NEW YORK (TIP): IOCUSA leaders met with Shri. K. Raju, who is the National Coordinator of the Indian National Congress for SC/ST/OBC and Minority Affairs and exchanged views on how to improve the messaging to the Diaspora while increasing the reach of the organization. Mr. Raju, formerly an IAS officer, resigned from service in 2013 to join the Congress party. Prior to his resignation from service, he served as Additional Secretary, Govt of India at the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by Smt. Sonia Gandhi.
IOCUSA team headed by President Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian and Vice-Chair George Abraham briefed him on the activities of the IOCUSA and assured him of our support and commitment as the Congress party is at the forefront of fighting for the cause of the common man. The meeting also assessed the deteriorating situation in India as regards democracy and religious freedom. Mr. Raju applauded the grand reception organized for Rahul Gandhi and said, “Rahul Gandhi spoke to the Diaspora from the depths of his heart.” He also urged the Diaspora to make use of the technologies available to counter the false messaging and propaganda emanating from the BJP circles.
Mr. Phuman Singh, Chairman, Punjab Chapter, Rajeswar Reddy Gangasani, President, Telangana Chapter, Sharath Chandra and Baldev Randhawa also participated in the discussions.
Tag: SC
-
IOCUSA leaders interact with Shri. K. Raju, National coordinator- SC, ST, OBC and minority Department of AICC
-
SC orders SpiceJet to pay Rs 578 crore to Kalanidhi Maran, Kal Airways
In a jolt to low-cost airlines SpiceJet, the Supreme Court on Friday, July 7, refused to extend the time for making payment to media baron Kalanidhi Maran and his Kal Airways in pursuance of an arbitral award of Rs 578 crore related to a share-transfer dispute, saying these are “luxury” litigations.
While refusing to extend the time, the Delhi High Court had on June 1 directed SpiceJet to deposit “forthwith” Rs 75 crore that has to be paid to Maran and his Kal Airways towards interest on the arbitral award.
Prior to this, the top court had ordered that the bank guarantee of Rs 270 crore furnished by SpiceJet to Maran and his firm must be encashed immediately if the airlines failed to pay Rs 75 crore towards interest on the arbitral award by May 13.
A Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha on Friday did not accept the vehement submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for SpiceJet, and refused to extend the time, saying the entire award has now become executable. -
SC defers scientific survey of ‘Shivling’ at Gyanvapi till next hearing
New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Friday, May 19, deferred a scientific survey, including carbon dating, to determine the age of a Shivling, claimed to have been found at Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque, saying the implications of the Allahabad high court order for it merit closer scrutiny.
The high court on May 12 had ordered determination of the age of the structure, claimed to be a Shivling, using modern technology. However, the mosque’s authorities have said the structure is part of a fountain in the wazukhana, where ablutions are performed before namaaz.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and the Hindu petitioners on the plea of the Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee against the high court order for the “scientific survey”, including carbon dating, of the structure.
“Since the implications of the impugned order merit closer scrutiny, the implementation of the directions concerned in the order shall stand deferred till the next date,” the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and K V Vishwanathan said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, expressed concerns regarding damage to the structure during the process and said the government will examine in consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India if there is an alternative method to ascertain the age of the Shivling found at Gyanvapi.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee, told the bench that the survey work will commence on May 22.
The Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government both agreed to the plea for adjourning the proposed scientific survey of the structure for the time being.
The high court had set aside an October 14 order of the Varanasi district court that rejected a plea for scientific investigation, including carbon dating, of the structure found in May last year during a court-mandated survey of the Gyanvapi mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
Following the high court order, a local court at Varanasi on May 16 agreed to hear a plea for a survey by the ASI of the entire Gyanvapi mosque premises.
Prior to this, the high court, on May 12, had directed the Varanasi district judge to proceed, in accordance with the law, on the application by Hindu worshippers for conducting a scientific probe of the structure found last year.
The high court order had said no harm should be done to the structure, which the Hindu petitioners claim is a Shivling. However, the mosque’s authorities said it is part of a fountain in the wazukhana.
It had passed the order on a revision petition filed by Laxmi Devi and three others challenging the Varanasi court order. The high court had obtained a report from various institutions, including the IITs in Kanpur and Roorkee, and the Birbal Sahni Institute in Lucknow, before ordering for determination of the age of the structure.
