by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court will likely pronounce on Thursday its verdict on the plea by Muslim litigants seeking direction that a larger Constitution bench hear the batch of petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which directed splitting into three parts the disputed site at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer reserved the verdict on the plea by the Muslim litigants seeking reconsideration of the part of 1994 top court judgement which had said that “mosque was not essential to Islam for offering namaz”.
The judgment was reserved on July 20.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in its September 30, 2010, verdict ordered that the disputed site be divided into three parts — one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara — a Hindu sect — and third to the original litigant in the case for the Muslims.
The Uttar Pradesh government, which is not a party in the title suit, had questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case for making “belated efforts” seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.
The State government had said that the Muslim parties did not question the legality of the 1994 judgement till the appeal against 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the ownership of the disputed land was taken up for hearing by the top court.
During the course of the hearing Justice Bhushan had observed that nobody was questioning that mosque is essential to Islam, but the question is whether offering namaz in mosque was essential.
The Hindu parties said that reference to 1994 judgement in the hearing of the title suit in no way impacted the 2010 High Court judgment.
The court was told that the birthplace of Lord Ram cannot be shifted to another site, while a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as that will “not affect the right to practice religion by offering ‘namaz’ in other mosques”.
To go to pilgrimage is a practice of religious faith both for the Muslims and the Hindus as well, but for the Muslims, “Mecca and Medina alone are places of particular significance” as pilgrimage centres, but for them such was not the case with Ayodhya/Babri Masjid.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Corporate, Corporate Governance, News, Politics
New Delhi : In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the legality of Aadhaar restricting it to disbursement of social benefits and junking its requirement for cell phones and bank accounts.
In a majority judgement, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra held that Aadhaar would be voluntary and not mandatory with an option to exit.
The bench also said no to creation of metadata and making it accessible to individuals and corporate entities.
In a minority judgement, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that passing the Aadhaar law as money bill was a fraud on the Constitution because it was not a money bill.
He also observed there was a risk of surveillance of people on the basis of data collected under Aadhaar scheme and that the data could be misused.
The court struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which allows private entities to demand Aadhaar to access their services.
The court also said that as of today “we do not find anything in Aadhaar Act which violates right to privacy of individual citizen”.
The judgement, read out by Justice A.K. Sikri on behalf of the bench, also struck down the provision in Aadhaar law allowing the sharing of Aadhaar data, citing grounds of national security.
The judges who gave the majority ruling were A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, Misra and Sikri who approved the passage of Aadhaar law as money bill.
“We are of the view that there are sufficient safeguard to protect data collected under Aadhaar scheme,” the judgement said.
Linking of Aadhaar to issuing mobile phone connections and opening bank accounts was unconstitutional, the court held.
The majority of the bench held that Aadhaar was valid for linking with Income Tax returns.
The verdict said that it was better to be unique than the best because being the “best makes you number one, but being unique makes you the only one.
“Uniqueness is the fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proofs. There is a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification,” it said.
The judgement said that UIDAI was established as a statutory body, providing for authentication and all residents were eligible to get Aadhaar which cannot be reassigned to anyone.
“Minimal demographic and biometric data of citizens are collected by UIDAI for Aadhaar enrolment. We are of the view that there are sufficient safeguard to protect data collected under Aadhaar scheme.”
The court said that Aadhaar was meant to give dignity to marginalised sections. However, authentication of data through Aadhaar cannot be stored for more than six months.
It said Aadhaar was meant to help benefits reach marginalised sections and it took into account the dignity of people not only from the personal but also the community point of view.
“No person will be denied benefits under social welfare scheme because of failure of authentication through Aadhaar,” the court said.
“We direct the government to ensure that illegal migrants are not issued Aadhaar to get benefits of social welfare schemes.”
The court said that institutions like the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) cannot make Aadhaar mandatory.
“Aadhaar for school education would not be necessary because it is neither welfare nor subsidy,” the court said, holding that Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan does not require Aadhaar.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 on the grounds that it invokes penal provisions against a class of people based on their religious identity.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 — commonly referred to as triple talaq ordinance — abolishes the practice of triple talaq and makes its punishable.
Founded in 1925, the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema ia a religious organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics in Kerala.
Contending that the triple talaq ordinance is violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner organisation has said that it has national ramification as it has introduced penal provision punishing a class of persons based on religious identity.
The Jamiathul Ulema has contended that the ordinance is “causative of grave public mischief, which, if unchecked, may lead to polarisation and disharmony in society”.
The petitioner organisation has taken exception to the word “unabated” in the ordinance, which says that despite the Supreme Court holding the practice of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional, it is continuing “unabated”.
Describing the use of word “unabated” as “entirely whimsical”, the petitioner organisation termed it “misleading, inept and improper”.
It said that it is doubtful that anybody, including the Central government, has any idea of all-India statics on the occurrence of triple talaq across te country prior to the Supreme Court judgment.
It has contended the fact that the matter is pending before the Rajya Sabha is “reason to await the outcome of the matter, not basis to accelerate its coming into force by an emergency ordinance”.
The petitioner organisation have contended that the real thrust of the ordinance is not abolition of triple talaq but punishment of Muslim husbands.
Section 4 of the ordinance imposes a maximum sentence of three-year imprisonment when a Muslim husband pronounces triple talaq. The offence is also cognizable and non-bailable as per Section 7.
