rules by submitting an application for grant of a lease directly to the respondent No. 2 – State Government (Madhya Pradesh) and only after the latter had processed the application and recommended the same for approval to the respondent No.1 – UOI, was the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner,” said the petitioner’s counsel.

The UOI filed a contempt petition claiming that the petitioner is in wilful disobedience of the top court judgments, which directed payment of additional levy compensatory amount @ Rs 295 per MT on the allottees of the coal blocks which was to be paid latest by 31 December, 2014.

The top court said: “The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the respondent No. 1 – UOI is not entitled to claim payment of an additional levy for the coal extracted by the petitioner from the subject mine. Any such demand raised by the respondent No. 1 – UOI is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. Contempt Petitiona.is dismissed as meritless”.

The top court held that allocation of the coal block to the petitioner did not run afoul of the procedure prescribed in the MMDR Act and the MC Rules.

“The petitioner was not allocated the coal block either through the Screening Committee Route or the Central Government Dispensation Route, which fact was not pointed out by the respondent No. 1 – UOI at the appropriate stage, that led to painting the petitioner with the same brush as the other allottee,” noted the top court.

The bench added: “We find force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was not tainted by mala fides, as was the case of the other allottees.”

The top court directed the Centre to pay Rs 1 lakh as litigation cost to the petitioner within four weeks.

ALSO READ-SC notice to Centre on plea seeking voting rights for NRIs

Categories
India News

SC notice to Centre on plea seeking voting rights for NRIs

The plea sought directions from the Central government to permit citizens residing outside India, to exercise their franchise, under Section 20A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, from their place of residence or employment…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea seeking direction to permit citizens residing outside India to vote here, from their place of residence or employment.

A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli sought a response from the government and poll panel and tagged the PIL along with pending pleas.

The plea filed by Kerala Pravasi Association sought direction that Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) be given the right to vote, without insisting on their physical presence in their respective polling stations in India, on the day of polling.

The plea sought directions from the Central government to permit citizens residing outside India, to exercise their franchise, under Section 20A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, from their place of residence or employment.

The petition has submitted that the provisions of Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2010 which mandates that NRIs be physically present in their constituencies to exercise their right to cast vote in elections are violative of the Fundamental Rights as enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Rules under the Act fail in ensuring the involvement of the citizens living abroad and deny them their Right to effectively exercise their franchise, it added.

ALSO READ-SC to hear Swamy’s plea to declare ‘Ram Setu’ heritage monument

Categories
India News

Govt calls on SC to lay guidelines on freebies

A counsel argued that most of the freebies are not part of the manifesto but are declared during rallies and speeches…reports Asian Lite News

The Centre on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines to regulate the freebies announced by political parties to induce voters, till the legislature devises a mechanism. The issues associated with freebies were also acknowledged by the apex court, which observed that the economy losing money and the welfare of the people, both have to be balanced.

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justice Krishna Murari noted that irrational freebies are definitely an issue of concern and there should be financial discipline. They however pointed out that in a country like India, where poverty is an issue, how could poverty be ignored.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said: “We are proposing a committee, comprising secretary, central government, secretary of each state government, representative of each political party, representative of Niti Aayog, RBI, Finance Commission, National Taxpayers Association and others.” He added that till the legislature steps in, the court may lay down something.

The top court declined to consider a plea for de-recognising parties for making promises to give freebies and noted that idea to de-recognise political parties for making promises to give irrational freebies during the polls was ‘undemocratic’. “I do not want to enter the area of de-registering a political party etc. as it is an undemocratic idea…We are a democracy after all,” the Chief Justice said.

A counsel argued that most of the freebies are not part of the manifesto but are declared during rallies and speeches. The bench said it is a serious issue and added that people who are opposing freebies have a right to say, since they are paying tax and expect that amount should be spent on building infrastructure etc and not in distributing money. The Chief Justice said the expert panel can look into it, and it cannot get into making legislation.

The Chief Justice said the question is to what extent the court can interfere or go into the issue? He reiterated that it is a serious issue and pointed out various schemes introduced by the Centre and state governments for the welfare of the people. Mehta said freebies cannot be welfare, and there are other scientific ways to provide welfare to the people. He added that now elections are only fought on the ground of freebies. “If freebie is considered to be for the welfare of the people, it’ll lead to a disaster,” said Mehta.

The petitioner claimed RBI data shows that the total outstanding liabilities of the states as on March 31, 2021 are a staggering Rs 59,89,360 crore. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, emphasised on financial discipline, and said “Where would this money come from? We’re tax payers?”.

Citing the distribution of gold chains and TVs by political parties, senior advocate Arvind Datar said there was a decision by this court which states that giving freebies is adhering to the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution, which needs to be looked into.

The bench noted that financial discipline has to be there and the economy losing money and welfare of the people, both have to be balanced.

