The SC is taking up two lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group, that says race should play no part in the admission process. The group is led by Edward Blum, a legal strategist…reports Nikhila Natarajan
Hurting after the US Supreme Court announced a decision “that could put Harvard’s forty years of legal precedent at risk,” Larry S. Bacow, the university’s President, has warned that “colleges and universities could lose the freedom and flexibility to create diverse campus communities that enrich education for all”.
The SC has agreed to review a challenge to the consideration of race in college admission decisions, often known as affirmative action.
With three new conservative justices in the SC since its last review, the practice may be facing its greatest threat yet.
The court said Monday it would consider a pair of lawsuits alleging that Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) discriminate against Asian American applicants.
“Our admissions process, in which race is considered as one factor among many, makes us stronger. It prompts learning in day-to-day exchanges in our classrooms and laboratories, in our residential houses, and on our playing fields and stages. Our students understand these truths and see them reflected in their interactions with their classmates. Diversity opens our eyes to the promise of a better future,” said Bacow, earlier Chancellor at M.I.T. and President at Tufts, in a “dear members of the Harvard community” mail reviewed.
“Harvard celebrates and nurtures individuality as intensely as this nation. Those who challenge our admissions policies would ask us to rely upon a process far more mechanistic, a process far more reliant on simple assessments of objective criteria. Each of us is, however, more than our numbers, more than our grades, more than our rankings or scores. Ask yourself, how much have you learned from other people at this University? How much have you grown from conversations across difference? Would these conversations have been as rich if you had shared the same interests, the same life experiences, and — yes — the same racial or ethnic background as your fellow community members? This is why applications of any kind routinely go beyond mere numbers to include interviews, samples of work product, recommendations, and references. Narrowly drawn measures of academic distinction are not the only indicators of individual promise.”
“As the Supreme Court has recognised many times, race matters in the United States,” Bracow argued.
“I long for the day when it does not, but we still have miles to go before our journey is complete. Harvard will continue to defend with vigor admissions policies that were endorsed in the thoughtful decisions of two federal courts that concluded that we do not discriminate; our practices are consistent with Supreme Court precedent; there is no persuasive, credible evidence warranting a different outcome. Though I wish yesterday had turned out differently, I remain confident that the rule of law — and the respect for precedent that perpetuates it — will prevail.”
The SC is taking up two lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group, that says race should play no part in the admission process. The group is led by Edward Blum, a legal strategist.
The group argues that Harvard and UNC intentionally discriminate against Asian-American applicants.
Examining six years of data at Harvard, the group found that Asian-American applicants had the strongest academics but were admitted at the lowest rates compared to students of other races.
It also found that Harvard’s admissions officers gave Asian-Americans lower scores on a subjective “personal” rating designed to measure attributes such as likeability and kindness.
A federal judge in 2019 upheld Harvard’s admissions practices, saying it was “not perfect” but passed constitutional muster. The judge said race-conscious practices always penalise groups that don’t get an advantage, but they’re justified “by the compelling interest in diversity” on college campuses.
An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2020.
The group brought similar claims against UNC, saying its process disadvantages white and Asian American students. A federal judge sided with the university last year.
In its appeal to the SC, the group asked the panel to review both cases and also to overturn the court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v Bollinger, which upheld admissions policies at the University of Michigan’s law school.
That cleared colleges to consider race if it’s done in a “narrowly tailored” way to serve a “compelling interest”. The group’s appeal argued that the Grutter decision “endorsed racial objectives that are amorphous and unmeasurable and thus incapable of narrow tailoring”.
The judgment came on an appeal filed by the legal heirs of Arunachala Gounder, as it set aside the verdicts passed by Madras High Court and the trial court…reports Asian Lite News
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, will either go to the heirs of her parents or husband. Explaining the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, a bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said: “The main scheme of this Act is to establish complete equality between male and female with regard to property rights and the rights of the female were declared absolute, completely abolishing all notions of a limited estate.”
