by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the trial in Junaid Khan lynching case as it sought response from the Central Bureau of Investigation and Haryana government on a plea seeking the transfer of investigation from the state police to the CBI.
Junaid Khan, 16, was lynched by a mob on board a Mathura-bound train in Haryana on June 22, 2017, following a row over seats which allegedly led to snowballed into religious slurs being hurled. The murder triggered nationwide outrage.
The bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar stayed the trial before the court in Haryana’s Faridabad and sought response on transfer of investigation to CBI on a plea by Junaid Khan’s father Jalaluddin.
Jalaluddin has moved the top court challenging November 27, 2017 Punjab and Haryana High Court order rejecting his plea for handing over the investigation to CBI.
Holding that there was no substance in the plea to indicate that the investigation by the state police was tainted or shoddy, the High Court had said that there appeared no deliberate attempt to derail the investigation.
It had declined to exercise its extraordinary powers, saying that the case did not have any national or international ramifications.
Junaid and his cousins Hasim Moin and Shakir Moin were on the EMU train going from Ghaziabad to Mathura after Eid shopping on June 22.
The accused, along with around a dozen others, boarded at Okhla and ordered Junaid and his brothers to give them their seats.
When they refused, the three were brutally beaten up, stabbed and dumped at Asaoti railway station in Palwal district.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The government on Friday told the Supreme Court that India is already facing a “serious problem of infiltration” because of its porous border which is the “root cause of spread of terrorism” and it would not be in national interest for the court to issue a direction to stop the Rohingya refugees’ deportation.
Filling an affidavit on pleas seeking to halt the alleged “pushback” of Rohingya refugees at the borders, the Home Ministry told the court that securing the country’s borders is essentially an “executive function” and urged the court not to direct it and the state governments to allow foreigners to enter illegally.
“Securing the border of any sovereign nation, in accordance with law, is an essentially executive function and this Court would not issue a writ directing not only the Central government but all the state governments having a common border to ensure foreigners enter the territory of India,” stated the affidavit.
The Central government also refuted allegations that the Border Security Forces (BSF) was using chili and stun grenades to push the refugees back, saying that these claims have been found to be “completely false, incorrect and far from the truth”.
“The steps being taken by any border guarding force is strictly in accordance with the law, in larger public interest and in the interest of nation… All agencies tasked with the function of guarding the borders of our nations are discharging their duties strictly in accordance with law and complying with the human rights in larger national interest,” it said.
The apex court had earlier asked the Centre to respond on the pleas filed by Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir, two of the Rohingya refugees, seeking a halt to the pushback policy of the BSF at the border and for improved living conditions in Rohingya refugee camps.
Responding to the pleas, the Central government said that India is not a signatory to the United National Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol of 1967 issued thereunder.
“The obligation of non-Refoulement is essentially covered by the provisions of the aforesaid convention to 1951 to which India is not a signatory. It is submitted that considering the very peculiar geographical situation existing namely India sharing its land border with China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar, it is not in the interest of national security for this Court to issue a direction as sought for,” it said in its affidavit.
The petitioners had earlier said that Rohingya refugees be extended the same facilities that were being made available to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who have arrived in Tamil Nadu for safe shelter.
The government, however, opposed the plea, saying that the comparison with Sri Lankan refugees was “ill-founded and misconceived”.
It also submitted that government cannot issue any identification cards to the Rohingya refugees, as India is not a signatory to the Convention.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Panaji : Even as iron ore extraction and transportation from Goa’s 88 mining leases is due to come to a temporary closure on Thursday following a Supreme Court order, the state government’s Cabinet Advisory Committee on Wednesday recommended filing of a revision petition in the apex court, seeking continuance of mining activity until the state’s mining leases are eventually auctioned.
Speaking to IANS on Wednesday, Agriculture Minister Vijai Sardesai, who is one of the three ministers forming the advisory committee, said the committee had recommended its view to Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, who is currently undergoing treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer in the United States.
“The Chief Minister will take a final decision soon,” Sardesai said.
Sardesai said the Committee had recommended that the state government should approach the Attorney General of India to file the review petition in the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
In its order last month, the apex court had ordered stopping of mining activity in the 88 mining leases from March 15 and directed the state government to issue fresh leases, after completing the necessary environment-related formalities.
An amendment to the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act in 2016 has made auctioning of natural resources mandatory.
The apex court’s decision has triggered a rift in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition in Goa, with several legislators including BJP MLA from Curchorem assembly constituency Nilesh Cabral.
