by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow outsiders to offer ‘namaz’ at a mosque in the Taj Mahal premises, saying the historic monument, which is one of the seven wonders of the world, “must be protected”.
A bench headed by Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan said there was no need to perform prayers at the Taj Mahal only as it dismissed a plea filed against Agra authorities’s order debarring outsiders from offering prayers on Fridays at the mosque inside the Taj Mahal complex.
“Why should people go to the Taj Mahal for prayers, there are other mosques also where they can offer their prayers,” asked the bench after petitioner Syed Ibrahim Hussain Zaidi, president of Taj Mahal Masjid Management Committee, contended that several tourists visit the city throughout the year and the order to restrain them from offering their prayers at the complex was “illegal”.
The district administration, to ensure foolproof security to the world heritage site, on January 24, ordered that only those with valid identity cards would be allowed entry to the monument complex to offer prayers on Fridays – when the Taj Mahal remains closed for tourists.
The order, which held that entry of outsiders could adversely affect the security of the monument, came following complaints that outsiders, including Bangladeshis and non-Indians, enter the Taj Mahal complex on Fridays on the pretext of offering prayers.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Centre on a fresh plea that challenged the constitutional validity of the practice of polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ among Muslims in India.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud issued the notice to the Centre and tagged the plea with similar petitions pending before it.
The fresh plea filed by Women Resistance Committee Chairperson Nazia Ilahi Khan, a practicing advocate at the Calcutta High Court, has challenged the practice of polygamy, ‘nikah halala’, ‘nikah mutah’ (temporary marriage among Shias) and ‘nikah misyar’ (short-term marriage among Sunnis) on the grounds that these were violative of the Constitution’s Articles 14, 15 and 21.
Under ‘nikah halala’, if a Muslim woman after divorce by her husband three times on different instances, wants to go back to him, she has to marry another person and then divorce the second husband to get re-married to her first husband.
“Declare the dissolution of the Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution in so far as it fails to secure for the Indian Muslim women the protection from bigamy which has been statutorily secured for Indian women from other religions,” said her plea filed through advocate V.K. Biju.
The apex court has been hearing pleas filed by Sameena Begum, Nafisa Khan, Moullium Mohsin and BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay on the issue.
Article 14 guarantees equality before law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
Telling the court that though different religious communities are governed by different personal laws, Upadhyay had contended that “personal laws must meet the test of constitutional validity and constitutional morality in as much as they cannot be violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21”.
Pointing to the “appalling” affect of polygamy and other such practices on the Muslim women, senior counsel Mohan Parasaran had earlier told the apex court that the 2017 judgment holding instant ‘triple talaq’ as unconstitutional had left these two issues open and did not address them.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice J.S. Khehar (since retired), by a majority judgment in 2017, had said: “Keeping in view the factual aspect in the present case, as also the complicated questions that arise for consideration in this case (and, in the other connected cases), at the very outset, it was decided to limit the instant consideration to ‘talaq-e-biddat’ or triple talaq.
“Other questions raised in the connected writ petitions, such as polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ (and other allied matters), would be dealt with separately. The determination of the present controversy may, however, coincidentally render an answer even to the connected issues.”
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
New Delhi : With Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) failing to deposit Rs 1,000 crore, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the real estate firm to pay Rs 600 crore to pay back to the home buyers who have opted for a refund.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked senior advocate F.S. Nariman, appearing for JAL, to take instruction from the company on depositing Rs 600 crore, instead of RS 1,000 crore, with top court’s registry.
The bench said that after the amount is deposited by the JAL, it would ask the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) bench at Allahabad to expeditiously decide the company’s plea on revival or restructuring of Jaypee Infratech Ltd (JIL), a subsidiary of holding company Jaiprakash Associates Limited.
The bench on May 16 had asked JAL to deposit Rs 1,000 crore, in addition to Rs 750 crore already deposited, with its registry by June 15, to refund the principal amount to the hassled home buyers and that on submitting the amount, the liquidation proceedings against JIL would remain stayed.
However, failure to deposit the amount would result in the start of insolvency proceedings against JIL, the bench had said.
On Wednesday, the court was informed that Rs 1,000 could not be deposited. Rs 750 crore has already been deposited with the top court and another Rs 600 crore would be required to pay the principal amount to home buyers, the court was told.
