The top court also told the state governments to not take action against farmers, rather persuade them to stop stubble burning…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Monday sought an action plan within 24 hours from the Centre and state governments, detailing steps taken by task forces to stop air pollution caused by vehicular traffic, construction work, stubble burning, power plants, entry of heavy vehicles, dust, etc.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana told counsel appearing for the Centre and state governments, “Need an action plan by tomorrow evening. Hold a meeting…”
The top court also asked the Centre and states to allow the people to work-from-home.
The bench, also comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, noted that the Centre in its affidavit has submitted that stubble burning is not a major factor leading to severe air pollution level in the capital, rather the agricultural burning leads to merely 11 per cent contribution on PM 2.5 and PM 10 concentration.
The top court told the Centre to call an emergency meeting of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh governments on Tuesday for taking urgent measures to bring down air pollution levels.
The top court also told the state governments to not take action against farmers, rather persuade them to stop stubble burning.
“Don’t take action against farmers, persuade them,” said the bench. The bench emphasized that action is required to be taken on vehicular pollution, industrial pollution and dust control measures, which contributes nearly 76 per cent to the air pollution.
The Delhi government has told the Supreme Court that it is ready to take steps like complete lockdown to control the local emission, which would help in bringing down the air pollution in the national capital, but added that it will have only a limited impact.
In an affidavit, the Delhi government said: “GNCTD is ready to take steps like complete lockdown to control local emissions. However, such a step would be meaningful if it is implemented across the NCR areas in neighbouring states. Given Delhi’s compact size, a lockdown would have limited impact on the air quality regime”.
The government said this issue would need to be addressed at the level of airshed involving the NCR areas.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had refused to divulge details whether Pegasus was used or not, stating the information may affect the national security concerns of the country…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday 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.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said the court’s effort is to uphold the rule of law, without entering the “political thicket”, and added the alleged use of Pegasus on the citizens of the country, was of “grave concern”.
The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said while technology is a useful tool for improving the lives of the people, at the same time, it can also be used to breach that sacred private space of an individual.
“Privacy is not the singular concern of journalists or social activists. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy”, emphasized the bench, adding this right is directly infringed when there is surveillance on an individual, either by state or any external agency.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had refused to divulge details whether Pegasus was used or not, stating the information may affect the national security concerns of the country.
The bench said it is a settled position of law that in matters pertaining to national security, the scope of judicial review is limited. “However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of “national security” is raised.
National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning”, said the bench.
The top court said invocation of national security by the state does not render it a mute spectator when foreign governments have seriously taken the purported spyware attack, and some governments have initiated proceedings internally to determine the truth.
“Certain grave allegations of infringement of the rights of the citizens of the country have been raised, assuming great significance. In this light, this court is compelled to take up the cause to determine the truth and get to the bottom of the allegations made herein”, said the bench.
Stating that snooping impacted the right to privacy and freedom of speech, the top court cited several compelling circumstances for it to constitute the committee.
The top court pointed out that documents filed by petitioners, which record certain material, cannot be brushed aside, such as the reports of reputed organisations like Citizen Lab and affidavits of experts. Mehta had suggested that many of these reports areAA motivated and self-serving. However, the top court said such an omnibus oral allegation is not sufficient to desist from interference.
In the absence of the government’s clear stand on snooping allegations, the bench said repeated suggestions made it to file a detailed affidavit in response to the allegations produced no effect on the government, which ended up filing a two-page affidavit.
“There has only been an omnibus and vague denial in the “limited affidavit” filed by the Respondent Union of India, which cannot be sufficient,” said the top court, dismissing Centre’s apprehension that any disclosure on the Pegasus issue would affect national security.
Voicing concern about the protection of journalistic freedom, the bench said the state should not create an atmosphere that has a “chilling effect” on the freedom of the press, which is an assault on the vital public-watchdog role of the press.
Justice Raveendran would oversee the functioning of the technical committee and he will be 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.
The top court order came on petitions, including by veteran journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar, the Editors Guild and individuals, who claimed to be victims of the alleged snooping.
The residents of the Village had filed a case in the High Court against the panchayat president post being reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman)…reports Asian Lite News.
While the first phase of the rural local body polls in Tamil Nadu concluded with no untoward incident except for some small skirmishes, the residents of Ammundi panchayat in Vellore district boycotted the elections.
The boycott was due to the panchayat president post has been reserved for SC woman. No person voted in any of the five polling booths set up in the village. The village has 2,045 voters.
The residents of the Village had filed a case in the High Court against the panchayat president post being reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman).