It further added that the Act brought about changes in the law of succession among Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to women’s property. “The legislative intent of enacting Section 14 (I) of the Act was to remedy the limitation of a Hindu woman who could not claim absolute interest in the properties inherited by her but only had a life interest in the estate so inherited,” said the bench.
The judgment came on an appeal filed by the legal heirs of Arunachala Gounder, as it set aside the verdicts passed by Madras High Court and the trial court. “Unfortunately, neither the trial court nor the High Court adverted itself to the settled legal propositions which are squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case,” said the top court.
“Since the succession of the suit properties opened in 1967 upon death of Kupayee Ammal, the 1956 Act shall apply and thereby Ramasamy Gounder’s daughter’s being Class-I heirs of their father too shall also be heirs and entitled to 1/5th share in each of the suit properties,” it said.
The bench noted that the right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognised not only under the old customary Hindu law but also by various judicial pronouncements.
It said if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. “The basic aim of the legislature in enacting Section 15(2) is to ensure that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source,” said the bench.
It added that the Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies, inter-alia, to persons governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools and also to those governed previously by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana, and Nambudri Laws.
“The Act applies to every person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo Pararthana or Arya Samaj and even to any person who is Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh by religion excepting one who is Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion,” it added.
The top court said: “We direct the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court to keep the records in his safe custody for the time being.”…reports Asian Lite News
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve all records in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Punjab, and also asked the state and Central committees to refrain from conducting inquiries till Monday, when it will take up the matter again.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said: “We deem it appropriate for the time being to direct the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve the records relating to the Prime Minister’s scheduled tour of Punjab on January 5, 2022”.
“We direct the Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh and an officer of the National Investigation Agency, not below the rank of Inspector General, to be nominated by the Director General, National Investigation Agency, to assist the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court to forthwith secure and seize the records from the State police as well as Central agencies.”
The top court also asked the state and Central committees to refrain from conducting inquiries till Monday.
It also directed the Punjab government, including the police authorities, the Special Protection Group and any other central/state agencies to cooperate and to provide necessary assistance in securing and seizing the records.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted that some NIA officer should assist the court’s officer in collecting and securing the evidence, which includes wireless messages in connection with PM’s movement in the state. He claimed that the court officer may find it difficult to pin down on sources, from which information is required.
Mehta termed the incident “rarest of the rare issue” and also potential cross border terrorism.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Delhi-based petitioner Lawyer’s Voice, emphasised on the importance of protection to the PM of the country and cited previous top court ruling that looked at the SPG Act.
Singh contended the incident happened in an election-bound state and it must be ensured that such incidents don’t happen again. He added that the Punjab government has no exclusive right to appoint a panel to inquire into this incident.
Referring to a former high court judge, who has been appointed as the chairman of the state probe panel, Singh cited a 2014 Supreme Court ruling recording adverse remarks against the judge in connection to an investigation in a recruitment scam. He urged the top court to restrain the state panel from proceeding in the matter and sought for a district judge to collect all evidence with assistance of NIA and sought an independent probe into the matter.
Mehta appeared before the top court in support of this petition.
The top court said: “We direct the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court to keep the records in his safe custody for the time being.”
The plea sought an independent probe into the PM’s security breach in Punjab. It sought a direction to the District Judge Bathinda to collect, preserve and present all material pertaining to the movement and deployment of Punjab Police in connection with the visit of the Prime Minister, and fix responsibility of the DGP and the Chief Secretary, Punjab.
Posting the matter for further hearing on January 10, the top court said: “The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order electronically, forthwith, to the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Director General, National Investigation Agency and the Principal Secretary Home, State of Punjab.”
On January 6, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a three-member committee to enquire into the “serious lapses in the security arrangements” during the PM’s visit to Ferozepur, in poll-bound Punjab. The MHA said: “The committee will be led by Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Secretary (Security), Cabinet Secretariat, and comprising of Balbir Singh, Joint Director, IB, and S Suresh, IG, SPG.”