The report said direct dating of the structure is not possible and the age can be ascertained with proxy dating of materials, which can “correlate with the establishment of the ‘lingam’ if there is any”. Source: PTI -
Misuse of probe agencies
Opposition parties’ plea in SC raises significant issues
A plea by 14 Opposition parties alleging arbitrary arrests and misuse of Central probe agencies against political opponents has been listed for hearing by the Supreme Court on April 5. In asking for framing of pre-arrest and post-arrest bail guidelines, the petition claims that there is a clear pattern of investigative agencies being used to target political rivals and dissenting citizens. It is alleged that cases are registered in quick succession to ensure that the accused stays in custody for a prolonged period. Instances have also been cited of slowing down of probe proceedings or a clean chit being given to politicians who have crossed over to the ruling party at the Centre.
The plea contends that 95 per cent of the cases filed by probe agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate in the recent past were against leaders of Opposition parties. This cannot be a coincidence. It amplifies the allegation that the fight against corruption is increasingly being used as an instrument of vendetta politics. The BJP’s counter of zero tolerance for graft is well taken, but the party does not emerge as too different from those it had lambasted when it was in the Opposition for eroding the autonomy of investigative agencies.
The rare convergence of non-BJP parties has some similarity to their coming together in 2019 to demand the random verification of at least 50 per cent electronic voting machines (EVMs) using the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) in every Assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency. The Supreme Court had then directed the Election Commission to raise the VVPAT-EVM verification from one EVM to five in each Assembly segment. With several states going to the polls later this year, followed by the 2024 General Election, the outcome of the current case can have a bearing on the Opposition’s fortunes.
(Tribune, India)
-
UAPA: SC restores ‘guilty by association’ doctrine
New Delhi (TIP) – The Supreme Court on Friday, March 24, restored the doctrine of “guilt by association” in criminal jurisprudence in India, as it overruled a bunch of its 2011 judgments and declared that mere membership of a banned organisation will be a crime under country’s anti-terror law — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. A three-judge bench headed by justice MR Shah affirmed the constitutional validity and the rationale of Section 10(a)(i), which makes continued membership of a banned organisation a crime punishable with a jail term up to two years. “It is observed that the object and purpose of the enactment of UAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. To punish such a person who is continued as a member of such unlawful association which is declared unlawful due to unlawful activities can be said to be in furtherance of providing for effective prevention of the unlawful activities,” said the bench, which also included justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol.
It held that the three judgments of 2011 were “not a good law” in ruling that mere membership of a banned organisation would not incriminate people unless they resort to violence; incite people to violence or do any other overt act to disturb public tranquility.
Noting that the two-judge benches of the Supreme Court erred in reading down the UAPA provision in individual criminal cases on bail when there was neither any challenge to the law, nor an opportunity for the Union government to present its version before the verdict.
“It is true that it is ultimately for the court to interpret the law and/or particular statute. However, the question is not the power of the courts. The question is whether it be done without hearing the Union of India? When any provision of Parliamentary legislation is read down in the absence of Union of India it is likely to cause enormous harm to the interest of the State,” the court noted in its 144-page judgment.
In 2011, three separate judgments by the top court relating to cases involving charges under UAPA and the now-repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), declared that mere membership of a banned organisation would not ascribe criminal liability on the accused unless there is material to show specific intent to further the illegal aims of the organisation or some overt unlawful acts. In doing so, the apex court heavily relied on US Supreme Court judgments which outrightly dismissed the doctrine of “guilt by association” and cited the right to free speech.
The Union government sought a review of the 2011 judgments, complaining that not only it was imperative for the two-judge benches to seek the Centre’s views at the time of hearing these cases but that reading down of the TADA and the UAPA provision impacted the prosecution of cases for unlawful association with banned outfits. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre.
Allowing the Centre’s plea on Friday, the three-judge bench disapproved of the previous views stating that before following American decisions, Indian courts are required to consider the difference in the nature of the laws applicable in the respective countries.
Even otherwise in absence of any challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, the top court said, there was no question of reading down of the said provision by the court in 2011, particularly in the wake of the legislative history and objective of UAPA.
The aim and object of enactment of UAPA is also to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities, said the court, pointing out that a particular association is declared unlawful only after the central government is satisfied that such association is indulging in unlawful activity and the same is against the sovereignty and integrity of India. Source: HT -
SC delivers split verdict on hijab ban, says there’s divergence of opinion
New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 13, delivered a split verdict on the hijab ban in Karnataka’s educational institutions, with one judge holding permitting a community to wear its religious symbols would be an “antithesis to secularism” and the other insisting that wearing the Muslim headscarf should be simply a “matter of choice”.
While Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals challenging the March 15 judgment of the Karnataka High Court that had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. With the apex court delivering a split verdict, the high court’s judgment still holds the field. However, the split verdict held off a permanent resolution of the vexed row over hijab as both judges suggested placing the matter before a larger Bench for adjudication. Writing a separate 73-page judgment, Justice Dhulia said, “By asking the girls to take off their hijab before they enter the school gates is first an invasion of their privacy, then it is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education.”
Justice Gupta, who was heading the Bench and wrote a contrary verdict running into 133-pages, answered the 11 questions framed by him for consideration in the matter and said the constitutional goal of fraternity will be defeated if the students were permitted to carry their apparent religious symbols with them to the classroom. While pronouncing the judgment on a batch of 26 petitions, Justice Gupta said at the outset, “In view of the divergent views expressed by the Bench, the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench.”
In his verdict, Justice Gupta said the arguments advanced by the counsel for some of the appellants that this matter involved a substantial question of law and should be referred to a five-judge Bench was “not tenable”. Both the judges referred to the state government’s February 5, 2022, order which banned wearing clothes that disturbed equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges.
Justice Gupta noted the government order “promotes an equal environment”. “Accordingly, I do not find that the government order impinges on the constitutional promise of fraternity and dignity. Instead, it promotes an equal environment where such fraternal values can be imbibed and nurtured without any hindrance of any kind,” he said. On the other hand, Justice Dhulia set aside the high court verdict and also quashed the government order. “Under our constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression,” he said.
Justice Dhulia further said the “unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child”. He said in his opinion, courts were not the forums to solve “theological questions”. He said the courts, however, must interfere when the boundaries set by the Constitution were broken or where unjustified restrictions were imposed.
Justice Gupta noted that some of the appellants had also made a comparison with the rights of the followers of the Sikh faith by arguing that since ‘kirpan’ was allowed in terms of Explanation I to Article 25, therefore, the students who wanted to wear hijab should be equally protected. “The essential religious practices of the followers of Sikh faith cannot be made basis of wearing of hijab/headscarf by the believers of Islamic faith,” Justice Gupta said. “As discussed above, secularism is applicable to all citizen,” he said. Source: PTI
-
SC to hear Sena plea seeking suspension of rebel leaders on July 11
New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Friday declined a plea by the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction for an urgent hearing to restrain rebel party leader Eknath Shinde from functioning as the Maharashtra chief minister. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned Thackeray loyalist Sunil Prabhu’s application before a vacation bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala. He pointed out that there would be a lot of confusion regarding the issuance of a whip since both sides may claim to be Shiv Sena and issue their own to the respective factions. “There is no merger. The moment he [Shinde] was sworn in, he violated the Tenth Schedule [anti-defection law]. So, he is not the party. It is ex facie not a dance of democracy,” said Sibal. The bench responded saying it is conscious of what has been happening while the issue is pending before the court. “We are not shutting our eyes. Whatever is happening is happening. We will take it up on July 11. Let it also come with the other matter.” When Sibal asked whose whip will count, the court said the procedure of the state legislature shall have to be looked into, and listed Prabhu’s plea for hearing on July 11.
On July 11, the court is scheduled to hear three petitions related to the political turmoil in Maharashtra. The Shinde camp filed the first two petitions seeking to restrain the deputy speaker from disqualifying the 16 of the Sena’s dissidents until his own motion of removal was decided. On June 26, the court issued an interim order virtually restraining the deputy speaker from conducting disqualification proceedings till July 12.
Prabhu filed the third petition challenging the governor’s direction to Thackeray to prove his majority on June 30. Following a protracted hearing on Wednesday, the court declined to stay the governor’s order, even as it issued notices on Prabhu’s petition. Minutes after the court order, Thackeray resigned as the chief minister. Within 24 hours, Shinde succeeded him. Prabhu, in his latest plea, has sought suspension of the 16 lawmakers, including Shinde, from the assembly until their disqualification proceedings are decided. He has also sought an order restraining them from entering the assembly.
Source: HT
-
GST Council’s proposals not binding on Centre, States: SC
New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 19, in a judgment championing the importance of “cooperative federalism” for the well-being of democracy, held that Union and State legislatures have “equal, simultaneous and unique powers” to make laws on Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on them. The apex court’s decision came while confirming a Gujarat High Court ruling that the Centre cannot levy Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight from Indian importers.
“The recommendations of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and the states. They are recommendatory in nature… The recommendations only have a persuasive value. To regard them as binding would disrupt fiscal federalism when both the Union and the states are conferred equal power to legislate on GST,” a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held.
The court emphasised that Article 246A (which gives the States power to make laws with respect to GST) of the Constitution treat the Union and the States as “equal units”. “It confers a simultaneous power (on Union and States) for enacting laws on GST… Article 279A, in constituting the GST Council, envisions that neither the Centre nor the states are actually dependent on the other,” Justice Chandrachud interpreted.
