by admin | May 25, 2021 | Investing, News, Pensions & Sipps
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday said that senior citizens should get a meaningful pension to live with dignity, and not just the equivalent of Rs 92 at current value.
The apex court said the State was “obligated to ensure” that the right to live with dignity that includes reasonable shelter, health care, clothing and meaningful pension for elderly people without any means was “not only protected but are enforced and made available to all citizens”.
Noting that in real terms the value of Rs 200 being given as pension to elderly people since 2007 today stands at about Rs 92, the bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta in their judgement said the provision for basic necessities which includes, nutrition, clothing and shelter can be made only if the elderly are provided with some pension which is meaningful and not pension which is equivalent to Rs 92 per month.
If the current value of the rupee is taken into consideration, the amount of Rs 200 in real terms actually works out to about 92 per month on the lower scale.
The court directed the Centre and states to revisit the grant of pension to the elderly so that it is more “realistic”.
It said the schemes which are “comparatively dated” should be re-looked and overhauled to bring about convergence and avoid multiplicity.
The court said this as it issued a number of directions for the enforcement of pension for the elderly, shelter, geriatric care and medical facilities and the effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Addressing the question of the limited capacity of the State in meeting the expenses of the welfare measures for the elderly people, the court said: “The consideration of ‘economic budgeting’ by the Centre and states must have been taken into account while enacting the legislation.”
Speaking for the bench, Justice Lokur said “there cannot be any excuse of lack of finances” either by the Central or state governments in “strictly implementing the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007”.
In short, the court said, if not the constitutional then at least the statutory rights of elderly persons must be recognised and implemented.
The court also directed that the Central government should obtain necessary information from all states and union territories on the number of old age homes in each district.
The Central government, the court said, would also obtain information on the medical facilities and geriatric care facilities that are available to senior citizens in each district.
Referring to the provisions of the MWP Act, the court directed the Centre to exercise its power and issue appropriate directions to the States for the effective implementation of the provisions of the MWP Act and monitor its execution.
As the court has decided to monitor the implementation of its directions, the Centre was directed to file a status report by January 31, 2019.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand on a plea challenging the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
The amendments include exemption of the mandatory social impact assessment and provisions to safeguard food security for acquiring lands for infrastructure projects.
The Bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta issued notices to the five states as social activist Medha Patkar told the court that these states have done away with the provision of the land acquisition law that mandates undertaking of social impact assessment before acquiring land for any project.
The court was told that these states have also done away with the land acquisition law that bars acquiring multi-crop irrigated land.
Appearing for Patkar, counsel Prashant Bhushan told the court that the amendment to the law by these five states was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right to life.
He said that right to live with dignity under Article 21 also includes the right not to displace people from their lands. It has to be first determined that the acquisition of land is in the overwhelming interest of the state.
Issuing notices, the bench, however, told Bhushan that the Central legislation had provisions for states to amend the law.
Bhushan said that exemption for undertaking the social impact assessment for acquiring land was being given to projects under the public private partnership.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the commencement of submission of claims and objections on inclusion of names in Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) draft from September 25.
A bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said that the claims backed by 10 identity documents allowed by the court will continue for 60 days from the said date.
“We are doing this as a matter of concession,” the court said, citing recommendation by state coordinator Prateek Hajela and the Union of India.
“The process of receipt of claims and objections will now begin on and from September 25 and will remain open, tentatively, for 60 days effective from September 25”, the court added.
“We make it clear that insofar as filing of claims and objections are concerned it will be open for the claimants to rely on any one or more of the following 10 documents,” the court said.
On left-out five identity documents, the order said “… the issue is kept open till such time that… Project Coordinator Prateek Hajela offers his views/comments with regard to the statements made in the affidavit of the Union of India dated September 17.”
The court said that it was “putting on hold” the five identity documents. These will be open for consideration at a later stage after assessment of ground realities 30 days after commencement of filing of claims, it added.
