by admin | May 25, 2021 | Interviews, News, Politics
By V.S. Chandrasekar and Brajendranath Singh,
New Delhi : The government will issue an ordinance to uphold the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if the Supreme Court does not go back on its judgment deleting the provision of immediate arrest on complaints from Dalits, says Food Minister Ram Vilas Paswan, who asserts that the Constitution too will be amended if need be.
He acknowledged that the government had a problem of perception on the Dalit issue but felt this can be set right in no time if sufficient steps were taken.
“This anti-Dalit perception of the government can be changed in mere two days. The matter will be heard on May 3 in the court. I have said that if the court’s verdict will not be in favour (of those who demand retention of the original provisions), we (government) will go for an ordinance and that too without a change of comma and full stop in the original SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,” Paswan told IANS in an interview.
Asked whether the government will seek to nullify the court verdict if it does not change its order, he said: “Yes. We will not allow the dilution of the Act at any cost. Even a comma and full-stop will be retained as in the Act. The Act will continue in its original form. We will do whatever needed to protect the rights of SCs and STs. If need be, we will go for constitutional amendment too.”
Paswan, the Dalit face of the NDA government, has been leading a campaign in pushing the government to file a review petition in the Supreme Court against the March 20 two-bench order that a government official or a civilian cannot be immediately arrested if a FIR is filed by a person belonging to SCs and STs.
The Supreme Court had said that arrest under the Act was not mandatory and recourse to coercive action would be taken only after preliminary inquiry and sanction by the competent authority. The court said the arrest should be cleared by an official of the Superintendent of Police after a complaint is filed.
The government filed a review petition earlier this month seeking an immediate stay of the judgment but the court refused to grant any relief saying the ruling had been misunderstand.
Paswan, a key member of the Group of Ministers on the issue headed by Home Minister Rajnath Singh, said the government would adopt a similar approach on reservation in promotions in government and public sector organisations.
“We are going to do the same for reservation in promotion. In this case, the Supreme Court has not said that reservation in promotion is unconstitutional but has put three conditions of backwardness, efficiency and representation.
“All the three conditions do not apply. No one can charge any SC/ST Class I officer that he is not efficient. I have asked the AG to go to court and put forward these points. Even if the court does not agree, we will not hesitate to bring an ordinance. If need be, we will bring amendments in the constitution.”
Paswan had campaigned strongly for reservations for Other Backward Classes in the late 80s as part of the V.P. Singh government. “When I speak, the message goes that I am speaking as I am a Dalit.”
He said the government had done a lot for the SC and ST communities but the perception that should have been there in public mind was not there.
“V.P. Singh was from a royal family and an upper caste leader. But after nine months as Prime Minister the perception about him changed. There were slogans in his favour like ‘Raja Nahi Fakir Hai, Desh Ki Taqdeer Hai’. He became a leader of Dalits, poor and backward classes.
“This government is working a lot but is not able to propagate its work properly among the SC/ST communities. During the Una incident in Gujarat in 2016 (in which Dalits associated with disposing of dead cattle were lynched, the state government took action. They replaced the Chief Minister. Around 36 officials were transferred but they didn’t put these things before the public properly. If Indira Gandhi would have been there, she would had spoken loudly about it. I did this and I did that for Dalits.
“Modiji belongs to the weaker section of the society. He is from Most Backward Caste (MBC). He is also from a very poor family, economically and socially. But the kind of perception should have been there for him is not there. Just because he has a tag of being from RSS and the BJP. As a result, the perception about him is not changing. All his good work gets washed away when someone says something unwanted and unwarranted.”
Paswan said it was Mayawati who as as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh issued an order in October 2007 against the misuse of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and said that police should register a case only after probing a complaint.
“It was she who weakened the Act and despite that she calls herself a Dalit leader.”
Asked why the government reacted late in filing the review petition, Paswan said: “Every department has its own style of functioning. If I get a work, I call the officials concerned and take decisions without delay… The court’s verdict came on March 20 and the review petition was filed in April due to weekend holidays and other reasons.”
He said the Law Minister should have discussed the issue in a day or two with the Attorney General. “I met the Prime Minister with other MPs over the issue. A GoM also met under Rajnath Singh where I put up my concerns.”
