Tag: Supreme Court

wazukhana Gyanvapi mosque

Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath Temple: SC Allows Cleaning Of ‘Wazukhana’ Where ‘Shivling’ Was Found

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed an application of Hindu women petitioners seeking direction for cleaning the entire area of ‘wazukhana’ of Gyanvapi mosque where the alleged ‘Shivling’ was found and maintaining hygienic condition.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the area of ‘wazukhana’ shall be cleaned under the supervision of district administration Varanasi, having regard to the previous orders of the apex court.

Gyanvapi mosque management committee said it supports cleaning of the water tank, which has remained sealed on apex court’s orders for nearly two years.

‘Wazukhana’ is the reservoir where devotees perform ablutions before offering namaz.

The application said fishes in the water tank died between December 12 to 25, 2023 and due to the same, there is a putrid smell emitting from the tank.

“Since there exists Shivlingam which is sacred to Hindus and should be kept away from all dirt, grime, dead animals, etc. and must be in clean condition, is currently in the midst of dead fish which is hurtful to the sentiments to the devotees of Lord Shiva,” the application stated.

The application filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said fishes in the water tank have died and due to the same, there is a putrid smell emitting from the tank.

It is further submitted that the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid which manages the mosque in the Gyanvapi complex is responsible for the condition of fish due to which they have died.

“In case, the fishes would had been transferred as requested by District Magistrate, Varanasi the present unfortunate situation would have not occurred,” the application said while seeking direction to clean ‘wazukhana’.

The area of ‘wazukhana’ was sealed in 2022 on a Supreme Court order after the discovery of what was said to be a ‘Shivling’.

A structure — claimed to be a “Shivling” by the Hindu side and a “fountain” by the Muslim side — was found in the mosque premises on May 16, 2022, during a court-mandated survey of the mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

The ‘Wazu’ area of the Gyanvapi mosque is the centre of the Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple dispute between Hindus and Muslim parties in the case since the Hindu parties claim that ‘Shivling’ has been found in that spot, however, the Muslim side disputed the same and said that it is only a water fountain. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

SC Stays Order For Appointing Commission For Shahi Eidgah Mosque: Mathura

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Allhabadad High Court order for appointment of a Commission for the Shahi Eidgah Mosque in connection with Mathura’s Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta also issued notice to concerned respondents on a plea filed by the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah challenging the Allahabad High Court order for the appointment of a Commission for the Shahi Eidgah Mosque.

The court listed the matter for January 23 for further hearing.

The court said that proceedings before the trial court can be continued but the commission cannot be executed till the next date of hearings.

The court observed that HC has acted on a vague application seeking omnibus directions.

The court noted that the application has to be specific.

“This is wrong, you have to be very clear about what you want… It is an omnibus application,” the court said.

The Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court order for the appointment of a Commission for the Shahi Eidgah Mosque.

Advocate Reena N. Singh, representing Bhagwan Sri Krishna Lalla Virajman told ANI “Today, the court heard about the survey order of the Allahabad High Court case which was being challenged by the Muslim side. The Intezamia Committee had challenged the order and today the Supreme Court stayed the survey order only. But they have not stayed the trial. The trial at Allahabad High Court will continue. The next date of hearing is on 23rd January.”

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the mosque committee challenged the order dated December 14 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing an Application for the appointment of a Commission for the Shahi Eidgah Mosque where prayers are being regularly offered by the Muslim community from time immemorial.

“The High Court has allowed the Application for appointment of a Commission without considering the objections of the Petitioner herein and without considering the fact that the very existence of the Suit has been questioned by the Petitioner herein, whose Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the Plaint has been kept pending without any decision,” the petition copy said.

Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah was represented by advocates Tasneem Ahmadi, Mehmood Pracha and RHA Sikander.

The Supreme Court is also dealing with various matters relating to Mathura’s Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute.