The 10 documents that can be relied on for submitting claim for inclusion in the NRC list are land documents, permanent residence certificate, life insurance policy of LIC, any licence/certificate issued by any government authority, documents showing service/employment under government/PSU, bank/post office account, birth certificate issued by competent authority, educational certificate issued by board/university and record/processes of judicial or revenue court.
The five identity documents excluded for now are ration card, extract of NRC of 1951; extract/certified copy of electoral rolls up to midnight of March 24, 1971; refugee registration certificate issued up to March 24, 1971; and ration cards issued by competent authority with official seal and signature up to March 24, 1971 (midnight).
The court said that Hajela would offer his views on the “permissibility of introduction of any one or more of the (five identity) documents, at this stage of the updation process, in the light of the changed stand of the Union of India.”
The 10 identity documents are out of the 15 suggested by the state coordinator that around 40 lakh people can produce to stake claim for inclusion in the register.
As Attorney General K.K. Veugopal questioned exclusion of the five documents, Justice Nariman said: “We find these five documents can be manufactured and the “possibility of the misuse of documents is enormous.”
The Attorney General said that the “legacy and the family tree can also be bought.”
The court said: “We have not shut the door. At this stage we are going to receive the documents and review the situation after 30 days. After that, we can re-open for review the question and give them another 30 days.”
Those who have one of the 10 permitted documents can file claims and others can wait, the court said as the Attorney General said that the certified copy of the electoral rolls is a statutory document and can’t be fudged.
The Attorney General sought to know the court’s rationale of not sharing Hajela’s report submitted to the court earlier on recommendations for permitting second chance to leftout persons based on 15 identity documents.
“There is some material in the report which is not in public interest. Their disclosure will impede further course of action. We have to protect the officer (Hajela),” said Justice Gogoi.
As Venugopal said that the report was safe if given to the government, Justice Gogoi said: “Is there any doubt about the safety of the document? If not more, it is as safe.”
It said that the Attorney General’s request for a report copy wil be considered on October 23, adding that “we are of the view that having regard to the sensitive nature of some of the information contained therein which may affect the entire exercise undertaken and also the exercise that may be required to be undertaken by the Court the said report/reports should remain in the custody of the Court for the present.”
Asking Hajela to give his views on the issues flagged by the Centre and others, the court directed him not to share any information pertaining to the ongoing NRC updation with any executive, legislative or judicial authority of the state without court permission.
The matter will be heard next on October 23.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
New Delhi : In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday decriminalised homosexuality between consenting adults by declaring Section 377, the penal provision which criminalised gay sex, as “manifestly arbitrary”.
In separate but unanimous verdicts, a five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as unconstitutional.
The bench said it is no longer an offence for LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, intersex and queer/questioning) community to engage in consensual sex between two adults in private.
Reading out the judgment, Chief Justice Misra said attitudes and mentality have to change to accept others’ identity and accept what they are, and not what they should be.
“It is the constitutional and not social morality which will prevail,” said the court.
The verdict sparked celebrations in the LGBTIQ community across India even as the judgment was being read out. Many of the community members who had assembled outside the apex court jumped in joy and distributed sweets.
Chief Justice Misra said consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children, cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice.
Section 377 will not apply to consensual same-sex acts between homosexuals, heterosexuals, lesbians, the court said, clarifying that sexual act without consent and bestiality will continue to be an offence under section 377.
“An individual has full liberty over his or her body and his or her sexual orientation is a matter of one’s choice,” said the Chief Justice.
“Time to bid adieu to prejudicial perceptions deeply ingrained in social mindset. Time to empower LGBTIQ community against discrimination. They should be allowed to make their choices,” he added.
In a concurring judgement, Justice Nariman said homosexuality is “not a mental disorder or disease”.
He said the LGBTIQ community has an equal right to live with dignity and are entitled to equal protection of law. He directed the Centre to give wide publicity to this judgment to remove the stigma attached to homosexuality.