The villagers were protesting against this since September and had wanted to revert the seat to the general category. The village elders said that they boycotted the polls as of the 2,045 voters in the Ammundi panchayat, 2,042 are under the general category and SC women and male voters numbered only 2 and 1 respectively.
AIADMK Vellore Urban district secretary, S.R.K. Appu who had brought the discrepancy before the district administration said, “The villagers agitated as they want justice and reclassify the village panchayat under the general category. The district administration was not properly responding even after repeated queries and there was no alternative other than boycott the polls.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the NGO, contended Mishra was retiring in May 2020, and “this exercise was an unreasonable exercise of power”…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that people must be allowed to raise their voice in a democracy, while hearing a PIL by NGO Common Cause challenging the extension of tenure of Enforcement Directorate Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, contended that some of the NGOs should not be allowed to run a parallel government by filing multiple PILs on all issues, and service matters cannot be adjudicated in a public interest litigation.
However, a bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao noted that people must be allowed to raise their voice in a democracy.
As the Centre said that the ED Director’s tenure was extended as many cases of money laundering were at crucial stage and a change of guard could impact the probe, the top court observed that it appreciates he did a good work, but “you cannot say that he can continue till the cases are concluded”.
It noted that the question here is whether the tenure of the Director can be extended.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the NGO, contended Mishra was retiring in May 2020, and “this exercise was an unreasonable exercise of power”.
“Power has to be construed in a reasonable manner and not in an unreasonable manner,” he said, posing the question whether an “whether a person can be appointed beyond the period of superannuation?”
The Centre, however, contended that there was no illegality in its decision to modify the tenure of incumbent ED Director from two years to three years.
The hearing in the matter will continue on Wednesday.
The NGO’s plea contended that Centre has employed a circuitous route in order to ensure Mishra gets one more year as ED Director by way of retrospectively modifying the appointment order dated November 18, 2018, itself. The NGO has made three respondents in its plea: Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, the present ED Director, and the Central Vigilance Commission.
The plea filed by the NGO has sought direction for quashing November 13 order along with a direction to the Centre to appoint ED Director in a transparent manner and strictly in accordance with the mandate of Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
“The said two-year tenure has come to an end on November 19, 2020. Pertinently, the Respondent No 2 (Mishra) has already reached the retirement age of 60 years in May 2020,” the plea said.
The CJI said that in September last year, the court had granted time to Centre to file a detailed status report, then in October again, time was sought, and today, the situation is the same…reports Asian Lite News.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the “last opportunity” to Centre to submit detailed status report regarding details of pendency and stage of trial of cases involving sitting and former lawmakers registered with the central agencies, the CBI, and others.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: “We are reading these reports in newspapers. They (the government) don’t send us anything. We get everything in the evening… we don’t know anything”.
N.V. Ramana
The CJI said that in September last year, the court had granted time to Centre to file a detailed status report, then in October again, time was sought, and today, the situation is the same.
Mehta replied: “I agree we are lacking. We had filed a report yesterday on behalf of ED.. I emphasised the need to the CBI Director to immediately place it before your lordships.”
As this, the Chief Justice said this does not work. “What else can we say to express our displeasure, we were told Centre is concerned about pending cases against MPs and MLAs,” he added.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appointed amicus curiae in the matter, submitted that it is disturbing as cases are pending for over 7 years.
The bench noted that it has taken up the matter after more than a year.
“Lot of time has passed. Special bench has to be constituted to monitor these cases. This way it does not work,” it added.
As Mehta asked for last opportunity to comply with the court’s direction, the CJI told him that: “We are giving you two weeks, this is the last opportunity.” He also sought reply in connection with the video conferencing facilities to be put in place.
The bench also ordered that no prosecution against MP/MLA is to be withdrawn without the approval from the high court concerned. This order clamps down on state’s power to withdraw cases due to political reasons.
The bench also ordered that special court judges hearing cases against accused MPs and MLAs shouldn’t be transferred until further orders. The top court posted the matter for further hearing on August 25.
Hansaria, who was assisted by advocate Sneha Kalita, said that various state governments withdrew cases against sitting and former lawmakers due to extraneous reasons.
The report cited orders issued under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Maharashtra.
The court said: “It merits mentioning that the power under Section 321, CrPC is a responsibility which is to be utilised in public interest, and cannot be used for extraneous and political considerations. This power is required to be utilised with utmost good faith to serve the larger public interest.”
In August 2020, by an order of the Karnataka government, instructions were issued to withdraw 61 criminal cases, many of which were filed against sitting legislators.
Hansaria added that the UP government has sought to withdraw 76 cases against elected representatives, including the Muzaffarnagar riot cases against Sangeet Som, Kapil Dev, Suresh Rana and Sadhvi Prachi.
