Tag: supreme court

Categories
India News Kerala Legal

SC Urges Centre to Ease Borrowing Conditions to Kerala

The court remarked to the Centre that they can be slightly liberal, give a one-time package as a special case and apply more rigid conditions in future budgets….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested the Centre to be liberal and give a one-time package as a special case to Kerala, subject to harsher conditions than other states.

A bench of justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan’s suggestions came while dealing with the matter relating to Kerala’s plea against Centre over financial matters.

The court remarked to the Centre that they can be slightly liberal, give a one-time package as a special case and apply more rigid conditions in future budgets.

The court also suggested giving the special package to Kerala by March 31 subject to harsher conditions than other States. For the existing States you will be liberal next time, the court remarked

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned Kerala’s suit the matter before the Supreme Court on Tuesday and apprised the court that Centre is not releasing any money to the tune of 19000 crore.

The court suggested the Centre and Kerala to try and work out.

The court said that it will hear the matter tomorrow.

Earlier the Supreme Court had directed the Kerala Govt to hold a meeting with Centre and state officials to resolve the financial issues arising between them.

Earlier in its affidavit, the Kerala Government said that the Central Government accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the total debt or outstanding liabilities of India.

In an affidavit, the Kerala Government said that the Centre can’t control the debt of state and the justification put forth by the Union Government to control the borrowings of the Kerala State are fallacious, exaggerated and unjustified.

Responding to the notes filed by the Attorney General, Kerala Government made submission and said, “The Central Government accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the total debt or outstanding liabilities of India. All the states put together account for the rest (approximately) 40 per cent of the total debt of the country. In fact, the Plaintiff State accounts for a miniscule 1.70-1.75 per cent of the total debt of the Centre and the States put together for the period 2019-2023.”

Kerala’s financial health and debt situation have attracted adverse observations from successive Finance Commissions (12th, 14th and 15th) as well as the CAG and it is one of the most financially unhealthy states as its fiscal edifice has been diagnosed with several cracks, Attorney General said in a note submitted before the Supreme Court.

Responding to Kerala’s government suit, the Centre in its affidavit, apprised the Supreme Court that Kerala has been one of the most financially unhealthy states, and its fiscal edifice of Kerala has been diagnosed with several cracks.

The Attorney General for India has filed a written note in the suit filed by Kerala Government where he said that debt of states affects the credit rating of the country.

The note was filed in response to the Kerala Government petition against Centre’s alleged interference in states’ finances and said that due to such interference the state is not able to fulfil the commitments in its annual budgets.

In a suit filed by Kerala government, it stated that state government deals with the executive power conferred on the Plaintiff State under Article 293 of the Constitution of India to borrow on the security or guarantee of the Consolidated Fund of the State in alignment with the fiscal autonomy of the Plaintiff State as guaranteed and enshrined in the Constitution.

Kerala Government, through its petition, said Centre through the Ministry of Finance (Public Finance-State Division), Department of Expenditure letters dated March 2023 & August 2023 and by amendments made to Section 4 of the Fiscal Responsibility and

Budget Management Act, of 2003 sought to interfere with the finances of the state by imposing a net borrowing ceiling on the State.

The Kerala government said that such interference with the finances of the state was caused by imposing a net borrowing ceiling on the plaintiff state in the manner deemed fit by the defendant union, which limits borrowings from all sources, including open market borrowings. (ANI)

ALSO READ: Khattar quits as Haryana CM

Categories
-Top News India News Politics

India’s Top Court Refuses to Legalise Same Sex Marriages

While Justices Ravindra Bhat, Narasimha, and Hima Kohli shared these positions, Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held differing views. …reports Asian Lite News

In a majority ruling, a five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench has determined that LGBTQIA+ couples do not possess an unconditional right to marriage.

The legal recognition of civil unions can only be achieved through enacted law, according to the bench, which was comprised of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.

This verdict, reserved on May 11 this year, does not, however, restrict the right of Queer individuals to enter into relationships, as stated by the apex court. The challenge to the Special Marriage Act (SMA) on the grounds of under-classification was also rejected by the court.