Justice Chandrachud said to deny the LGBTIQ community their right to sexual orientation is a denial of their citizenship and a violation of their privacy.
“They cannot be pushed into obscurity by an oppressive colonial legislation… Sexual minorities in India have lived in fear, hiding as second class citizens,” said Justice Chandrachud, adding “the state has no business to intrude on such matters”.
Justice Indu Malhotra said that history owes an apology to the LGBTIQ community for all that they have suffered on account of the ignorance of the majority about homosexuality.
“LGBTIQ people have a right to live unshackled from the shadow,” she said.
The Supreme Court verdict, which overruled its own earlier judgment, assumes significance as in the earlier round of litigation in 2013, the top court had reversed a Delhi High Court ruling decriminalising homosexuality.
The Delhi High Court bench, headed by then Chief Justice A.P. Shah, had in July 2009 legalised homosexual acts between consenting adults by overturning the 149-year-old law — finding it unconstitutional and a hurdle in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
In December 2013, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya in the Suresh Kumar Koushal and another vs Naz Foundation and others case, had set aside the high court’s judgment and said that it was for the legislature to look into desirability of deleting section 377 of IPC.
The matter was subsequently resurrected in July 2016, when a fresh petition was filed by members of the LGBTIQ community — dancer N.S. Johar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hotelier Aman Nath and business executive Ayesha Kapur — which was then marked to the Constitution Bench by a Division Bench.
The reference was made on the basis of submission that it was the first time that individuals directly affected by the provision were approaching the court.
Among the petitioners are a batch of current and former students of Indian Institutes of Technology. Claiming to represent more than 350 LGBTIQ alumni, students, staff and faculty from the IITs, the petitioners said that the existence of Section 377 had caused them “mental trauma and illnesses, such as clinical depression and anxiety and relegated some of them to second-class citizenship”.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court will hear on September 4 a plea by a group of serving Army officers against the dilution of AFSPA that gives immunity to military personnel from prosecution for their actions in disturbed and insurgency-hit areas.
A bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit will hear the matter. The bench is already hearing a plea by kin of victims of alleged fake shootouts or extra-judicial executions in Manipur by state police and the armed forces.
A bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta listed the matter for hearing by the two-judge bench on September 4.
The petition is essentially rooted in the top court’s order on alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur.
The petitioners have sought specific guidelines to protect military personnel from criminal proceedings for bona-fide actions done in the discharge of official duties in areas infested with insurgents and witnessing proxy wars against India.
The petitioners range from Section Commanders to Commanding Officers who lead section, platoon, company, battalion made of 10 to 1,000 men each.
They have contended that the protection provided by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) does not confer any special right on a soldier for himself, but facilitates his functioning and operations in extraordinary circumstances of proxy war, insurgency, armed hostility, ambushes, and covert and overt operations.
Drawing a distinction between routine policing and military operations in disturbed areas, they contended that absolute protection for bona-fide actions of soldiers in extraordinary situations is imperative to enable them to carry out their duties effectively and efficiently.
This protection from criminal prosecution for bona-fide actions of a soldier in the course of military operations in disturbed areas, the petition says, is sine qua non for the protection of the country’s sovereignty and integrity.
The officers have sought a court direction that “protection of persons acting in good faith under the AFSPA is sacrosanct with the sovereignty and integrity of the nation” and that “no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central government….”
They further averred that it was the Army alone which is familiar with the dynamics of these operations, and was capable of probing allegations of criminality, misuse, abuse, or of excessive use of power by men in uniform.
“Civil police or even the Central Bureau of Investigation can’t even be expected to be in the know of complete picture,” they claimed.
The petition by Colonel Amit Kumar and others is rooted in the persecution and prosecution of military personnel for carrying out their bona-fide duties in disturbed areas of the northeast, particularly in Manipur and trouble-torn Jammu and Kashmir, and directing registration of cases.
The military personnel, the petitioner officers contended, were being targeted without making any distinction or determination whether their actions were in good faith and without any criminal intent.
—IANS
