by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : Kerala woman Akhila Asokan, alias Hadiya who is in the midst of a ‘love jihad’ controversy, has told the Supreme Court that she is a Muslim now and wants to live with her husband Shafin Jahan — with whom her marriage was annulled by the Kerala High Court.
In an affidavit before the top court, Hadiya said after converting to Islam “I am a Muslim and I want to continue to live as a Muslim”.
“I want to continue to live as wife of my beloved husband Shafin Jahan and I embraced Islam and married him on my own free will.”
Seeking the restoration of her liberty as she has been under confinement and continues to be under police surveillance, Hadiya urged the court to appoint Jahan as her guardian and asked that they be allowed to live together as husband and wife.
She also sought the setting side of the Kerala High Court order of May 24, 2017, annulling her marriage.
The matter is coming up for hearing on Thursday.
Claiming that her father Asokan K.M. is under the influence of “certain section” of people, Hadiya said that it was these people who “played and are still playing behind my father”.
All those errant personnel, both official and non-official, who subjected or caused to subject me to the “horrendous torture and torments” are liable to be brought to justice, she said.
“The baseless and malicious propaganda being made by the investigating agency and by the evil forces behind my father that I am mentally not sound, that I have connection with the IS and the media trial on these allegations would detrimentally affect my future and career as a doctor, causing irreparable heavy injuries and loss to me,” she said in her affidavit.
The top court had on January 23 impleaded Hadiya as a party to the case being heard by it.
The court had told the NIA, which is investigating the matter, to continue with its probe into any criminality in the marriage, but not to intrude into it.
The top court by its November 27, 2017 order had set Hadiya free from the custody of her parents and directed that she be allowed to complete her studies at a Salem homeopathy college.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Banking, News
New Delhi : The Supreme Court has said that provision of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, that prohibits courts from examining the reasonableness of rate of interests charged by banks, will not operate in states with debt relief laws for agriculturists.
Section 21A of the Act says that the rates of interest charged by banking companies will not be subject to scrutiny by courts on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive.
“… insofar as Section 21A incidentally encroaches upon the field of relief of agricultural indebtedness, set out in Entry 30, List II, it will not operate only in states where there is a State Debt Relief Act” covering rural indebtedness, said a bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha in their judgment on Friday.
The Entry 30 of List II (subjects on which states alone can make laws) deals with money-lending and moneylenders; and relief of agricultural indebtedness.
In other states where the State Debt Relief Act does not apply to banks at all, the court said that Section 21 would operate.
However, in the second category of the states, if the State Debt Relief Act applies to certain financial institutions, then again Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act will not apply in respect of the loan given to the agriculturists.
The court verdict came as it did not accept the Reserve Bank of India’s contention that Section 21A falls within the central list of the subjects and even if some part of the Section 21A trench upon the debt relief laws passed by the state, the later should give way to the central law and not the other way round.
Referring to Article 246 of the Constitution and speaking for the bench, Justice Nariman said: “The constitutional provision says that when two entries in the Union List and the State List, are on a head-on collision and are irreconcilable, then, as a “last resort”, the entry in the State List is to give way to the entry in the Union List. But, this is only as a last resort”
“First, it is incumbent upon the court to harmonise the entries, if possible, by giving effect to both and not rendering any one of them otiose.”
Referring to the constitutional scheme of things, the court said: “insofar as agriculture is concerned, it is an exclusive State subject, with one exception — that custody, management and disposal of property, declared by law to be evacuee property, includes agricultural land, and makes it a Concurrent subject.”
Pointing out that agriculture was an exclusive state subject, the court said: “This being the case, the two entries are best harmonised by giving effect to both. This can only be done if the relief of agricultural indebtedness is to include banks, both cooperative and otherwise.”
The court held that the state debt relief law came under the special entry of “relief of agricultural indebtedness”, while the Banking Regulation Act came under the general entry of “banking”.
In any incidental encroachment of the State Debt Relief Acts by Section 21A of the Act on the relief to agriculturists from debt, Section 21A will have to yield to the state law.