While Justices Ravindra Bhat, Narasimha, and Hima Kohli shared these positions, Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held differing views.

The bench clarified at the outset that there were four separate judgments in this case, one each from Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Narasimha. In his judgment, the Chief Justice issued directives that the Union and State governments must ensure there is no discrimination against the Queer community.

He emphasized the need to eliminate discrimination in access to goods and services for the queer community and called for public awareness about queer rights. The Union and State governments were also urged to create a hotline for the queer community to prevent harassment and establish safe houses for queer couples.

Additionally, the government was tasked with ensuring that intersex children are not compelled to undergo operations. The Chief Justice further emphasized that no person should be coerced into hormonal therapy, and harassment of the queer community through police inquiries into their sexual identity should be prohibited.

The police were directed not to force queer individuals to return to their natal families and to conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing an FIR against a queer couple regarding their relationship.

The Chief Justice asserted that the Court had the authority to hear this case and that Queer is a natural phenomenon that India has recognized for centuries, and it is neither urban nor elitist. He noted that marriage is not a fixed concept, and the Supreme Court cannot strike down the Special Marriage Act or insert words into it due to institutional constraints.

The failure of the State to acknowledge the range of rights that flow from a queer relationship constitutes discrimination. The Chief Justice contended that the right to enter into a union should not be restricted based on sexual orientation.

Transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws, including personal laws. Concerning the adoption of children by queer couples, the Chief Justice’s judgment stated that unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child. The Union Government, State Government, and Union Territories were instructed not to discriminate against the right of the queer community to enter into a union.

The Chief Justice directed the Union Government to form a committee to determine the rights and entitlements of individuals in queer unions. This committee was tasked with considering the inclusion of queer couples as a family on ration cards, enabling them to nominate joint bank accounts, and securing rights related to pension and gratuity, among other matters.

The committee’s report was to be reviewed at the Union Government level. In his concurring judgment, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul expressed that the legal recognition of same-sex unions represents a step toward marriage equality, emphasizing that marriage is not the ultimate goal.

He advocated for preserving autonomy while not infringing on the rights of others. Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Narasimha disagreed with the Chief Justice on various aspects of the judgment. Justice Bhat maintained that there is no absolute right to marriage but that the right to a relationship falls under Article 21.

This includes the right to choose a partner, engage in physical intimacy, and enjoy privacy and autonomy without societal interference. While acknowledging the right to choose a life partner, Justice Bhat asserted that the Court cannot obligate the State to recognize the spectrum of rights stemming from such a union since there is no constitutional right to marry or obtain legal recognition of unions among non-heterosexual couples.

He further noted that a gender-neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act might not always be equitable and could inadvertently expose women to vulnerability. Justice Bhat also disagreed with the Chief Justice regarding the adoption of children by queer couples.

In his conclusion, Justice Bhat stated that there is no unqualified right to marriage, and legal status for civil unions can only be granted through enacted law. However, these findings do not restrict the right of queer individuals to enter into relationships. In his order, Justice Bhat also clarified that the challenge to the Special Marriage Act on the grounds of under-classification was not justified.

Transgender individuals in same-sex relationships have the right to marry, and the State must ensure that queer individuals are not subjected to harassment. Justice Hima Kohli concurred with the views of Justice Ravindra Bhat, while Justice Narasimha also supported Justice Bhat’s perspective.

This five-judge Constitution bench addressed a series of petitions concerning marriage equality rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. The order was reserved on May 11 after arguments from all sides concluded. The Constitution bench commenced hearings on April 18, which continued for nearly ten days.

The court clarified that it would address the matter under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and would not delve into personal laws on this matter. The Centre opposed the plea, asserting that the issue should be considered by Parliament rather than the court.

The Centre labeled it an urban elite concept, but the court disagreed. During the hearing, the Centre agreed to examine certain rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals but opposed legal recognition for same-sex couples.”