They accuse both state government as well as National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government at the Centre of betraying the interests of people depending on the mining industry in Goa by not working quickly enough to prevent iron ore extraction from shutting down on March 15.
Urban Development Minister Francis D’Souza, who is also a member of the Committee, said that auctioning of the mining leases in Goa was the only option vis-a-vis issue of fresh mining leases, but added that until the auctioning process was completed, mining companies currently engaged in ore extraction should be allowed to continue.
Stopping mining, he said, would cause economic losses to the state exchequer as well as to the workforce linked to the mining industry.
D’Souza also said that MLAs from constituencies located in the mining belt would be heading soon-to-be-formed committees which would be tasked with assessing losses caused to individuals and companies linked to mining trade.
“The MLAs heading these committee will be assessing the loss, and welfare schemes started by the Goa government in 2012, when mining was first banned, will be extended to ensure that there is no panic,” D’Souza said. The schemes involved financial doles to owners of truck, which were used to ferry iron ore.
On Tuesday, three MPs from Goa, including Union Minister of State for AYUSH Shripad Naik, met BJP national president Amit Shah and Union Ministers Nitin Gadkari (Shipping) and Narendra Singh (Mines) and urged them to find a solution to the mining imbroglio, which the Goan lawmakers claim will impact the livelihood of over one lakh people.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the earmarking of an “exclusive quota” for Haj pilgrims aged 70 and above and preference being given to pilgrims in the age group of 65 to 69 years who have already applied for the pilgrimage five times or more.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A. M. Khanwilkar and Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said that people who have crossed 70 years would get the benefit of a separate exclusive quota and those between the age group of 65 to 69 who have applied five times or more would also get the benefit of preferential consideration for the pilgrimage.
The court order came in the course of the hearing of a plea by the Kerala Haj committee seeking more quota for the Haj pilgrimage as it has far more applicants and not many of them can be accommodated.
It has contended that Bihar, which gets more quota for Haj pilgrims, is not able to utilise it as there are not many applicants there.
Having directed the creation of a separate Haj quota for pilgrims who have crossed 70 years of age, the court ordered the listing of the matter for July 10 for final hearing.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday restored the controversial marriage of Hadiya, formerly a Hindu, with Shafin Jahan, setting aside a Kerala High Court order annulling their wedding.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: “Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan is at liberty to pursue her future endeavours according to law.”
But the court said the National Investigation Agency (NIA) would continue its probe into the criminal dimension of the case, if any.
“We clarify that the investigation by the NIA in respect of any matter of criminality may continue in accordance with law,” the court said.
Pronouncing a brief operative order after lunch, Chief Justice Misra said the high court should not have annulled the marriage, following a Habeas Corpus petition, by exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Misra said: “We hold that the high court should not have annulled the marriage between Shafin Jahan and Hadiya.”
The order also referred to Hadiya personally appearing before the Supreme Court on November 27 and admitting to her marriage with Shafin Jahan, who had challenged the High Court order that nullified the marriage.
Hadiya, 24, embraced Islam and married Shafin Jahan, a Muslim. Hadiya’s father alleged that she was forcibly converted by groups with links to terrorist outfits.
In the course of the arguments on Thursday, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Shafin Jahan, submitted nine propositions of law to be addressed before looking into the case on facts.
He said that the right to choose a life partner is part of right to life and the marriage can only be dissolved by any one of the two in wedlock.
Asserting that in certain cases the high court can annul a marriage, senior counsel Shyam Divan, appearing for Hadiya’s father Asokan K.M., said “Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan was to defeat the proceedings before the high court”.
He said that all this was backed by well-oiled machinery which was alluring and trafficking people to Syria.
Observing that they (the couple) can’t go without the passport and the government had powers to prevent them from leaving the country, the court asked if NIA investigation has found any offence against the couple.
The court made it clear that the NIA could continue with its investigation but without interfering in their married life.
On October 3, the Supreme Court had said it would examine whether the high court could annul the marriage following a petition by her parents.
Reacting to the Supreme Court verdict on Thursday, Hadiya’s father said he “respects the court order but will seek legal recourse on the verdict”.
“The verdict has only cleared that her marriage is in order. The court has asked for the NIA probe to continue as the larger question we raised is that Shafin Jahan is a terrorist,” he told the media at his house near Kottayam in Kerala.
“We accept the apex court’s order as the law has to be respected. A father is in pain to hear that his daughter has gone with a terrorist. We still maintain the marriage was stage-managed… We will seek legal recourse,” Asokan said.
—IANS