The top court verdict came on a PIL by Jayant Verma, Dr B.D. Sharma, Debabrata Biswas, Bir Singh Mahato and Dr Suneelam who assailed the constitutional validity of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
Section 21A was inserted in the Act by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act of 1983 which came into force February 15, 1984.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Cauvery river
New Delhi : In a setback to Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court on Friday reduced its share of Cauvery river water to 177.25 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) down from 192 tmcft allocated by a Tribunal in 2007.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar reduced the share of the state as it noted that the Cauvery Tribunal had not taken into account the ground water available in Tamil Nadu’s side of the river basin.
Consequently, the share of Karnataka has been increased by 14.75 tmcft, which includes increased allocation for “global” city of Bengaluru for drinking purposes.
Allocating 4.75 tmcft to Bengaluru, Chief Justice Misra pronouncing the judgement said that Karnataka can use the increased allocation for irrigation and industrial purposes by marginally increasing its area under crop.
While bringing down the allocation for Tamil Nadu, the top court kept intact the allocation made to Kerala and Puducherry by the Tribunal.
The court directed that as per the Tribunal award, the Centre would take steps for setting up the Cauvery Water Management Board for the implementation of the interim water sharing arrangement, which it (court) said would remain in operation for the next 15 years.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Friday directed that all candidates contesting elections must disclose their “sources” of income, including those of their spouse and dependent children.
In a landmark judgement, a bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar said the candidate has to disclose his, his wife’s and dependent children’s source of income when they file nomination for elections.
The court verdict came on a petition filed by NGO, Lok Prahari, which has sought the inclusion of a column in the nomination form seeking details of income sources.
The petitioner has claimed that the candidates, while filing their nomination papers were disclosing their assets, assets of their spouse, children and other dependents, but they were not revealing the sources of income.
As per the law, at present a candidate is required to disclose details of assets and liabilities for themselves, spouse and three dependents while filing nomination paper but not their source of income.
Earlier, during the hearing of the case the apex court had criticised the government for not investigating the huge increase in assets, by up to 500 per cent, of politicians from what they show at the time of nomination.
The Election Commission had also told the top court in January that it must be made mandatory for the candidates to disclose their sources of income along with that of their spouse and dependents at the time of filing nomination to bring transparency in the election process.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh to file affidavits stating they are bound by the 1980 Godavari River Water Tribunal Award in terms of the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
The court’s direction came as it heard a case on the multi-purpose irrigation project Indira Sagar Dam, also known as Polavaram Dam, which is being carried out in pursuance to the award.
The bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta issued direction to the Chief Secretaries as it observed that a political solution of the issue was “difficult”.
It also asked the Union Water Resources Secretary to file an affidavit reaffirming the position that under the 1956 Act, all were bound to accept the Justice Bachawat Godavari River Water Tribunal Award.
Seeking the affidavits, Justice Lokur said in that case, they were only left with the interpretation whether the dam under construction was conforming to the award.
“If you want to have a meeting (of Chief Ministers), you have it. If you don’t want to have a meeting, you don’t have it,” he said, observing that “from the instructions (to the counsel) it is obvious that no solution is possible”.
The court’s observation came as it pursued a letter written by Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on November 28, 2017, urging him not to allow the construction of the Polavaram dam until all the issues being adjudicated by the top court are settled.
Patnaik, in his letter, had expressed concern over the Polavaram project saying it was being pushed without addressing his state’s legitimate concerns and at the cost of sacrificing its interest.
In the last hearing of the matter on December 12, 2017, the court was told that discussions were going on between the Chief Ministers concerned to try and resolve the issues that are before the court.
Referring to an application filed by the Odisha government, Justice Lokur said: “It is effectively stopping the project.”
Odisha told the court that the Polavaram Dam should be as per the award as any deviation would result in submergence of the tribal villages in Malkangiri district of the state.
On the other hand, Andhra Pradesh is pressing for the project saying that it was essential for its irrigation needs.
However, the court said that the proceedings before it would not preclude the Chief Ministers of the six states from amicably resolving the issue and directed the next hearing on the matter on April 17.
—IANS