ALSO READ: 2 Indian-origin Israeli security officers killed in Hamas attack

Categories
Gujarat India News

Supreme Court Rejects Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s Petitions, Imposes Fine

Supreme Court.

A Gujarat court in June 2019 sentenced former Sanjiv Bhatt to life imprisonment in another custodial death case dating back to 1990…reports Asian Lite News

Former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s three petitions related to a drug seizure case were dismissed by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The court imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh for each petition, expressing concern over the petitioner’s repeated recourse to the courts.

The court directed the petitioner to deposit the fine amount of Rs 3 lakh total with the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association.
One of the petitions by Bhatt has sought to transfer the trial of the matter to another court alleging the concerned trial court judge was dealing with the matter unfairly.

On earlier occasions too, the Supreme Court rejected the plea filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt challenging a Gujarat High Court direction setting a timeline for a drug seizure case and slapped him with a fine of Rs 10,000.

Then Bhatt challenged the Gujarat High Court order which issued a direction of completion of trial in a drug case against him within the stipulated time. A Gujarat court in June 2019 sentenced former Sanjiv Bhatt to life imprisonment in another custodial death case dating back to 1990.

Earlier, The Supreme Court on May 10 declined the plea filed by ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to adduce additional evidence in the appeal he filed in the Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in a custodial death case.

A bench of justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar dismissed the plea filed by Sanjiv Bhatt. Bhatt’s lawyer has taken the top court through the deposition of three witnesses who were doctors.
The court observed that it is required to be noted that, as such, the deposition of the said witnesses was as such considered by the trial court after all those three witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined. Now the deposition of the 3 witnesses is to be considered and re-appreciated by the High Court at the time of deciding the Appeal, it said.

“Having gone through the impugned order passed by the High Court, we see no reason to interfere with the same in the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,” the top court said.
“Any observations by this Court on the deposition of the aforesaid 3 witnesses may ultimately affect the case of either party in the Appeal, which is yet to be considered by the High Court. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed”, the order stated. (ANI)

ALSO READ-Indo-European Kashmir Forum holds event in UK on Article 370 abrogation

Categories
India News

SC seeks files on Election Commissioner’s appointment

The top court is hearing a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of the CEC and ECs…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Centre that it wants to see the files relating to the recent appointment of Arun Goel as Election Commissioner and emphasised that it wants to see by what mechanism, “he was picked up”, and “there is no danger to produce it (files)”.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a petitioner, raised the issue in connection with the appointment of Goel. He said Goel was a sitting Secretary, was given voluntary retirement on Friday, the appointment was issued on Saturday, and on Monday, he started working as EC.

Bhushan said he had filed an application in connection with the appointment and the court was hearing the matter, yet the government made the appointment. Pointing out that the Centre appointed someone in a single day, he asked what process they have followed and what are the safeguards?

A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Justice K.M. Joseph, said the court heard the matter on Thursday and Bhushan said that there is an intervention application in connection with the vacancy and the Centre appointed a person as an Election Commissioner.

Justice Joseph told Attorney General R Venkataramani: “Produce the files of appointment of this officer… you say there is no hanky-panky in this. Was he appointed on the basis of voluntary retirement… how was he appointed, what is the mechanism by which he was picked up… the matter is being heard”.



He told the AG if there is no illegality “then you shouldn’t be afraid and “if everything is going on smoothly, then show us the file”.

As the AG said “I don’t think we have to travel that far”, Justice Joseph said the court will not sit in judgment on appointment and “we want to see that file, unless you claim some privilege… we want to see how things work”.

The top court orally observed that the order of appointment was made, after it started hearing the case on Thursday and Bhushan had filed an application relating to the vacancy. The AG said he has an objection which is that this solitary instance cannot be used and the matter is regarding a larger question. To this, Justice Joseph said that “it is curiosity intertwined with our duty…”.

The bench – also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar – said the AG can bring the files with him on Thursday and if he feels he should not disclose it, then he should let the bench know.