“Creation of an offence may be the prerogative of the legislature. The government is duty-bound to act reasonably and sensibly, not merely in administrative matters but also in sovereign matters,” says the petition, contending that to its knowledge, “there is no informed assessment or study that forms basis for the Central government to have created this offence”.
“Some isolated instances of the practice that have occurred after the top court judgment does not imply that a penal provision is required to be immediately enacted to prevent the practice,” the petition has contended.
Having said this, the petitioner Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema has contended that the ordinance under challenge is “patently unconstitutional and has immediate propensity to deprive Muslim men and women of their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution”.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
Nalini Chidambaram
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday gave Enforcement Directorate (ED) and others two weeks to respond to Nalini Chidambaram’s plea against her summoning in the Saradha chit fund scam case.
Nalini Chidambaram is a senior lawyer practising in Supreme Court.
The bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ashok Bhushan gave ED two weeks after Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee sought time to respond to Nalini Chidambram’s plea against summoning.
While giving time to ED, Justice Lalit reminded ASG Banerjee that notice has already been issued in the matter.
The top court while issuing notice to ED and others on August 3, 2018, had said that the “interim order that was passed by the High Court during the pendency of the appeals shall continue.”
The court gave Nalini Chidambaram a week’s time to file a rejoinder to the reply by the ED.
Nalini Chidambaram has moved the top court challenging Madras High court order rejecting her plea against summons by the ED.
Nalini Chidambaram was allegedly paid a fee of Rs one crore by the Saradha group to appear for them before the court and the Company Law Board over a television channel purchase deal.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Amulya Ganguli,
More than the social impact of the Supreme Court’s judgment on gay rights, what will be of concern to the ruling party at the Centre is its political fallout. Hence, the eloquent silence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the subject.
For the BJP and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), any expansion of the concept of civil liberties is fraught with danger to their restrictive worldviews since a widening of human rights carries the prospect of greater individualism.
If the rights of the homosexuals to live without legal constraints are conceded, it can only encourage the people to free themselves of other restrictions as well such as on choosing live-in partners (of whatever sex) and eating, dressing and speaking as they please.
It is noteworthy that the verdict on gays has come close on the heels of the judgment which described the right to dissent as a “safety valve” which the government can only shut off at its peril lest there is an explosion.
Moreover, the court had also upheld not long ago the right to privacy which the government described as an “elitist” concept.
For the Hindu Right, as also for other religious fundamentalists, this dalliance with civil rights — the freedom to criticise the government, the exaltation of privacy and now the decriminalisation of homosexuality — entails a push towards liberalism and modernism which are anathema to any group which wants the society to be bound by shackles of orthodoxy and obscurantism.
It is ironic that although the Hindutva brotherhood speaks of decolonising the Indian mind, the two colonial laws which have long been its favourites are the section on homosexuality in the Indian Penal Code and on sedition.
Now that one of them is gone, there is little doubt that these closet followers of Britain’s 19th century politician Lord Macaulay — even as they decry the secular groups as “Macaulay’s children” — will hold on resolutely to the law on sedition as their only safeguard against the “anti-nationals” who, they believe, stalk the land.
It is also possible that the saffronites will keep a hawk’s eye on any social problems that may arise because of the assertion of gay rights. As the BJP MP Subramanian Swamy has said, with eager anticipation, if a five-judge bench can overturn an earlier judgment in favour of criminalising homosexuality, a larger bench can undo the present verdict if gay bars begin to flourish and there is a rise in the cases of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infections.
Interestingly, what these judgments underline is how the judiciary is more attuned to the changing world than the elected representatives of the hoi polloi who often argue in favour of giving greater primacy to the legislature than the judiciary since they claim to represent the people while the judges are unelected denizens of an ivory tower.
However, one possible reason why MPs and MLAs, especially of the BJP, seem to be out of sync with the present-day world is the presence in their midst of a large number of criminal elements who can hardly be regarded as the most progressive sections of society.
For instance, of the 543 elected members of the Lok Sabha, of whom 186 have a criminal record, 63 belong to the BJP, followed by eight of the Shiv Sena, four of the Trinamool Congress and three each of the Congress and the AIADMK.
What the Supreme Court judgment appears to have done is to persuade parties like the Congress, which usually hedges its bets lest it should fall on the wrong side of public opinion, to come out in the verdict’s favour, presumably because it senses that this judgment, more than any other, has become a touchstone in the matter of breaking out from the stranglehold of the past.
To distance a party from it, as the BJP is doing, will amount to virtually alienating the entire youth community. Even if a majority among them do not have homosexual instincts — according to official figures, there are 2.5 million gay people in India, but this may be an underestimate since, till now, it was unsafe for them to reveal their sexual orientation — the youths nevertheless see the ruling as an assertion of living life on one’s own terms and not be held hostage by the dictates of a society steeped in conservatism and of political parties which believe that their agenda can only advanced if the country is made forcibly to conform to khap panchayat-style social and cultural norms.
To these youths, being or not being gay is of little consequence. What matters to them is to be able to make up their own minds and not be told by elders to abide by certain rules which are regarded as outdated by the younger generation.
If parties like the BJP and “cultural” organisations like the RSS realise the value and motivation of such mindsets, they will desist from their present attempts to impose a straitjacket of their pseudo-religious identity on the nation.
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com )
—IANS