He also cited a report from Maharashtra, where the government decided in December last year to withdraw political cases against activists registered prior to December 31, 2019.
Hansaria made the recommendation in a 2016 petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking direction to fast-tracking of criminal trials against sitting and former MPs/MLAs.
A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said: “It is mentioned in the report after examining relevant aspect, the FIR has been registered. Now the law has to take its course.”…reports Asian Lite News
The Supreme Court on Monday gave a free hand to the CBI to probe the alleged conspiracy to frame ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in an espionage case in 1994 as the agency, in a status report, informed the top court that it has registered an FIR against former Kerala DGP Siby Mathews and others in the matter.
A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said: “It is mentioned in the report after examining relevant aspect, the FIR has been registered. Now the law has to take its course.”
Advocate Amit Sharma, counsel for Mathews, and advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, counsel for another accused, submitted that the Justice D.K. Jain Committee report has not been shared with the accused, and argued that the CBI’s refusal to do so is causing prejudice to the accused in availing their statutory remedies. They also contended that the central probe agency is relying on the report in the FIR.
The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, noted that the CBI cannot proceed on the basis of the report of a panel headed by former top court judge Jain, formed in September 2018, to examine the matter, and the agency will have to collect material in the case independently.
“The report by itself cannot be the basis to proceed against the respondents or persons named as accused in the FIR registered by the CBI,” said the bench.
“The CBI has decided to proceed in the matter and further steps should follow as per law.”
It further added: “We make it clear that our earlier order only required that Justice D.K. Jain report shall not be made public and not the FIR.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, then informed the top court that the FIR will be uploaded during the course of the day.
The apex court said the committee’s report has been acted upon, therefore the Jain committee may cease to function.
On April 15, the top court had ordered the CBI to probe the role of Kerala Police officers in framing of Narayanan in the 1994 espionage case. Accepting the report submitted by panel headed by Justice Jain (retd), the top court said the matter is very serious and it requires CBI probe.
The bench had asked the then acting CBI Director to take charge of the case and treat the inquiry report given by Justice Jain panel as a preliminary inquiry report to conduct further investigation into the matter. The CBI was asked to file status report on its investigation in three months. The top court had ordered that panel’s report should be kept confidential in sealed cover.
Earlier, the top court had directed the Kerala government to cough up Rs 50 lakh compensation for compelling Narayanan to undergo “immense humiliation”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for his part, requested the bench to list the matter for Tuesday. However, the bench did not budge and said the court will grant interim relief now itself…reports Asian Lite News.
Authorities in Manipur on Monday released activist Erendro Leichombam on the Supreme Court’s orders, two months after he was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) for his Facebook post criticising BJP leaders for advocating cow dung and cow urine as cure for Covid-19.
Officials in Imphal said that Leichombam, 40, was released from the Central Jail on Monday afternoon as a division bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah earlier on Monday ordered his release on or before 5 p.m.
Ruling that a person cannot be kept in jail even for a day for such an act, Justice Chandrachud said: “He cannot be kept in jail even for a day. We will order his release today.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for his part, requested the bench to list the matter for Tuesday. However, the bench did not budge and said the court will grant interim relief now itself.
The bench said: “We are of the view that continued detention of the petitioner would be a violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. We accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be released forthwith subject to interim directions of this court and subject to further orders.”
The court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the order to Manipur Central Jail for release of the activist before 5 p.m. on Monday. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would press for compensation at the next hearing.
The Supreme Court order came as it heard a petition filed by Leichombam’s father, L. Raghumani Singh, stating that the detention of the activist is a reprisal for his criticism against BJP leaders.
“Erendro, a Manipuri political activist, has been preventively detained solely to punish him for his criticism of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders for advocating cow dung and cow urine as cures for Covid,” said the petition.
Leichombam and Wangkhem Wangthpi, 41, (alias Kishorchandra) were initially arrested by the police on May 13 for their Facebook post on the complaint of BJP leaders.
On May 17, the day duo were granted bail by the Imphal Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Imphal West District Magistrate Th. Kirankumar, detained them under the stringent NSA.
The plea in the Supreme Court also said that Leichombam has already spent 45 days in custody for an “innocuous piece of speech”.
A complaint was filed against Leichombam by Manipur state BJP Vice President Usham Deban and General Secretary P. Premananda Meetei, accusing him and Wangthpi of posting “offensive comments” referring to the death of state BJP President Saikhom Tikendra Singh, who succumbed to Covid-19 at a hospital in Imphal on May 13.
Leichombam and Wangthpi had been arrested twice earlier on charges of sedition and for making various posts on social media against the government.