The Chief Justice said he does not want to encroach on areas meant for legislation. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party, said there is confusion between freebies and welfare, the word freebies is used in a very wrong manner.

After hearing the arguments, the top court scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 17. The court had sought suggestions from stakeholders and recommended setting up an expert panel to scrutinise the issues associated with irrational freebies.

On Wednesday, the Election Commission (EC) told the Supreme Court that being a constitutional body, it should be kept away from the panel of experts -representing a wide spectrum of governmental and non-governmental bodies – proposed to deliberate on the issue of validity of freebies announced by the political parties to induce voters during polls. In the previous hearing in the matter, the top court had orally expressed its discontent with the EC for not taking a stand on the menace of freebies offered by political parties.

The top court was hearing a PIL by Upadhyay seeking directions to the Centre and the Election Commission to take steps to regulate poll manifestos of political parties and to hold parties accountable for promises made in such manifestos.

ALSO READ-NITI Aayog finalises privatisation list

Categories
India News

SC clubs all FIRs in Nupur Sharma case

The bench allowed Sharma to move the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIRs lodged or to be lodged for her alleged remarks in the future…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday transferred all the FIRs lodged against suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma over her controversial remarks on Prophet Muhammad to Delhi Police.

The top court gave her the liberty to approach the Delhi High Court for quashing of the FIRs, and also declined to entertain a plea moved by the West Bengal government for a court-monitored SIT probe.

A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala ordered clubbing of all the FIRs registered across the country against Sharma, which will be probed by the Delhi Police.

The top court in the process brushed aside vehement opposition by the West Bengal government, which wanted its police to be part of the SIT with the Delhi Police or a court-appointed SIT.

The bench allowed Sharma to move the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIRs lodged or to be lodged for her alleged remarks in the future.

It added that all the FIRs to be lodged in future in connection with her remarks will be transferred to Delhi Police.

The top court made it clear that protection from arrest to Sharma will continue in all pending and future FIRs. The bench also noted that an FIR has been registered by the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of Delhi Police, which is a specialised agency, and suggested that it should carry out the investigation.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the West Bengal government, objected to the transfer of FIRs to Delhi Police by saying that the first FIR against Sharma was registered in Mumbai, and argued that the accused cannot be allowed to pick the jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Sharma, said the top court’s intervention is required, as his client has received life threats after the TV debate where she made the alleged remarks.

On July 19, the top court had ordered that no coercive action can be taken against Sharma in FIRs already registered and also in future FIRs in connection with her remarks.

The top court had said: “Meanwhile, as an interim measure it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against Nupur Sharma pursuant to the impugned FIRs.”

Sharma had moved the Supreme Court seeking stay on her arrest in the nine FIRs filed against her for her remarks on Prophet Muhammad and also sought clubbing/quashing of the FIRs with the FIR registered in Delhi.

On July 1, the top court had minced no words in slamming Sharma, whose remarks on the Prophet sparked a nationwide controversy. The top court had said that her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire and her irresponsible remarks shows that she is “obstinate and arrogant”.

ALSO READ-Apex court protects Nupur Sharma from arrest

Categories
India News

Identity of child’s father immaterial in rape case, rules SC

Declining to entertain the plea, the bench further added that it does not allow a child’s DNA test at the drop of the hat and pointed out that if the accused were not to be the father of the child, would it obviate rape?..reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking a DNA test of the child of a minor, who was allegedly raped.

A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, in its order, said: “We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

During the hearing, the bench noted that the identity of the child’s father is immaterial to the case. It added that in the offence under the Indian Penal Code’s Section 376, the identity of the father has no relevance.

Counsel representing the accused contended that his client moved the top court against the Allahabad High Court order dated June 25, 2021, which set aside the sessions court order, allowing the DNA test of the child. The accused, in the plea in the apex court, claimed that it is being alleged that he is the father of the child.

Declining to entertain the plea, the bench further added that it does not allow a child’s DNA test at the drop of the hat and pointed out that if the accused were not to be the father of the child, would it obviate rape?

The top court order came on a plea by the rape accused, who is facing trial in a juvenile court, which also declined to entertain his plea for DNA testing. The accused filed the plea through advocate Robin Khokhar.

It has been alleged that seven months ago from the registration of the case, the accused raped the minor girl in front of his family members. The mother of the victim lodged an FIR at police station Kotwali Dehat in Uttar Pradesh’s Sultanpur against the accused and his family members. During the trial, the accused was declared juvenile and trial is in progress before the juvenile justice board.

The high court had noted determining paternity of the child is irrelevant, as the matter is whether the accused raped the victim or not.

ALSO READ-Delhi HC passes split verdict on marital rape criminalisation case

Categories
India News UK News

SC sentences Mallya to 4-month imprisonment

It had said that if Mallya is not present in the hearing, then the matter will be taken to its logical conclusion…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Monday sentenced fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to four months’ imprisonment for contempt of court in 2017, as he had suppressed information from the court.