He said the Centre and the States were “autonomous, independent and even competing units” while making GST laws. “Cooperative federalism is treated like a marble cake federalism due to the integrated approach of the federal units,” he compared. The judgment said that though the Centre may have a larger share of power in certain instances to prevent chaos and provide security, the States still wielded power. “India is a multi-party system. It is possible that the party in power in the Centre may or may not be in power in other States… Even if the States have been given lesser power [in certain situations], they can still resist the mandates of the Union by using different forms of political contestations permitted by the Constitution… It is not imperative that one of the federal units [Centre or the States] must always possess a higher share of power over the other units,” the court stated.
Source: The Hindu
-
Will take serious view of demolitions even after orders, SC tells NDMC: Status quo extended in Jahangirpuri
NEW DELHI (TIP): The Supreme Court on Thursday, April 21, said it would take a serious view of North Delhi Municipal Corporation’s act of continued demolition in Jahangirpuri despite the apex court’s stay yesterday, April 20, and ordered a status quo until further direction on demolitions in the strife-torn area. The case will come up after two weeks, says a TNS report.
Is it an instrument of state policy to engage in fake encounters and now bulldozers…They never did anything like this in 1984 and 2002, then why now? — Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate. A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai issued notice to the Centre and other parties on a petition by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, which said properties of Muslims accused in the Hanuman Jayanti riots were razed in yesterday’s drive.
“Status quo to be maintained… will take a serious view of the demolition, which was carried out despite SC’s orders and even after NDMC Mayor was informed. We will take that up later,” the SC said.
Representing the petitioners, senior advocate Dushyant Dave said the matter was not limited to Jahangirpuri and “affected the social fabric of the country”. “If we allow this, there will be no rule of law or democracy left… How can a BJP leader write a letter (to NDMC Mayor) that you demolish and NDMC demolishes? There is a provision for appeals too. There are 731 unauthorized colonies in Delhi with 50 lakh people. If you want to act against unauthorized constructions, go to Sainik Farms, Golf Links, where I stay, where every second home is an encroachment. You don’t want to touch them, but you target poor people,” Dave said, arguing that the issue raised larger questions of constitutional and national importance.
As the Bench asked “what was national importance in this matter as it only pertained to an area”, Dave maintained the trend was visible wherever riots had occurred. He said what happened in Jahangirpuri was a matter of judicial inquiry, “but what you do is arrest people of only one community and start bulldozing”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explained that the drive in Jahangirpuri began in January. “The allegation that only one community is being targeted is incorrect,” he said.
-
SC reserves verdict on Vijay Mallya sentencing
New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya in a contempt case. Mallya, an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his now defunct Kingfisher Airlines, has been in the UK since March 2016. He is on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard in April 2017. He was held guilty of contempt of court in 2017 and the matter has been getting deferred as the top court wanted to hear him on the punishment to be awarded to him.
-
SC: Even legislature can’t curtail power of contempt
New Delhi (TIP): Observing that its power of contempt can’t be taken away even by a law enacted by the legislature, the Supreme Court on Sept 29, held the chairperson of an NGO guilty of contempt of court for not depositing a fine of Rs 25 lakh imposed on him for “browbeating” the court.
“The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment,” a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said, holding Suraz India Trust chairman Rajiv Daiya guilty of contempt of court. Article 129 of the Constitution declares: “The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” Article 215 makes a similar declaration with regard to high courts’ power of contempt.
“We have little doubt that what the contemnor has been endeavouring is to have his way or, alternatively, I will throw mud at all and sundry, whether it be the court, its administrative staff or the state government so that people, apprehensive of this mud thrown, may back off. We refuse to back off and are clear in our view that we must take it to its logical conclusion,” the top court said.
Holding that Daiya was clearly guilty of contempt of court, the Bench said, “His actions to scandalise the court cannot be countenanced. He continues with his contumacious behaviour. The apologies submitted by him are only endeavours to get out of the consequences again followed by another set of allegations, thus, a charade.”
Maintaining that it was not mandated to give Daiya a hearing on the issue of sentence, the top court said it would still give him one more chance on the question of final sentence and posted the matter for hearing on October 7.
Daiya had sought recall of the top court’s 2017 verdict imposing a fine of Rs 25 lakh for filing 64 PILs and “repeatedly misusing” its jurisdiction and wasting judicial time. He had said he didn’t have the resources to shell out such a huge amount and that he would approach the President with a mercy plea.