Earlier Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah filed an appeal in the top court challenging the Allahabad High Court order which transfers to itself all the petitions relating to Mathura’s Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute from District Court Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

Masjid Idgah challenged the order dated May 26 passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby it transferred all such cases relating to the Krishna Janambhoomi dispute from the District Court Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, to itself.

Ranjana Agnihotri, a resident of Lucknow, had filed a suit in Mathura court demanding the ownership of 13.37 acres of land of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi.

In her legal suit, Agnihotri demanded the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque built in Krishna Janmabhoomi.

The suit filed in the Mathura court sought the removal of a mosque said to have been built in 1669-70 on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in the 13.37-acre premises of Katra Keshav Dev temple, near the birthplace of Lord Krishna. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

AAP leader Satyendar Jain

SC Extends Jain’s Interim Bail

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim bail given to AAP leader Satyendar Jain until further orders in a money laundering case.

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma deferred that matter after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Jain, argued at length and later requested an adjournment. The matter will be listed tomorrow.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Satyendar Jain, took the court through the genesis of the case against his client.

Senior Advocate Singhvi told the court that Jain has cooperated in the matter and there is no predicate offence made against the former minister.

The lawyer said that according to the law, assets of a company can never be attributed to a shareholder or director and he asked how money can be attributed to Jain, which lies in the company.

Additional Solicitor General, SV Raju, appeared for the probe agency.

Meanwhile, the hearing on Jain’s bail witnessed many twists and turns today as Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud explained why the matter was listed before a different combination of benches as there was a matter relating to the extension of bail. CJI also mentioned the communication received from Justice AS Bopanna to take up part-heard matters from him because he will not be able to hear the matter due to medical reasons.

Earlier, Jain’s bail plea was partly heard by a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi. Today, the matter is listed before a bench of Justice Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Jain underwent surgery on July 21. The interim bail given to Jain on medical grounds is extended from time to time.

On May 26, the top court granted interim bail to Satyendar Jain for six weeks in the money laundering case but imposed various conditions, including refusing to talk with the media nor leaving Delhi without permission.

The top court had also given Jain the right to choose any hospital of his choice for his medical treatment. The top court had made it clear that interim bail is considered in medical conditions.

Satyendar Jain has moved to the top court seeking bail in money laundering cases. He has challenged the Delhi High Court order dismissing his bail plea in the money laundering case against him.

Satyendar Jain’s lawyer had told the top court that he had lost 35 kg and turned into a skeleton due to this.

Former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain has moved the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court order dismissing his bail plea in the money laundering case against him.

On April 6, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Satyendar Jain. The HC, while dismissing the Satyendar Jain bail plea, stated that the applicant is an influential person and has the potential to tamper with evidence. Satyender Jain/applicant, at this stage, can’t be held to clear the twin conditions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The HC had kept the order reserved for March 21 after the conclusion of the submissions made by the defence and prosecution sides after multiple hearings. During arguments in the High Court, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appeared for the Enforcement Directorate, contented that money laundering is crystal clear against Jain and other co-accused. In his bail plea, Jain stated, “I appeared before the ED on seven occasions. I have cooperated and participated in the investigation. I was arrested five years down the line in 2022.”

On November 17, 2022, the trial court dismissed the bail petition of Satyendar Jain. He was arrested on May 30, 2022, under sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate and is presently in Judicial Custody in the case.

The ED case is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) complaint registered on the allegation that Satyendar Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons from February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Supreme Court

Bilkis Bano Case: SC Asks 11 Convicts To Surrender

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down the Gujarat government’s order granting remission to 11 convicts who had gangraped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the Gujarat government’s remission order by which convicts were released pre-maturely.

It asked all 11 convicts to surrender before jail authorities within two weeks.

The bench held that the Gujarat government was not competent to pass the remission orders but the Maharashtra government. It said the appropriate government to decide the remission was the state within whose territorial limits the accused are sentenced, not where the crime is committed or the accused are imprisoned.

The top court held that the judgement of May 13, 2022, by which another bench of the apex court had directed the Gujarat government to consider remission of convicts as per the 1992 policy, was obtained by “playing fraud” on the court and by suppressing material facts.