Show cause notice to Bathinda top cop
Two days after the security lapse during Prime Minister Narendra Modis visit to Punjab, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday issued a show cause notice to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Bathinda, saying that the police at the protest site was found to be inactive.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister’s rally in Ferozepur had to be cancelled due to a security lapse after some protesters blocked a route and forced Modi’s convoy to spend about 15-20 minutes on a flyover. The Prime Minister was enroute the National Martyrs Memorial at Hussainiwala when the incident happened.
PM's security lapse in #Punjab: Home Ministry sends notice to Bathinda top cop, asks for reply in a day#PMSecurityLapse
In the notice issued by the MHA, Archana Varma, Deputy Secretary to the Centre, said, “Since there was grave security lapse during PM Modi’s visit, the Bathinda SSP has been directed to ‘show-cause’ as to why action should not be initiated against him under the law, including disciplinary action under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, the acts of omission and commission.”
The letter added, “As provided in Section 14 of the Special Protection Group (SPG), 1988, the state government and every civil authority is legally obligated to provide all assistance to the SPG and, therefore, you as SSP Bathinda were obligated to make adequate security arrangements, but the available information so far indicates that police at the protest site was found to be inactive, senior police officers present at the site were also found to be ineffective in making efforts to facilitate the movement of the carcade of the VVIP. Throughout the route, only skeletal police deployment was observed.”
Meanwhile, an MHA team investigating the breach of security reached the spot on Friday to find out the reasons that led to the Prime Minister’s cavalcade remaining stranded on the flyover for 15-20 minutes.
As per the MHA statement, around 30 km away from the National Martyrs Memorial in Hussainiwala near Ferozepur, when the PM’s convoy reached a flyover, it was found that the road was blocked by some protesters. The Prime Minister was stuck on the flyover for 15-20 minutes. This was a major lapse in the security of the Prime Minister.
Punjab Chief Secretary Anirudh Tewari, in a report submitted to the Centre, said that an FIR has been lodged in the incident and the state government has formed a two-member panel to probe the lapses.
16 Ex-DGP's & 27 Ex-IPS officers have written to President Ramnath Kovind & expressed shock over PM @narendramodi's #SecurityBreach in Punjab. They described the lapse as a shameful & open display of complicity of the Congress govt with an intent to harm the Prime Minister. pic.twitter.com/SgVZQ4TGvw
Tewari is learnt to have shared the details pertaining to the sequence of events that unfolded on Wednesday, official sources said.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve all the records in connection with the Prime Minister’s visit to Punjab, and also asked the state and Central committees to refrain from conducting inquiries till Monday, when it will take up the matter again.
‘Potential of cross-border terrorism’
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Friday told the Supreme Court that the breach in security of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Punjab was “rarest of the rare issue” and “potential of cross-border terrorism”.
Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana that it was a “rarest of the rare issue” potential of causing international embarrassment.
He said for the movement of the PM’s cavalcade on road, the concerned state Director General of Police (DGP) is always consulted to secure the route for the movement.
Citing videos in public domain, Mehta said the local police personnel were seen enjoying tea with the protestors, but they didn’t bother to inform the SPG about the protesters on the route. He added that the PM’s cavalcade came to a halt on the flyover and one side was blocked by a large crowd of protestors. “A serious mishap could have happened…embarrassment at international level”, said Mehta.
He also pointed at the tweet of the chairman of banned organisation ‘Sikhs for Justice’, regarding the PM’s visit, calling people to come together to do whatever is required. Mehta said it indicates at cross-border terrorism and a district judge should be assisted by an NIA official to collect the record pertaining to PM’s visit in Punjab. “Potential of cross-border terrorism…”, Mehta reiterated.
Mehta added, “A signal must go from the highest court of this country that this won’t be tolerated.”
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Delhi-based petitioner Lawyer’s Voice, emphasised on the importance of protection to the PM of the country and cited previous top court ruling that looked at the SPG Act.
Singh contended the incident happened in an election-bound state and it must be ensured that such incidents don’t happen again. He added that the Punjab government has no exclusive right to appoint a panel to inquire into this incident.