To this, the bench asked the JAL to “establish its bonafide by paying the money”, and directed it to inform by July 13, the next date of hearing, about the company’s stand on depositing Rs 600 crore with it.
JAL had sought, in apex court, a direction for restraining the NCLT bench at Allahabad from proceeding further with the insolvency proceedings.
Earlier, the bench had sought from JAL details of its housing projects in the country and said that the home buyers should either get their houses or their money back.
The court was hearing the pleas of home buyers contending that around 32,000 people had booked flats and were paying instalments, but were not left in the lurch after the NCLT, on August 10, 2017, admitted the IDBI Bank’s plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden company for allegedly defaulting on a Rs 526-crore loan.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it was the obligation of the State that crimes involving vigilante groups are prevented, saying self-appointed vigilantes can’t be allowed to take law in their hands.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reminded the Centre and State governments of their responsibility to curb violence by vigilante groups.
The court said this while hearing of batch of petitions including one by social activist Tehseen S. Poonawalla and Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, seeking to curb violence by cow vigilante groups.
Tushar Gandhi had also filed a contempt plea on some States, accusing them of not enforcing the earlier orders of the court.
The court said that violence by any vigilante group had to be curbed after its attention was drawn to the violence in Maharashtra in which five people were killed in mob violence in the wake of social media posts on alleged child lifters.
Reserving the order, the court gave all the parties three days time to submit their written submission with suggested guidelines to deal with such violence.
Appearing for Tushar Gandhi, senior counsel Indira Jaisinh told the court that despite its order to appoint nodal officers to prevent such incidents, there was an incident of mob lynching near the national capital.
She told the court that the purpose of moving the contempt plea was not to punish someone but for the effective enforcement of its orders by the state governments.
“Unlike other crimes, this crime (by vigilante group) has a pattern and motive and the question is whether State is acting or not,” Jaising said.
Article 256 of the Constitution, which spells the obligation of States and the Union, provides that the Centre could give necessary directions to the States in a given situation.
Additional Solicitor General P.S. Narasimha said the Centre could issue advisories to the States as law and order was a State subject.
He said that the concern was of maintaining law and order and the question was implementation of Supreme Court orders by the State governments.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : As the Supreme Court resumes work on Monday after 43 days of summer recess, all eyes are on its hearing on Ayodhya title dispute, the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and power tussle between the Delhi and Central governments.
The Ayodhya issue assumes added significance as it is being perceived in the political circles as one of the electoral options of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in the run up to general elections in 2019.
Besides the judgment on Aadhaar, the top court will pronounce a verdict on the tussle between the Centre and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi over the administration of the national capital.
A Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will also hear a number of issues including a plea by Parsi sisters on whether a woman loses her religious identity after marrying a man from a different religion and whether the ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years in Kerala’s Sabarimala temple on the grounds of biological factors was discriminatory and violative of the Constitution’s Articles 14, 15 and 17.
The matters listed before the Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra, including the one on Ayodhya title case by a three-judge bench, have to be completed before October 2 — the day he retires.
The top court’s collegium, which had “in principle” decided to reiterate its recommendation for the elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K.M. Joseph to the Supreme Court, will hold meetings on the issue.
The collegium had decided to reiterate its recommendation after it was returned by the government for reconsideration.
In its meeting on May 11, the collegium decided it will resend its January 10 “unanimous” recommendation for Justice Joseph’s elevation, along with other names from Calcutta, Rajasthan, and Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts.
It was reiterated during a collegium meeting on May 16 when it decided to have further deliberation and broad-based consideration of the names of the Chief Justices as well as Judges of the high courts which are at present not represented in the Supreme Court.
The apex court will also resume hearing on a plea related to the validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and subsequent legislation protecting unauthorised construction from being sealed in Delhi. It will monitor issues relating to unauthorised constructions in Delhi.
A bench headed by Justice Madan B. Lokur which had many a times expressed disappointment on the “misuse” of huge funds, meant for the protection of the environment and the benefit of people, for other purposes like municipal works by the states will resume hearing on the issue.
The Central government will apprise the court how it intends to utilise the huge amounts to the tune of around Rs 75,000 crore lying in the form of various funds created on the apex court’s orders for protection of the environment.
—IANS