Concluding the hearing in the matter, Justice Joseph said there is no danger in getting the files related to Goel’s appointment and told the AG that “it is not a matter to withhold the information”.

Earlier in the day, the bench queried the Centre’s counsel to show it the mechanism adopted in the appointment of the Election Commissioner, while citing the appointment of Goel.

Former bureaucrat Arun Goel assumed the office of Election Commissioner on Monday, after being appointed to the post on November 19. Since May, this year, the post of one Election Commissioner in the three-member commission was lying vacant after Sushil Chandra retired as the CEC.

The AG contended that the convention is that all senior bureaucrats and officers at the state and the Central government are taken into consideration while appointment and this is scrupulously followed. He submitted that the appointment is done on the basis of convention and there is no separate appointment procedure of a Chief Election Commissioner.

He added that he has already shown how a convention is followed, the process involved in the appointment, and appointments are made on the basis of seniority, and on the aspect of recent appointment, he added that the office was vacant since May.

The top court is hearing a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of the CEC and ECs, and it will continue to hear the matter on Thursday.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the CEC heads an institution, though with his truncated tenure, he cannot do anything substantial and added that “silences of the Constitution” is being exploited by all and expressed concern at the absence of a law governing the appointments of ECs and CEC.

Last week, the Central opposed petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and ECs.

The apex court in October 2018, referred a PIL seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and ECs to a five-judge Constitution bench.

‘Need a CEC who can even take action against PM’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that the need is for a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) who can even take action against the Prime Minister and also asked the Centre to show the mechanism adopted in the appointment of an Election Commissioner (EC) last week.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph said: “We need a CEC who can even take action against a PM.”

The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar, said suppose for example, there is some allegation against the Prime Minister and the CEC has to act, but the the latter is weak-kneed and does not act.

The bench queried the Centre’s counsel that was it not a complete breakdown of the system. The CEC is supposed to be insulated from political influence and should be independent.

It further added that these are aspects on which “you (the Centre’s counsel) must delve into, and why we require an independent larger body for selection and not just Cabinet”.

The bench orally observed that committees say dire need for changes, and politicians also shout from rooftop but nothing happens.

The Centre is represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh.

The bench also queried the Centre’s counsel to show the mechanism adopted in the appointment of the Election Commissioner.

Former Bureaucrat Arun Goel assumed the office of Election Commissioner on Monday, after being appointed to the post on November 19. Since May,this year, the post of one Election Commissioner in the three-member Commission was lying vacant after Sushil Chandra retired as the CEC.

During the hearing, the AG contended that the convention is that all senior bureaucrats and officers at the state and the central government are taken into consideration while appointment and this is scrupulously followed.

The AG further submitted that the appointment is done on the basis of convention and there is no separate appointment procedure of CEC.

He added that one is appointed as EC and then on the basis of seniority a CEC.

Justice Rastogi observed that there should be a transparent mechanism in the appointment of the EC, and the mechanism should be such that people should not question it.

He added that, “you just appointed someone as EC 2 days ago… It should be fresh in memory. Show us (the mechanism applied in the appointment)”.

At this juncture, the AG replied: “So are we saying that there is no confidence in the Council of Ministers?” to which Justice Rastogi said, “no, we are saying for our satisfaction show us the mechanism you adopted in the appointment two days ago”.

The AG replied that he has already shown how a convention is followed, the process involved in the appointment, and appointments are made on the basis of seniority, and on the aspect of recent EC appointment, he added that the office was vacant since May.

“It is not a pick and choose system at alla there is a process,” said the AG.

The bench said it understands that CEC is appointed from amongst the ECs, but then there is no basis, and why is the Centre only confined to civil servants?

The AG said that is a completely different debate, and can we bring in a national pool of candidates, that is a larger debate.

He further added that there is also an in-built guarantee in the system, whenever the President is not satisfied with the suggestion then he can take an action. The hearing in the matter will continue after lunch.

