by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to give wide publicity on radio, television and other media platforms to its direction that lynching and mob violence of any kind will invite serious consequence under the law.
The top court by its July 17 judgment had directed the Central and the state governments to “broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms including the official websites of the Home Department and Police of the states that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the law.”
The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed the Centre and the state governments to carry out its July 17 direction as Attorney General K.K. Venugopal informed the court that a Group of Ministers (GoM) is considering the nature of legislation to be brought to deal with the crime of lynching by the vigilante groups.
The top court by its July 17 judgment had recommended to Parliament to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same as a special law would instil a sense of fear for law among the people involved in vigilantism and lynching.
Directing all the state governments and Union Territories to comply with its July 17 direction that provides for preventive, remedial and punitive steps to deal with the lynching crime, the court said that the home secretaries of the states and the UTs that would fail to file report on the compliance of its direction would be directed to appear before the court in person.
The court order came as senior counsel Indira Jaising told the court that only nine States and two Union territories have filed the compliance report.
Besides this, the court sought report from Rajasthan on the steps taken backed with documents against the police officials for delay in taking Rakbar Khan, a victim of lynching to hospital resulting in his death.
Rakbar Khan, 28, was beaten to death by suspected cow vigilantes in Lalwandi village of Ramgarh district in Rajasthan on July 24.
Rajasthan on Thursday informed the court that SHO of the police station concerned has been suspended. The court was also informed that three constables of the police station have been transferred to police lines.
—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 on Wednesday chose 10 identity proof documents from a list of 15 to be accepted as a valid claim of people left out of the final draft of Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) and sought the views of the Centre and other stakeholders on the issue.
The bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman picked up the 10 documents suggested by the Assam State co-ordinator of NRC Prateek Hajela for dealing with the claims of about 40 lakh people, left out of the NRC, for their inclusion in the list.
Justice Nariman said that the 10 chosen documents will be authentic and other five can be created.
The bench refused to give Attorney General K. K. Venugopal a copy of the report submitted by the Hajela to the Court in a sealed cover.
As the Attorney General repeatedly urged the Court to give the government a copy of the report carrying 15 suggested documents, Justice Gogoi said: “The Attorney General has sought the report of the State co-ordinator of NRC… At this stage we are of the view that what we have indicated in our order is sufficient.”
“The government may be interested. We want to balance the interest of all the stakeholders,” the Court told Venugopal as he insisted that “government is extremely interested” in knowing the report.
The Court told the Attorney General that they are extracting 15 suggested documents and also the 10 documents they have chosen are in their order and the government can have those from it.
Seeking the response of the Centre and other stakeholders on the suggested 10 documents that can be relied upon to back the claims for inclusion in citizens register, the Court fixed September 19 for the next hearing.
The court extended the date of the commencement of filing of claims and objections.
As per the schedule, the filing of claims and objections was to commence on August 30 but same was extended on August 28 to a “later date from the proposed one, namely 30th August, 2018”.
Besides the Centre, the Court has also sought the response of other stakeholders including Assam Public Works, Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, National Democratic Front of Bodoland (Progressive), Indigenious Tribal Peoples Federation, All Assam Bhojpuri Parishad, Joint Action Committee for Bangali Refugees, All Assam Minorities Students’ Union (AAMSU) and Jamait Ulama-i-Hind.
In its August 16 order, the court had asked the eight stakeholders to submit their views on the standard operating procedures prepared by the Centre setting out modalities for the claims and objections to the final draft of the NRC.
Hajela’s report was in pursuance to the August 28 order of the court asking him to apprise it of the ramification of the Centre’s position that the people left out of the final draft of the NRC be given another chance to establish their claim for inclusion in the list.
The move by the Centre also included changing the legacy and tinkering with the family tree.
The Court had asked Hajela to submit a “comprehensive report indicating the feasibility including the time taken and the advantages/disadvantages that may accrue if the aforesaid modification/change of legacy is permitted”.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday quashed an FIR lodged in Hyderabad against Malayalam actress Priya Prakash Varrier, who shot to fame following her ‘wink song’ ‘Manikya Malaraya Poovi…’ from the film ‘Oru Addar Love.’
The top court also barred registration of any further FIR against her in connection with the same controversial song in the film which is still under production.
Observing that no case is made out for an offence of hurting any religious sentiments, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said there was “no sign of blasphemy”.
The court said: “It (song) does not express any calculated tendency to insult or upset moral or public order, no sign of blasphemy.”
Quashing the FIR, the court in its order said, “We don’t find that the said provision (Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code) is attracted.”
“You have no other business but to file cases” CJI Misra said as respondent said that the picturisation of the song hurt the sentiments of the community and winking was prohibited in Islam.
Respondent in the case said that the contentious scene where Priya winks at a boy features the Mappila lyrics — a traditional Muslim song from the Malabar region of Kerala — that celebrates the love between Prophet Mohammed and his first wife Khadija.
Priya Varrier’s lawyer Harris Beeran told the court that the folk song was in existence since 1978 and is being sung ever since.
Earlier the top court had on February 21 stayed all criminal actions by Telangana and Maharashtra against Priya Varrier and restrained all other states from taking any action based on the song ‘Manikya Malaraya Poovi…’.
Some Muslim activists had lodged an FIR against the team of ‘Oru Adaar Love’ in Hyderabad under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code on February 14 for hurting religious sentiments.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : A Supreme Court Judge on Monday recused from hearing a plea by Malegaon bomb blast case accused Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit for a judicial probe into his alleged abduction and torture by investigating agencies.
As the matter was called, a bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit directed for the listing of the matter before another bench as Justice Lalit recused himself.
Blaming the then UPA government for his implication in an alleged terror plot and eight-year-long incarceration for “personal political gains”, the petitioner contended that as a consequence a “source network developed meticulously by him and other officers of the Indian Army was demolished”.
Purohit was granted bail by the Supreme Court on August 12, 2017.
He is the main accused in the Malegaon blast, which killed six persons in the Muslim-dominated powerloom town in Nashik district on September 29, 2008.
Purohit’s plea to seek a judicial probe into his alleged abduction and torture is based on revelation by former Home Ministry Joint Secretary R.V.S. Mani, in which he is said to have indicated that Purohit was “framed by some factions in the previous government for political reasons, including introducing a face of terror under the guise of ‘saffron terror’.”
Mani’s revelation, Purohit said, had shocked him as he had “finally understood his role, of being used as a pawn, in the larger scheme of political spectrum by selfish political interests.”
Mani, according to Purohit, had given interview to media houses and even written a book ‘The Hindu Terror — Insider Account of Ministry of Home Affairs 2006-2010’.
“In these circumstances, the perpetrators and schemers of such sinister modus operandi, compromising national security, are required to be identified and made accountable,” the petitioner said.
He pointed out that there was “complete subversion of the criminal justice system by the state itself, and there is credible reason to fear that a citizen of this country, no less than an officer of the Indian Army, can be abducted, brutally tortured, labelled a terrorist and put away for nine years without a trial.”
—IANS