He said the Prime Minister told everyone clearly to file a review petition.
Paswan said the Supreme Court had “broken the teeth” of the Act. The court said the accused can get anticipatory bail before his arrest.
(V.S. Chandrasekar can be contacted at chandru.v@ians.in while Brajendranath Singh can be reached at brajendra.n@ians.in)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : Muslim representatives on Friday urged the Supreme Court to refer the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue to a larger five-judge Constitution bench as the Hindu petitioner said the issue should be heard purely as a “property dispute”.
Appearing for main petitioner Mohammad Siddiqui, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said considering the “seriousness and importance” attached to resolution of the dispute among the two largest religious communities in the country and their “feelings and sentiments” attached thereto to the case, the matter should be heard by a larger bench.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for other original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad, opposed this, saying the case should be dealt as a property dispute and the issue of political or religious sensitivities “cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench”.
Salve told a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer that political and religious sensitivities “should be left outside the Supreme Court gates”.
Salve contended that people have “moved away from 1992” (yjr December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid) and the court has to decide the case “strictly on law” as it’s a simple property dispute case.
As per the prevalent practices and traditions of the Supreme Court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the apex court, instead of a two-judge bench, Salve added.
Appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, senior advocate K. Parasaran also opposed the matter being heard by a Constitution bench.
At the outset, advocate Ramachandaran said, the apex court on various occasion has transferred the important matters to Constitution bench and this case should too be heard by larger bench as it concerns issues which have a “grave public bearing”.
“The decision of the case has a vital bearing and impact on the social fabric of the county because tow major communities are involved.”
The present batch of matters “not only require interpretation of the Indian Constitution, but also relate to a nationally/considerably important subject matter” and as such the matters be referred to a larger bench” Ramachandran said.
The arguments remained inconclusive and the court posted the matter on May 15 for further hearing.
Earlier, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Siddiqui, picked holes in the 1994 top court’s judgment which, in one of its paragraphs, said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.
He said that the question to be decided by the court is “what is the meaning of mosque to the Muslims” and “do you take it as a gospel that a mosque is not essential to Muslims and Islam”.
The court has been hearing a batch of cross petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed 2.77 acres site between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.
The top court was moved by Siddiqui represented by his legal heirs, the Nirmohi Akhara, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, All India Hindu Mahasabha’s Swami Chakrapani, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Ramjanam Bhoomi Punardhar Samiti and others.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Monday accused the BJP-led NDA government of “crushing” the Supreme Court and said that the Dalits may get killed and women may face rapes but Prime Minister Narendra Modi was only interested in himself and in becoming PM again.
Addressing a gathering here to mark the party’s “Save the Constitution” campaign, he accused Modi of destroying country’s reputation abroad and slammed his government’s record in protecting the weaker sections and minorities.
The campaign, launched against the backdrop of uproar in the country over the rape and murder of a minor girl in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kathua and incidents of rapes in other parts of the country including in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao where the accused is a BJP MLA, is also aimed at boosting Congress prospects for the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
Citing Modi’s slogan of ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’, Gandhi said it had become “Beti Bachao from BJP.”
Claiming that institutions such as the Supreme Court, high courts, Parliament, assemblies and the Election Commission, IITs, IIMs have been built on the basis of the Constitution which has been given to the country by B.R. Ambedkar and the Congress, Gandhi alleged that people with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) background were being inducted in these institutions by the Modi government.
“It has happened for the first time that four judges of the Supreme Court went to the people to seek justice. The Supreme court is being crushed, it is being suppressed. Parliament was not allowed to run and the press is also being crushed,” he said on a day when the impeachment notice given against Chief Justice of India by members of Congress and six other opposition parties was rejected by Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu.
Referring to Modi’s radio programme “Mann ki baat”, Gandhi said people will tell him their “mann ki baat” in 2019.
“Dalits may get killed, minorities face atrocities, country may burn, women may face rapes, it is nothing. Narendra Modi only wants to understand one thing that how he can become Prime Minister (again). What all has to be done to be prime minister.. only this is his interest,” he said, alleging Modi was afraid to face Parliament on issues like the PNB fraud scam, deportation of Lalit Modi and Vijay Mallaya and the Rafale fighter deal.