The top court is hearing a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of the CEC.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the CEC heads an institution, though with his truncated tenure, he cannot do anything substantial and added that “silences of the Constitution” is being exploited by all and expressed concern at the absence of a law governing the appointments of ECs and CEC.

Last week, the Centre opposed petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and ECs.

The apex court in October 2018, referred a PIL seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and ECs to a five-judge Constitution bench.

ALSO READ: India, Uganda review entire spectrum of bilateral ties

Categories
India News

SC orders to remove all businesses within 500 metres of Taj Mahal

The top court passed the order on an application by a group of shop owners, who have been allotted space outside the 500-metre radius…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court has directed the Agra Development Authority to remove all business activities within 500 metres from the boundary/peripheral wall of the Taj Mahal.

Senior advocate A.D.N. Rao, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, submitted before a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka that directions should be issued for barring all commercial activities near the Taj Mahal. The mausoleum is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The top court was informed that a similar order was issued in May 2000, but it is appropriate to reiterate the direction, agreed with the submissions, and directed the Agra Development Authority to immediately clear the 500-metre radius of the Taj Mahal of all commercial activities.

“We allow the prayer and thus prayer ‘A’ of IA… reads as under: direct the Agra Development Authority to remove all business activities within 500 metres from the boundary/peripheral wall of the monument Taj Mahal which shall be in tune with Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” it said in its order which was uploaded on Monday.

The top court passed the order on an application by a group of shop owners, who have been allotted space outside the 500-metre radius. Counsel, representing the shop owners, submitted that at the western gate of the monument, illegal business activities are thriving, which is a violation of the court’s order.

Simian attacks

Over a dozen reported cases of monkey attacks on unsuspecting tourists at Taj Mahal has created a scare and alarmed visitors. Though the security services have now woken up and are keeping a vigil, the sight of rampaging gangs of simians has become a major problem for the authorities in the Taj city.

The Archaeological Survey of India has put up hoardings and cut-outs to warn tourists to stay away from monkeys, as some tourists try to get friendly with the primates and pose for selfies. Officials said that they were trying to seek help from the Agra Municipal Corporation and some NGOs to round up the monkeys. But so far, no one has come forward with a solution. They say that the state Forest and Wildlife Departments are not supporting them or giving permission to catch the monkeys.

Locals have now demanded drastic action against violent and aggressive monkeys who have made life hell for people living in the old city areas.

Agra, these days, is living in the scare of bovine, canine, and simian menace. Even tourists have become victims. Two years ago, there was a hue and cry when a monkey snatched a new-born from the lap of a mother and killed the infant in Runukta village, 20 kms away.

The district authorities had then made a number of promises but nothing much happened. “The elected representatives have ignored the problem, but the condition is appalling as citizens live in constant fear of attacks from the monkey. Thousands of violent monkeys live in this area along the river Yamuna, as the faithfuls regularly feed them bananas and bread,” the local MLA, Purushottam Khandelwal, expressed his helplessness. (with inputs from Brij Khandelwal)

ALSO READ: India wins global praise at UNGA

Categories
India News

‘Migrants play very vital role in nation building’

In April this year, the apex court sought compliance reports within four weeks from the Centre and states on actions have been taken to comply with its June 2021 order to provide food and social security to migrant workers…reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it is a matter of concern that people are still dying of hunger despite the National Food Security Act (NFSA) and migrants play a very vital role in building the nation and their rights cannot be ignored at all.

A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna said in a welfare society, in our country, two persons are most important – farmers and migrant labourers, and migrants play an important role in building the nation. “They cannot be ignored at all,” it said.

The bench said that no citizen in the country should die of hunger and the Centre and states must act to provide them food, and asked the Centre to devise a mechanism so that migrants receive food grains without ration cards. It added that Centre’s welfare schemes must reach a maximum number of workers and state governments should cooperate.

In April this year, the apex court sought compliance reports within four weeks from the Centre and states on actions have been taken to comply with its June 2021 order to provide food and social security to migrant workers.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Central government, contended that approximately 27.95 crore unorganised labourers or migrant workers have been registered as on July 11 on a portal, based on states’ information. She added that an e-Shram portal has been launched to help people like migrant workers, construction workers, etc, and also there is National Career Service portal, a one-stop solution to provide a wide array of employment.