Referring to a former high court judge, who has been appointed as the chairman of the state probe panel, Singh cited a 2014 Supreme Court ruling recording adverse remarks against the judge in connection to an investigation in a recruitment scam. He urged the top court to restrain the state panel from proceeding in the matter and sought for a district judge to collect all evidence with assistance of NIA and sought an independent probe into the matter. Mehta appeared before the top court in support of this petition.
After a detailed hearing in the matter, the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli directed the registrar general of Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve all records in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi visit to Punjab, and also asked the state and central committees to refrain from conducting inquiries till Monday, when it will take up the matter again.
The cases include — SC-appointed panel will submit its report into Pegasus snooping allegations, verdict on reservation in promotion to SC and ST in government jobs, relevance of adopting OBC creamy layer criteria for granting reservations under the economic weaker section (EWS) among others, reports Asian Lite News
Come new year, the Supreme Court will consider pivotal cases, which broach some of the contentious issues having an impact across the political spectrum.
The cases include — SC-appointed panel will submit its report into Pegasus snooping allegations, verdict on reservation in promotion to SC and ST in government jobs, relevance of adopting OBC creamy layer criteria for granting reservations under the economic weaker section (EWS), Centre’s response on the election process on the seats reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the local body elections in Madhya Pradesh, and the status report from the high court judge monitoring the investigations into the Lakhimpur Kheri incident.
Pegasus Snooping Scandal
The Pegasus snooping allegation has already kicked up a firestorm and rocked Parliament. The Opposition — Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), and DMK — staged a walkout from the House, and several petitioners moved the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored probe into the allegations.
On October 27, the top court said it was compelled to take up the cause to determine the truth, as it appointed an independent expert technical committee supervised by a retired top court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, to probe the Pegasus snooping allegations.
Justice Raveendran is overseeing the functioning of the technical committee and he is assisted by Alok Joshi, former IPS officer and Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, Sub Committee in (International Organisation of Standardisation/International Electro-Technical Commission/Joint Technical Committee). The three members of the technical committee are — Dr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat; Dr. Prabaharan P., Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala; and Dr. Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra. The bench directed the committee to submit its report expeditiously and scheduled the matter for further hearing after eight weeks.
Reservation Promotion in government jobs for SC and ST
On October 26, the Supreme Court reserved its judgement in connection with the issue of reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the government jobs. The Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that granting reservation in promotion to SC/ST employees would not adversely affect the efficiency of the administration.
The Attorney General had submitted that deciding adequacy of representation by SCs and STs in educational institutions or in government employment, the basis of reservation must be kept in mind to decide what should be the standard to be applied for deciding adequacy. The Centre pointed out that the proportion to the population of SCs was 15 per cent, the STs was 7.5 per cent, and the proportion of OBCs to the total population of the country was 52 per cent. The top court is likely to pronounce its verdict soon.
Stay on election process on seats reserved for OBCs in local bodies
On December 17, the Supreme Court stayed the election process on the seats reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the local body elections in Madhya Pradesh. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar said: “We direct the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to stay the election process in respect of OBCs seats only, in all the local bodies and to renotify those seats for general category.”
The top court passed the order while hearing a miscellaneous application seeking stay of the election notification dated December 4, 2021 issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission in respect of OBC seats in local bodies. On December 15, the Supreme Court ordered the state election commission (SEC) and the Maharashtra government to convert 27 per cent reserved seats for OBC into general category, for zila parishad & panchayat samitis, and issue fresh notification.
Citing its verdicts, the top court said the election programme needs to be stayed forthwith as it is in conflict with the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & others vs. Union of India and the three Judge Bench in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra and others, which was earlier this year.
“First comply with the triple test being a pre-condition, before notifying reservation of seats for other Backward Classes in the local bodies under their jurisdiction,” the top court told the government. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on January 17.
Income limit for EWS quota
On November 25, the Centre had told the Supreme Court that it has taken a decision to revisit the criteria of Rs 8 lakh annual income limit for EWS criteria and a fresh decision will be taken within a period of 4 weeks. Earlier, the Supreme Court had questioned the Centre for adopting the criteria of OBC creamy layer of Rs 8 lakh annual income for granting reservations under the economic weaker section (EWS), despite the latter not suffering from social and educational backwardness. The top court told the Centre’s counsel “You just cannot pull out eight lakh from thin air. You are making unequal equal by applying the Rs eight lakh limit.”