It also ordered Mallya to deposit $40 million — which he had transferred to his family members in violation of the court orders – failing which attachment of his properties will begin.

A bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and P. S. Narasimha said: “In the circumstances, in order to maintain the majesty of law, we must impose adequate punishment upon the contemnor and must also pass necessary directions so that the advantages secured by the contemnor or anyone claiming under him are set at naught and the amounts in question are available in execution of the decrees passed in the concerned recovery proceedings.”

The bench noted that Mallya never showed any remorse nor tendered any apology for his conduct, as it imposed a sentence of four months and fine of Rs 2,000 on him. The bench added that in case the amount of fine is not deposited within the time stipulated, Mallya would undergo a further sentence of two months.

The bench also ordered Mallya to deposit $40 million, which he had transferred to his family members in violation of the court orders, failing which attachment of his properties will begin. “The contemnor (Mallya) and the beneficiaries under said transactions, shall be bound to deposit the amount received by such beneficiaries along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum with the concerned Recovery Officer within four weeks,” it said.

“In case the amounts are not so deposited, the concerned Recovery Officer shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of said amounts; and Government of India and all the concerned agencies shall extend assistance and complete cooperation. It shall be open to take such appropriate steps including the appointment of Forensic Auditor(s).”

The top court also directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to secure the presence of the contemnor to undergo the imprisonment imposed upon him. “Needless to say, the Government of India including the Ministry of External Affairs and all other agencies or instrumentalities shall carry out the directions issued by this court with due diligence and utmost expediency. A Compliance Report shall thereafter be filed in the Registry of this Court,” it said.

On February 10, the top court gave final opportunity to Mallya, seeking his appearance, before it pronounced sentence in contempt case filed by banks, in which he was found guilty.

The top court said it has found Mallya guilty of contempt and punishment has to be imposed. It added that going by normal logic, the contemnor has to be heard, but he has not appeared before the court so far.

It had said that if Mallya is not present in the hearing, then the matter will be taken to its logical conclusion.

According to a judgment delivered on July 14, 2017, Mallya was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore worth of dues to the banks despite repeated directions. Additionally, he was also accused of not disclosing his assets and also secretly trying to dispose of the assets to defeat the purpose of recovery proceedings.

On October 6 2020, the MHA told the Supreme Court that the UK Home Office has intimated, there is a further legal issue which needs to be resolved before Mallya’s extradition takes place and this issue is outside and apart from the extradition process having effect under the UK law.

ALSO READ-Vijay Mallya loses legal battle to keep plush London home

Categories
India News Politics

SC judge quotes PM Modi’s ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’ approach

He said domestic interests should not be lost sight of “when we take our international goals forward”…reports Asian Lite News

Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath on Sunday cited Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s approach to think global but act local, as he emphasised that domestic interest should not be lost sight of while taking international goals forward.

Quoting the PM’s approach of “thinking globally but acting locally” Justice Nath said it also implies that though our vision should be for a global competition, but it should also be equally concerned with the interest and rights of all around us in our country. He said domestic interests should not be lost sight of “when we take our international goals forward”.

Justice Nath emphasised that fundamental duties under the Constitution have always preceded rights. He added that duty towards the social structure comes first, followed by assertion of personal rights and the chariot of life is propelled by two wheels of rights and duties, and duties have forever preceded the existence of rights.

“It would be a deeply flawed thinking if any person feels that his rights trump that of the collective. In proper balancing of both, duty towards the social structure comes first followed by assertion of personal rights with respect to our contemporaries,” he said on the theme “Fundamental Duties vis-a-vis Fundamental Rights” at the 2nd Justice H.R. Khanna National Symposium.

“A citizen of India has the right to life but the Indian Constitution also places a duty on him to respect other peoples’ lives and to avoid putting his own life at risk. The existence of duties allows for enjoyment of rights,” he said.

Justice Nath said fundamental rights were incorporated in the Constitution to ensure a sense of security and equality against the backdrop of a diverse population, and they have to be read along with fundamental duties, and cannot stand alone.

He cited the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana to assert the significance of duties and add the concept of duties has deep roots in Indian civilisation where the society is based on ‘dharma’. If rights and duties co-exist and strengthen one another, “we can attain the ultimate purpose that rights and duties serve – a welfare society and hence exercising one’s rights also entails respecting the rights of others”, he said.

ALSO READ-South Korea to invest in Himachal

Categories
India News Media

SC judge seeks regulatory law for social, digital media

Justice Pardiwala said India still can’t be classified as a complete and mature democracy, and social and digital media is employed frequently to politicise legal and constitutional issues…reports Asian Lite News

Supreme Court judge Justice J.B. Pardiwala on Sunday called on Parliament to consider introducing appropriate legislative and regulatory provisions to regulate digital and social media as trials by digital media cause undue interference in the process of justice dispensation, as he cited various instances of media crossing “Laxman Rekha”.