The bench said: “They may be illiterate and may not know how to avail benefits of government schemes. Concerned states will have to ensure benefits of the scheme reaches them.”

Bhati added that Centre has introduced Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-Dhan (PM-SYM), a pension scheme for unorganised workers, and Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana has been extended till September. She added additional grains can be procured by states from the Food Corporation of India.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing three activists, alleged that the Centre is asking states to buy ration at market rates and in the absence of ration cards, a majority of workers are deprived of ration. He said the census of 2011 is being used for beneficiaries under the NFSA and there has been a 15 per cent increase in the population eligible for ration cards.

The bench said using 2011 data may be an injustice to the needy, and the authority concerned must look into it. “You have to fix the criteria and introspect on this. All efforts should be made by the state governments so that migrants have ration cards,” said the bench, adding that it will pass some orders on the matter.

The top court scheduled the hearing on the matter after two weeks.

ALSO READ-‘193 migrants returned to Libya past week’

Categories
India News

Apex court to hear Agnipath pleas on Friday

Advocate M.L. Sharma’s plea said a large section of youth have started protesting against the scheme in various parts of the country….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court will hear on Friday a group of petitions, challenging the newly-launched Agnipath recruitment scheme for defence forces.

The batch of pleas will be heard by a bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna.

These include a plea by armed forces aspirants seeking an urgent hearing in the matter stating the scheme should not be made applicable to those who are already undergoing the selection process. It further contended that the matter was urgent, as the career of several aspirants was at stake, and pointed out that implementation of the scheme will cut short the tenure of the aspirants to 4 years from 20 years.


Advocate M.L. Sharma also mentioned his plea seeking direction from the top court to quash the notification by the Ministry of Defence on June 14 announcing the scheme. Sharma said the government can bring out any scheme but it is about right and wrong. He added that more than 70,000 are still awaiting appointment letters.

After hearing the arguments, the vacation bench had said: “List it before the appropriate bench after reopening.”

Sharma’s plea said a large section of youth have started protesting against the scheme in various parts of the country.

It said: “According to the impugned press note… dated June 14, 2022 after 4 years out of 100 per cent selected candidates for Permanent Commission in the Indian Army, 25 per cent will be continued in Indian Army force and the rest 75 per cent will be retired/denied jobs in the Indian army. During 4 years they will be paid salary and perks, but after 4 years denied candidates will get no pension etc.”

Another plea has been filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking a direction to set up a committee to examine the scheme and its impact on national security and the Army.

The Central government has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court regarding the petitions in connection with the ‘Agnipath’ scheme, saying that it should be heard before taking any decision.

ALSO READ: Kovind: India’s democracy deeply influenced by Buddhist ideals

Categories
-Top News Asia News Politics

Imran loses SC battle, no-trust vote on Saturday

Imran’s hybrid regime is crumbling

The court set aside all the subsequent steps taken after the rejection of the no-confidence vote and reinstated the National Assembly, reports Asian Lite News

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on Thursday that the National Assembly Deputy Speakers ruling to dismiss the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan and the subsequent dissolution of the Lower House by the President on the PMs advice were contrary to the Constitution and the law of the land, Express Tribune reported.

The court also ordered to reinstate the National Assembly and summon its session on Saturday to hold voting on a no-trust motion moved against Imran Khan.

A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, which also included Justices Munib Akhtar, Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Ijazul Ahsan and Mazhar Alam Khan, announced the verdict, which was reserved earlier in the day.

The top court also summoned the officials of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), including its secretary.

Earlier, during a hearing of the case, Bandial, after consultation with his fellow judges, observed that it was clear that the ruling of the Deputy Speaker to dismiss the no-confidence motion submitted against the Prime Minister was “wrong”.

The Chief Justice remarked that there would be no stability in the country even after the restoration of the National Assembly that had been dissolved as a result of the ruling, Express Tribune reported.

Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan argued that everyone needed to be loyal to the state. He said that he is not defending the ruling. “However, I think new elections are the only solution,” he said.

Shortly after the Pakistan Supreme Court restored the National Assembly, Imran Khan called a cabinet meeting on Friday and announced plans to address the nation today.

“I have called a cabinet mtg tomorrow as well as our parliament party mtg; & tomorrow evening I will address the nation. My message to our nation is I have always & will continue to fight for Pak till the last ball,” Imran Khan tweeted.

‘Democracy is the best revenge’

Pakistan’s Opposition leaders celebrated the decision announced by the country’s apex court to nullify the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly, a decision that is being regarded as a huge setback for Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The top court further ruled that the National Assembly session on the no-confidence motion must be held at 10:30 AM on April 9 and must not be adjourned until a vote on the motion.

“…the prime minister (Imran Khan) did not have the right to advise the president to dissolve the assembly […] all the decisions made till date have been nullified,” the top court’s ruling said.

Leader of Opposition in Pakistan’s National Assembly Shahbaz Sharif said the top court’s decision was in line with the expectations of the masses.

“The Constitution has been saved and Pakistan has been saved through this decision […] the court has upheld its independence and respect,” Sharif told media persons.

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said the court verdict is the victory of the opposition but the victory of Pakistan.

“…This is the victory of the constitution and democracy. Because of this victory, we will move towards the restoration of democracy, restoration of media freedom and empowerment of the people,” Bilawal told media person. Separately, the PPP chairman tweeted: “Democracy is the best revenge! Jiya Bhutto! Jiya Awam! Pakistan Zindabad.”

Imran ruined Pakistan: Nawaz

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Thursday hailed Pakistan Supreme Court’s decision to restore the National Assembly after it declared the government’s decision to dissolve the assembly “unconstitutional”.

Slamming Imran Khan, Sharif said the people of Pakistan are thanking God that this decision has been announced, and added that the beleaguered Prime Minister made the common people starve.

“I would like to congratulate everyone in the country. People have gotten rid of such a person who ruined the country. He made common people starve. The dollar has reached 200 today and people are frustrated with inflation in the country,” Nawaz Sharif told media in London.

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif speaking to reporters on Thursday. (Photo: ANI)

He also congratulated opposition party leaders saying that their efforts to oust Imran Khan have paid off.

In another significant development, the Election Commission of Pakistan said that it is impossible to hold a general election in three months as scheduled due to the ongoing delimitation of electoral districts, and proposed that they be held in October.

New parliamentary elections in Pakistan were scheduled to be held 90 days after the dissolution of the parliament, which took place last Sunday. (with inputs from IANS/ANI)

Categories
India News

No urgent hearing on hijab in Supreme Court

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said this has nothing to do with the exams. The Chief Justice told Kamat not to sensationalise the matter….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to give any specific date to hear a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed all petitions seeking direction for permission to wear hijab in classrooms.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat mentioned one of the cases on behalf of a petitioner, a Muslim girl student, and sought urgent listing of the matter. Kamat insisted that exams were approaching and urged the court for an urgent hearing on the matter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said this has nothing to do with the exams. The Chief Justice told Kamat not to sensationalise the matter.

Ramana
At a ceremony held today (April 24, 2021) at 1100 hrs in the Ashoka Hall, Rashtrapati

Kamat contended that the girl students were not being allowed to enter the schools, and they will lose one year. However, the bench moved on to the next item.

On March 16, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order, which held that wearing of hijab by the Muslim women does not form a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

Then, senior advocate Sanjay Hedge, representing the petitioners, mentioned the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana. Hedge said there was urgency in the matter, as several girls have to appear in exams. The bench said others have also mentioned and the court will look into the matter.

Hedge had insisted that the exams are starting and there was urgency in the matter.

The bench said it needed time and it would post the matter for hearing. After brief submissions, the bench said the court may list it after Holi vacations. “Give us time, we’ll post the matter,” said the bench.