The top court is hearing writ petitions challenging 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10 per cent reservation for EWS in all-India Quota seats for postgraduate medical courses. As many as 15 per cent seats in MBBS and 50 per cent seats in MS and MD courses are filled through All India Quota from the candidates selected through NEET.
Status report on Lakhimpur Kheri incident
On November 17, the top court appointed justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, a former judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, to monitor the Lakhimpur Kheri violence probe and also reconstituted the SIT investigating the incident and appointed IPS officer S.B. Shiradkar, as its head.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had expressed its disapproval on the slow pace and outcome of the investigation conducted so far, as well as the composition of the SIT conducting probe into the matter. “We, therefore, appoint Justice (Retd.) Rakesh Kumar Jain, a former judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, to monitor the ongoing investigation so as to ensure transparency, fairness and absolute impartiality in the outcome of the investigation in the Lakhimpur Kheri incident which is to be conducted in a time bound manner,” said the top court.
The agency is verifying evidence collected against accused and also studying forensic and ballistic reports they received from forensic laboratory, the officer added.https://t.co/2OBCeN2z5e
The court has scheduled the matter for hearing on receipt of a status report from the monitoring judge, after the charge sheet is filed. The matter is likely to come up soon for hearing.
The violence occurred on October 3, resulting in the killing of eight persons, including four farmers who were allegedly mowed down by the vehicles in the convoy of Ashish Misra, the son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Misra.
In the high court, the petitioner sought quashing the money laundering case, and also challenged the notices issued to him by the investigating officer…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted protection to media baron Raghav Bahl, from any coercive action taken by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli said: “Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.”
The top court also ordered tagging of the appeal with a pending one in the matter.
On December 3, the Delhi High Court had issued notice to the ED on Bahl’s plea seeking quashing of the case. However, it declined to pass any order granting him interim protection from arrest and granted three weeks to the ED to file its reply in the matter.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Bahl in the apex court, argued that the petition has been filed as the high court did not grant his client protection. In the high court, the petitioner sought to quash the money laundering case, and also challenged the notices issued to him by the investigating officer.
The ED case originates against Bahl from a complaint by the Income Tax (I-T) Department and the alleged laundering of funds to purchase an undisclosed asset in London. The department had initiated proceedings against him under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets).
Bahl’s lawyer argued in the high court the challenge to the black money proceedings was pending in the apex court, which granted him protection from coercive action. He added that now notices were issued by the ED to him in connection with the money laundering case. The ED had argued the issue of money laundering proceedings is not in the top court.
The #SupremeCourt on Wednesday granted protection to media baron Raghav Bahl from any coercive action of the Enforcement Directorate in a #money laundering case lodged against him.https://t.co/ahbbzWb7s6
The IT Department also initiated proceedings under the Imposition of Tax Act of 2015 for alleged irregularities in the returns filed for the assessment year (AY) 2018-2019. Bahl’s counsel had submitted before the high court that IT had accepted the income tax return for 2018-2019 in 2021 and based on the black money complaint, ED proceedings commenced. He contended that now there is no violation, there are no proceeds of crime.
The judges, though, said the lack of a gender-neutral option “does not unjustifiably breach articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights”…reports Asian Lite News.
Five judges at Britain’s Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a legal challenge against a government policy not to allow gender-neutral passports.
Christie Elan-Cane, who does not identify as either male or female, argued that Britain’s passport application process was “inherently discriminatory”.
Individuals only have a choice of “male” or “female” on the application, with no option to put “X” for “unspecified” — an alternative introduced in several other countries.
But the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, ruling that a person’s identity could be confirmed using the form and checking it against other official documents.
That included birth, adoption or gender recognition certificates, said judge Robert Reed in the ruling.
“It is therefore gender recognised for legal purposes and recorded in those documents which is relevant,” he added.