Leichombam, educated abroad, is the founder of the People’s Resurgence and Justice Alliance, a political party whose candidate in the 2017 Manipur elections included rights activist Irom Sharmila. He had also unsuccessfully contested the Assembly polls in 2017.
Rights activists and various Manipur-based organisations and elsewhere in the country had then criticised the government for “overreacting”.
The bench emphasised that the vaccination not reaching the rural population and indicated that 75 per cent vaccination is being done in urban areas…reports Asian Lite News
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday remarked, “You must smell the coffee”, as it grilled the Centre over its vaccine policy and emphasised that the policy to fight back the deadly virus should be aligned with the ground situation in the country.
A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, “You must smell the coffee and see what is happening across the country”, and stressed that Centre’s vaccination policy should not be carved in stone, rather it should evolve based on the ground situation. The bench suggested that the Centre must know the ground situation and change its policy accordingly. “If we had to do it, we would have done it 15-20 days back. If we had to do, we would have done so 15 days ago. But we want you to smell the coffee and realise what is happening in the country and make the necessary amendments.”, said the bench.
The bench emphasised that the vaccination not reaching the rural population and indicated that 75 per cent vaccination is being done in urban areas. “With shortage there is no chance of vaccine going in rural areas,” the bench noted.
Justice Chandrachud noted that private hospitals, procuring the vaccines, are not serving the core rural areas, therefore the Centre is merely addressing urban areas. “The policy today does not include vaccination in rural areas, it is a matter of concern,” noted the bench.
Justice Chandrachud emphasised the policy cannot be ad-hoc day-to-day response, instead there should a plan based on science. “We want the policy to be amended..need enforceable policies for the country. You have to have a policy to deal with these issues. If a new issue comes up then policy has to address it”, said the bench.
Citing technical glitches on CoWIN application used for registration for vaccinations, Justice Bhat said he had received distress calls from all over the country, and added that young people, who had registered for vaccination, visit private hospitals, only to find all slots are booked.
Making it clear that its suggestion on vaccine policy should be taken in the right stride, the bench said “We are not going to run central govt and make policies for you.”
On the aspect of vaccine policy, Justice Chandrachud told Mehta that the ability to recognise that ‘I am wrong’ is not a sign of weakness, but that of strength.
He added that this is a platform for dialogue across the spectrum. “The idea is not to criticise, but to strengthen the arms of the government..The fact that MEA went abroad, had dialogue shows the seriousness of the situation”, said Justice Chandrachud.
During the top court’s suo motu hearing on Covid-19 crisis management in the country, the Centre informed the top court that it is confident of vaccinating all eligible persons over 18 years, by the year end. Mehta submitted the production from domestic vaccine producers will be enough to vaccinate all who are over 18 years of age.
Supreme Court directs Centre to consider granting permanent commission to women army officers, within a month, reports Asian Lite News
The Supreme Court on Thursday said, “the structures of our society has been created by males for males”, and “equality will be farce” if change does not occur and women get equal opportunity.
The apex court was directing the Centre to consider granting permanent commission (PC) to women army officers, within a month and allow PC within two months after following due process.
In February, in a landmark verdict last year, the top court had directed that women officers in the Army be granted permanent commission at par with their male counterparts.
Sixty women officers moved the top court stating that they were denied PC in the Army on the ground of failure to adhere to Shape- I fitness.
A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that Army’s selective ACR evaluation and late implementation of Shape 1 criterion discriminates and disproportionately affects women officers, who have sought PC.
The top court criticized the Army for indirectly discriminating against women short service commission officers by denying them PC, and cited that women officers who brought laurels for country in different fields have been ignored.
The Army said medical category has been applied by taking age-related factors into account. However, the top court observed that women officers were given symbolic equality and Shape-1 medical criteria cannot be applied to the women officers 10 years later.
“The evaluation criteria adopted by Army constitutes systemic discrimination of women… The criteria requiring them to match the lowest merit of the male officer and requirement to be in SHAPE-1 criteria disproportionately affects women,” the bench said.
“A career in the army comes with many trials. It becomes more difficult when the society puts responsibility of childcare and domestic work on women,” the bench said. It, however, added that there can be no judicial review of standards adopted by the Army.
In their petition, the women officers claimed that 615 women officers of the Short Service Commission (SSC) were eligible for PC, but only 277 made it to the final list.
The court asked the Army to consider the candidature of these women officers within a month in accordance with the directions issued by the court.
The top court earlier ordered that the permanent commission will apply to all women officers in the Indian Army in service, irrespective of their years of service. It also ordered that after the judgement of Delhi high court, Centre should grant permanent commission to women officers.
Last year, the court ordered the central government to grant permanent commission to women officers in the Army’s non-combat support units on par with their male counterparts.