The plea filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed and Rahamathullah Kothwal said the high court order creates an unreasonable classification between the Muslim and the non-Muslim female students, and thereby is in straight violation of the concept of secularism which forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners are Mohamed Arif Jameel and others.



The plea said: “The impugned order is also in sheer violation of the Article 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution and also violates the core principles of the International Conventions that India is a signatory to.”

It further added, “Being aggrieved by the impugned Government Order, as it is in violation of Indian constitution, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of the same.

“The Hon’ble High Court vide the impugned order had sought to curtail the fundamental right of Muslim student-women by upholding the impugned Government Order which bars Muslim women from wearing the hijab and pursue their education. It is hereby submitted that the right to wear hijab is an ‘essential religious practice’ and falls within the ambit of the right of expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a), the right to privacy and also the Freedom of Conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution. The same cannot be infringed upon without a valid ‘law’.”

Another plea, filed by two Muslim students, Manan and Niba Naaz, through advocate Anas Tanwir, said: “The petitioners most humbly submit that the High Court has erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.”

ALSO READ: Pro-Hijab graffiti surfaces in Karnataka

Categories
-Top News USA

US Senate hearing for Biden’s history making pick begins

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Pic credits Twitter

The 51-year-old Jackson, who currently sits on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, would be the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court if confirmed….reports Asian Lite News

The US Senate Judiciary Committee has started a series of hearings for the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

In his opening statements on Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin highlighted Jackson’s qualifications, as well as the historic nature of her nomination by President Joe Biden, reports Xinhua news agency.

“President Biden nominated you because he knew your qualifications are outstanding,” the Illinois Democrat said.

“Your professional record and life experience tell us what kind of lawyer, what kind of judge, and what kind of person you really are.”

The 51-year-old Jackson, who currently sits on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, would be the first African-American woman to sit on the Supreme Court if confirmed.

“In its more than 230 years, the Supreme Court has had 115 Justices,” Durbin continued. “Not a single Justice has been a Black woman. You, Judge Jackson, can be the first.”

Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in his remarks that he’ll be scrutinising Jackson’s legal philosophy.

“I’ll be looking to see whether Judge Jackson is committed to the Constitution as originally understood,” the Iowa Republican stressed.

“Some of us believe that judges are supposed to interpret the laws of what’s understood when written, not make new laws or simply fill in the vacuum.”

Biden announced in late February he would nominate Jackson to succeed liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who is about to retire this summer.

It was one of his major campaign promises to fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy with an African-American woman.

“As Judge Jackson begins her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week, I look forward to the Senate and country seeing how incredibly qualified she is for the job,” the President tweeted on Monday.

“She’s a brilliant legal mind with the utmost character and integrity. I know she’ll make an exceptional Justice.”

Committee members will begin questioning the nominee on Tuesday and the hearings will take place through Thursday.

Born in Washington D.C. but raised in Miami, Jackson received her law degree from Harvard University and graduated cum laude in 1996.

Earlier in her legal career, she worked as an assistant federal public defender in D.C. and served as vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for four years.

“I have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and I take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously,” Jackson told senators on Monday.

“I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favour, consistent with my judicial oath.”

It requires a simple majority of votes from the 100-seat Senate to confirm Jackson to be the next Supreme Court justice.

The Senate is evenly split between the two parties. Democrats can approve the nomination without Republican support, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting a tie-breaking vote.

This year, the Supreme Court will rule on cases involving a series of major issues, including abortion, affirmative action, and gun control.

Court watchers have argued Jackson is expected to vote very similarly to Breyer and her ascension won’t change the Supreme Court’s ideological balance, in which conservatives have a 6-3 majority over liberals.

The Supreme Court is the final appellate court of the US judicial system, with the power to review and overturn lower court decisions, and is also generally the final interpreter of federal law, including the country’s constitution.

The Justices have life tenure and can serve until they die, resign, retire, or are impeached and removed from office.

ALSO READ: China compares Ukraine with Indo-Pacific