“If I am allowed to speak for 15 minutes on Rafale issue in Parliament before Modi, he will not be able to withstand it,” he said.
Referring to the second half of the budget session of Parliament, Gandhi said it was for the first time that the treasury benches “disrupted” the Houses, instead of the opposition.
Noting IMF chief Christine Lagarde had told Modi recently that atrocities were being committed against women in India, he said that even despite this, the Prime Minister was quiet.
He also questioned Modi for associating spirituality with cleaning of toilets, saying for him, the only spirituality was in “becoming the Prime Minister”.
Gandhi, who faced a question during his address, asked media persons if they could pose a query to Modi when he was speaking.
“That’s the difference between us and them. You attack us and we protect you. That is what we are. We defend the press. That is the difference between us and them. We will continue to do so. And will support you because we know you are brave people. And we will support your fight,” he said.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Monday asked 2008 Malegaon bomb blast accused Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit to agitate his contention against the sanction given to prosecute him under an anti-terror law before the trial court hearing the case.
In a relief to Purohit, a bench of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre said the issue can be raised before the trial court during the framing of charges in the case.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Purohit challenging the proceedings against him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in the absence of valid sanction from the competent authority.
On December 18, 2017, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea by Purohit. He then approached the apex court challenging the High Court order and the December 27, 2017 order of the Court of Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and NIA Act.
The trial court in its 2017 order, while discharging Purohit of the offences under the MCOCA and the offences punishable under certain provisions of the UAPA, had decided to proceed against him under other provisions of the stringent act.
Purohit had contended in the High Court that no appropriate authority had been appointed by the Maharashtra government, as required under UAPA section, and so there was breach of mandatory requirement of the provision.
He had argued that under the UAPA, the state law and judiciary department, the sanctioning authority, has to seek a report from an appropriate authority. In his case, the sanction was given in January 2009 but the authority was appointed only in October 2010.
On January 17, 2009, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra home department had accorded sanction to apply stringent provisions of the UAPA to the case.
The proceedings against him are in the absence of valid sanction from the competent authorities, and are thus a miscarriage of justice and bad in law, he added.
Section 45(1) and (2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 say that no court will take cognizance of any offence without the previous sanction of the Central government or any officer authorised by the Central government in its behalf.
The offences for which prior sanction is required under said provisions include being a member of unlawful association, punishment for terrorist activities and offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation or supporting it.
The case against Purohit relates to 2008 Malegaon blast where six persons were killed and 101 injured when an improvised explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off at Malegaon, a town with sizable Muslim population in north Maharashtra’s Nashik district.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Media, News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Jay Shah, son of BJP President Amit Shah, and news portal “The Wire” to settle a defamation case filed by the former against the portal for carrying a story on the exponential increase in the turnover of his company after the BJP-led government came to power at the Centre in 2014.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked the senior lawyers appearing for the news portal and Jay Shah to meet and try to resolve the issue.
“Can it be solved,” Justice Chandrachud asked senior counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan for The Wire and Neeraj Kishan Kaul for Jay Shah, with Chief Justice Misra suggesting “why not senior counsels meet and try to resolve (the issue)”.
“What kind of settlement we can have? We don’t want to have any settlement. We stand by our story. It was done in public interest,” said Ramakrishnan, with Kaul saying, “if the court says go for settlement, we are prepared for it”.
The Wire, its founding editor and journalist have moved the top court against the Gujarat High Court’s January 8 order, refusing to quash the summons issued against them by a trial court.
Journalist Rohini Singh’s article on the company of Jay Shah was carried by the news portal. The article claimed that Jay’s company’s turnover grew exponentially after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government came to power at the Centre in 2014.
The top court had asked the Gujarat trial court not to proceed with the criminal defamation complaint till April 12 filed by Jay Shah last year against the news portal and its journalists. The interim order was extended on Wednesday.
The High Court had on January 8 rejected the website’s plea for quashing the criminal defamation case filed by Jay Shah and said that based on initial impression, there was a case against the reporter and the editors.
“The article ‘The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah’ is per say defamatory and the trial court should proceed with the case,” the high court had ordered.
In October 2017, Jay Shah had filed a criminal defamation case in the trial court in Gujarat after the article appeared.
—IANS