The case was brought on the grounds that the government breached legal rights to a private life and not to face gender or sex discrimination.
The judges, though, said the lack of a gender-neutral option “does not unjustifiably breach articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.
Elan-Cane, who has campaigned on the issue for 25 years, had earlier lost cases in lower courts.
The activist, who uses the pronouns “per/per/perself”, said the government and courts were “on the wrong side of history”.
“This is not the end,” the campaigner wrote on Twitter, promising to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Countries including Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Malta, Nepal and Pakistan all now issue passports with options other than male and female.
It also urged the government for a rethink in terms of infrastructural requirements of the judiciary…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that when the government is focusing on ease of doing business, settling disputes through arbitration, and the like, then it cannot leave high courts at the mercy of state governments for funding judicial infrastructure, and suggested that it contemplate creating an umbrella body for this purpose.
A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath also recommended the creation of a specific cadre for tribunals and also suggested that the Centre can contemplate creating an All India Tribunal Service for the effective administration of tribunals.
It also urged the government for a rethink in terms of the infrastructural requirements of the judiciary.
The top court cited that the government is talking about ease of doing business, inviting foreign investment, speedy disposal of corporate cases, and also a settlement of disputes through arbitration. It added therefore it is essential for the government to have a centralised mechanism for the development of the infrastructure and allocation of funds. It said a mechanism is required for monitoring allocation of funds by the Centre and states, and the disbursal of funds and their utilisation.
The bench said: “We have found that infrastructure work gets completed fast when funds are allocated by the Centre.” It also appreciated the Centre’s efforts for speedy allocation of funds for creation of court infrastructure.
Citing a meeting held with various high court chief justices, the bench said they don’t know when the state governments will allocate funds. “So, don’t leave the High Courts at the mercy of state governments for funds. You must create a centralised mechanism for development of judicial infrastructure,” it added.
The bench asked Centre’s counsel to seek instruction on creation of a body like the National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation, and a sub-committee at the national and state levels. It further added that there should be a central mechanism for allocation of funds for creation of infrastructure. The top court was examining the recommendation of retired Justice A.K. Sikri on the national court management system.
The bench also pointed out that problem is also at the end of the judiciary, after allocation of funds — they remain unutilised.
The apex court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, confirmed the divorce decree awarded to the husband and wife by the family court and the high court. It also directed the father to provide Rs 50,000 maintenance per month…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court has said a child should not suffer in the dispute between a husband and wife, as it held that it is the responsibility of the father to maintain the son till he attains the age of majority.
A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna said: “Whatever be the dispute between the husband and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority. It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father.”
The bench noted that the mother of the child is not earning and she is residing at her parental house at Jaipur.
“Therefore, a reasonable/sufficient amount is required for the maintenance of her son including his education etc. which shall have to be paid by the respondent-husband, irrespective of the decree of dissolution of the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband,” it added.
The apex court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, confirmed the divorce decree awarded to the husband and wife by the family court and the high court. It also directed the father to provide Rs 50,000 maintenance per month.
The bench took into consideration the estranged couple has not been staying together since May 2011 and therefore, there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between them.
The bench noted since December 2019, the father had stopped paying the amount, which was being paid under the order passed by the Army authorities on November 15, 2012.
“The respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs 50,000 per month with effect from December 2019 to the appellant-wife towards the maintenance of the son as per the status of the respondent herein. The arrears @ Rs 50,000 per month from December 2019 to November 2021 shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today.”
The marriage between the couple was solemnised on November 16, 2005, and the man was then serving as a Major. The couple’s child is now aged 13 years.
In May 2018, the family court passed a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the husband and wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife, and it was confirmed by the high court.
The top court emphasised that directions have been issued and the authorities hope that all will be good. “But, on the ground, the result is zero,” noted the bench…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Monday said if the state governments do not implement the direction issued — by top court, the Centre, and the air quality management commission — to curb air pollution, then the court will set up a task force for the implementation of these directions.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant said: “Closer to create an independent task force (as a measure to curb air pollution) …if states not taking action,”
The top court emphasised that directions have been issued and the authorities hope that all will be good. “But, on the ground, the result is zero,” noted the bench.