Justice Pardiwala, who was part of the Supreme Court bench, which slammed former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for “igniting” the country and damaging the social fabric with her remark on Prophet Muhammad, emphasised on regulating digital and social media in the country to preserve the rule of law.

Media trials are not healthy for rule of law, he said in his address on topic “Vox Populi vs. Rule of Law: Supreme Court of India” in the 2nd Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium.

“Regulation of digital and social media especially in the context of sensitive trials which are sub judice, must be dwelt upon by the Parliament by introducing appropriate legislative and regulatory provisions in this regard,” he said.

He said a trial is essentially a process to be carried out by courts, however in the modern-day context, trials by digital media are an undue interference in the process of justice dispensation and cross that “Laxman Rekha” many times.

Justice Pardiwalwa said a section of people, possessing half-truths, scrutinising the judicial process “are a real challenge to dispensation of justice through the rule of law. Social and digital media nowadays primarily resorted to express personalised opinions against judges per say rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments”.

He said constitutional courts have graciously accepted informed dissent and cited the personalised agenda-driven attacks on judges.

“This is where digital and social media needs to be mandatorily regulated in the country to preserve the rule of law and our Constitution. Attacks on judges for their judgments lead to a dangerous scenario,” he said.

Justice Pardiwala said India still can’t be classified as a complete and mature democracy, and social and digital media is employed frequently to politicise legal and constitutional issues.

Citing the judgment in Ayodhya title dispute, he pointed out that as the case was nearing the verdict, there were political overtones. “Judges deciding the dispute may get a bit shaken, which is antithetic to the rule of law. That is not healthy for the rule of law.”

He emphasised that social media is overrun by people “possessing half-truth” and those who don’t understand rule of law, evidence, judicial process and its inherent limitations. Citing cases of serious offences, Justice Pardiwala said the immense power of social and digital media is resorted to precipitating a perception of guilt or innocence of the accused even before the trial is over.

Justice Pardiwala said he was a firm believer of the rule of law had no exceptions and that the opinion of the public hardly mattered when it came to judicial verdicts and added judicial verdicts could not be reflections of the influence of public opinion on the court.

ALSO READ-US SC limits Biden’s power to curb emissions

Categories
India News

SC moved for 5-year bar on resigned/ disqualified MLAs

The plea argued that of late, there is a concerted pan India effort by political parties to render the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution otiose and redundant…reports Asian Lite News

Amid the ongoing political crisis in Maharashtra, an application has been moved, in a pending case in the Supreme Court, seeking direction for an up to 5 year bar on MLAs, who are either disqualified from the state Assemblies or have resigned.

The plea said: “Recently, June 18, 2022 to June 22, 2022, same thing is repeated in the state of Maharashtra. These political parties again try to destroy the democratic fabric of our country. Therefore, immediate direction of this court is necessary as prayed in this application for direction.”

The plea by Jaya Thakur, a Congress leader from Madhya Pradesh, was filed in a pending petition filed by her in 2021, where the apex court in January 2021, sought the Centre’s response. “That respondents have not filed a counter affidavit to till date, in spite of the sufficient opportunity granted by this court. The political parties are taking disadvantage of this situation and continuously destroying the elected governments in various states of our country,” the plea said.

The plea argued that of late, there is a concerted pan India effort by political parties to render the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution otiose and redundant.

It added that once a member of the House incurs disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, he/she cannot be permitted to contest again during the term for which he/she was elected. “Article 172 makes a membership of a House co terminus with the term of 5 years of the House except in circumstances mentioned therein. That once 10th Schedule comes into play and a seat falls vacant due to disqualification then that particular disqualified member of the House has to incur disability under Article 191 (1) (e ) and will be debarred from being chosen again during the term for which he/she was elected,” it added.

The plea added that in 2019, in Karnataka, 17 MLAs who resigned/were disqualified by the Speaker for anti-party activities, sought reelection and 11 of them got re-elected. Ten of them got ministerial berths in the new government that was formed after the earlier government fell, it added. “There is a growing trend of Speakers acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral. Additionally, political parties are indulging in horse trading and corrupt practices, due to which citizens are denied a stable government. Such undemocratic practices need to be curbed,” it added.

The petitioner urged the top court to restrain those MLAs from contesting the election up to five years, from the date of his/her resignation/disqualification from the Assembly.

In the 2021 petition, it was pointed out that political parties attempt to render the provisions of Tenth Schedule redundant by making MLAs of ruling party resign from the House, which leads to collapse of the government.

ALSO READ: India appoints Ruchira Kamboj as Permanent Representative to UN