The Supreme Court directed state governments — Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana — to comply with the directions issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in Delhi-NCR and sought compliance reports from them. The next hearing will be on Thursday.
The top court expressed its deep concern in connection with the worsening air pollution in the capital. The Chief Justice told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Centre says it is taking steps, yet pollution level in the capital is worsening day by day and also there is a looming threat of coronavirus. The Chief Justice said: “What to do?”
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner minor Aditya Dubey, contended that the ongoing construction activity in connection with the Central Vista project is also adding to the air pollution in Delhi and urged the court to issue directions to stop it. The bench asked Mehta to file an affidavit to explain what steps the government has taken to curb air pollution in the areas which fall under the central government in Delhi.
The bench queried Mehta, what is the commission, created for monitoring air quality index in NCR region, doing? “It is just passing on the directions (issued by the top court) to the states.”
The bench further queried Mehta about the steps being taken by the state governments to implement the directions. “Tell us which states are not complying with the directions. We will seek explanation,” said the bench.
The bench said it needs strict compliance with the measures issued by the Centre, the top court, and the air quality management commission. The top court asked the state governments to explain the measures they have taken in connection with the menace of air pollution and scheduled the matter for further hearing on Thursday.
The top court was hearing a plea seeking the setting up of community kitchens across the country to address hunger and malnutrition…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday noted that people are ‘suffering from hunger and dying of it’, and directed the Centre to develop a scheme after consulting various state governments for creating community kitchens to take care of hunger deaths or malnutrition of children.
The top court was hearing a plea seeking the setting up of community kitchens across the country to address hunger and malnutrition.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana told Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, “See, if you want to take care of hunger, no Constitution, law or court will say no. My suggestion again is… Already we’re delaying, so further adjournments won’t help… We’ll give you a final time of two weeks, please hold that meeting (with state governments to develop a scheme).”
The Additional Solicitor General, representing the Centre, submitted that the issues which are raised in the writ petition with regard to creating community kitchens to take care of hunger deaths or malnutrition of children are under active consideration of the Centre, which is awaiting expert reports on the subject.
A welfare state must ensure that nobody dies of hunger, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday as it pressed for the framing of a pan-India scheme to run community kitchens across the states.
The bench said that unless state governments are involved, it is difficult to implement the scheme, and the Centre should come out with some policy decision to implement the community kitchen scheme after taking into consideration the other similar schemes relating to community kitchens, which are already in operation in different states.
During the hearing, the top court was informed that incidents of hunger deaths and malnutrition of children have been reported from five states — Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Bihar.
The Chief Justice told the Centre that “people are dying of hunger and malnutrition is a separate issue, do not mix them”, adding that it is not bothered about the international malnutrition index, but it’s only aim is to curb the hunger issues in the country.
The bench said that for any welfare state, the first responsibility is not to allow people to die of hunger.
At the beginning of the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, slammed the Centre, stating that it appears from the affidavit and submissions of the Centre that it is still in the process of gathering suggestions on the matter.
The bench noted, “It looks like the government is not in a mood to implement the scheme…”
After hearing detailed arguments in the matter, the top court said that it will grant three weeks’ time to the Central government to come up with some scheme, which is agreeable to various state governments.
“We feel that there is a need to coordinate with the state governments/Union Territories and their opinion should also be taken into consideration by the Union of India before finalisation of the Community Kitchen Scheme,” the top court said in its order.
The bench noted that if the state governments have any objection, they will be taken up in the next hearing. “We direct all the states to cooperate with the government of India in coming up with a scheme,” said the bench.
The petition filed by Anun Dhawan and others sought subsidised canteens in all the states and UTs to ensure food security in the backdrop of the havoc caused by the Covid1-9 pandemic.
The top court expressed its displeasure that the affidavit in the matter has been filed by the under secretary to the government of India.
“We direct that in future, some responsible officer of the rank of Secretary should file the affidavits in this matter,” said the bench.