The Gujarat government usurped the powers of the Maharashtra government acting in furtherance of the judgement dated May 13, 2022, which, in our opinion, is a “nullity,” said the bench.

The convicts had not approached the court with clean hands, said the bench, adding that proceedings before this court were due to “suppression of facts,” and that is why it is fraud played on this court.

The apex court questioned why the Gujarat government had not filed any application seeking a review of the May 13, 2022, order, as it was not the appropriate government.

It was a classic case where the order of the Supreme Court has been used for violating the rule of law for passing orders for remission, the top court said.

The exercise of power by the State of Gujarat is an instance of “usurpation and abuse of power,” said the bench while reprimanding the State government for not filing a petition to review the convicts’ release.

“The exercise of power by the State of Gujarat is an instance of usurpation of power and abuse of power. This is a classic case where the order of this court was used to violate the rule of law by granting remission. On that ground also, the remission orders deserve to be quashed,” it said.

The judgement of the top court came on a petition filed by Bilkis Bano and others challenging the pre-mature release of 11 convicts.

Pronouncing the verdict, the bench said, “We hold that writ proceeding before this court was due to suppression of facts and that is why it is fraud played on this court…”

Earlier, the Gujarat government, in its affidavit had defended the remission granted to convicts, saying they had completed a 14-year sentence in prison and their “behaviour was found to be good”.

The State government had said it has considered the cases of all 11 convicts as per the policy of 1992 and remission was granted on August 10, 2022 and the central government government also approved the release of convicts.

It is pertinent to note that the remission was not granted under the circular governing the grant of remission to prisoners as part of the celebration of “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav.”

The pleas filed before the top court had said they have challenged the order of competent authority of the government of Gujarat by way of which 11 persons who were accused in a set of heinous offences committed in Gujarat were allowed to walk free on August 15, 2022, pursuant to remission being extended to them.

The remission in this heinous case would be entirely against public interest and would shock the collective public conscience, as also be entirely against the interests of the victim (whose family has publicly made statements worrying for her safety), pleas stated.

The Gujarat government had released the 11 convicts, who were sentenced to life imprisonment, on August 15, 2022. All 11 life-term convicts in the case were released as per the remission policy prevalent in Gujarat at the time of their conviction in 2008.

In March 2002, during the post-Godhra riots, Bano was allegedly gang-raped and left to die with 14 members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter. She was five months pregnant when rioters attacked her family in Vadodara. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Bilkis Bano

SC Notice To Centre, UP On Pleas Challenging Notification On Ban On Halal Certification

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government on a plea seeking the quashing of notification wherein manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of halal-certified products were banned in the state.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Uttar Pradesh through Hazratganj Police Station and Food Safety and Drug Administration in two weeks.

Two petitions were filed by Jamiat Ulama-E-Maharashtra and Halal India Pvt. Ltd. seeking direction to quash the November 18 notification of Uttar Pradesh’s Food Safety and Drug Administration and FIRs registered against them.

Petitions challenged a ban imposed by the Uttar Pradesh government on the “manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products” on November 18.

Lucknow police had registered an FIR on November 17 at Hazratganj police station against some organisations, production companies, their owners and managers as well as other unidentified people involved in unnecessarily extorting money in the name of halal certification and promoting enmity in the name of religion and also funding different anti-national, separatist and terror organisations.

Petitioners said FIR was registered against them and they have been implicated despite the fact that they have no role whatsoever to play in relation to the issuance of halal certification.

At the outset of the hearing, the bench asked the petitioner, “Why should we entertain it under Article 32? Does the High Court not have jurisdiction to examine this?”

The counsel appearing for the petitioner said Uttar Pradesh’s ban has national implications and its impact on inter-state trade and commerce. The ban also affects the freedom of religion, counsel added.

“The court’s attention is required on whether a notification of this nature can be issued and second whether entities carrying out this exercise as accredited bodies under the aegis of the commerce ministry can be subjected to prosecution, only on grounds that such a certification is there. Such a position, however, has not been taken for practices of other religions or denominations like kosher. This will also have a significant impact on health, and on religious practices,” the advocate told the bench.

The petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-E-Maharashtra stated that FIR levies serious allegations against it for promoting halal products by which the companies are trying to bring communal differences among the consumers.

The petition stated that notification is “arbitrary and based on unreasonable classification”, said the petition adding that the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of halal-certified products were banned with immediate effect in Uttar Pradesh from the view of “public health”.

“The notification is manifestly arbitrary as it capriciously excludes only halal certification while other certifications such as Jain, Satvik and even kosher have not been included within the purview of the said notification, indicating that it arbitrarily singles out one certification on the basis of religion which is an impermissible classification,” the petition said.

The notification has been issued without any adequate principle to determine as to how halal certification is adversely effecting public health, which is again vague, arbitrary and unreasonable, it added.

“It is submitted that the notification disincentivises the food preference of one particular religion without any rational basis and is therefore contrary to the secular fabric of the nation,” the plea further said. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Supreme Court

Article 370 Verdict Cannot Be Looked At From A Federalism Point Of View: Justice Kaul

By LokMarg

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who retired as a judge of the Supreme Court on December 25, has said that the verdict of the apex court on Article 370 cannot be looked at from a federalism point of view.

The Supreme Court had faced criticism from certain sections of society on its judgement where it had upheld the Centre’s decision on abrogation of Article 370 — a provision in the Constitution that gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

In an interview with ANI, Justice Kaul said on Friday, “I believe that the Kashmir verdict cannot be looked at from a federalism generally point of view. It’s not as if what has happened in Kashmir is to be replicated or can be replicated elsewhere. The reason is that Kashmir assimilation in India occurred in a slightly different mode, and therefore, there was a Constituent Assembly, a Constitution, and then assimilation over a period of time by issuance of GOs (government orders) over a period of time. Some shells still remain, and some aspects remain, and in the political wisdom of the government, they decided to do away with it.”

Justice Kaul, was part of the five-judge Constitution bench which on December 11 delivered the verdict on petitions challenging the Centre’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370. The Supreme Court had unanimously held that Article 370 was a “temporary provision”.

Talking to ANI, Justice Kaul explained that, “… So it gave rise too broadly to question apart from any other legal nuances, that is it something which could have been done, and number two whether the process for was correct or not. That could have been done again there’s a unanimous view on it of the judges at present, which is that the introduction of the provision in the chapter where it was and what was envisaged was a temporary measure, not temporary measure till the report was submitted and the new Constitution formed. But it was a slow process of assimilation which is what we have accepted, and ultimately it is fully assimilated now.”

On whether the abrogation of Article would be done in this manner by the Centre, Justice Kaul said that it was a little more complex issue but then it has to be understood in the context of the position which was prevalent, which was that there was no State Assembly which was in existence and the government had adopted a particular notion and went through the Parliament.

“So, it’s not as if suddenly the government accepted it. Many things were debated. Questioning whether it could have been done this way or not. Again, the unanimous view (of the bench) was that it could have been done this, that’s all I can say. Rest is in the judgment,” Justice Kaul added.

Justice Kaul, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017, was also part of the verdict which by majority view (of the judges) turned down the petitioners’ plea to read same-sex marriage as part of the Special Marriage Act — a secular law that recognises inter-faith marriages.

However, the minority view of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Kaul opined on granting civil union rights to the LGBTQ community.

On same-sex marriage judgement, Justice Kual told ANI that the community has various options left with it after the top court’s verdict and the community can ask the government to bring in some laws, and seek reconsideration of the verdict.

“They can wait for some time till the thinking process changes in the society,” he added.

On being asked what he thinks about the system of judges appointing judges (Collegium) is the best mechanism or is there a version of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) system that he would like to recommend, Justice Kaul said, Justice Kaul, who was also a part of the top court Collegium for over a year and that made several recommendations for the appointment and transfer of judges in constitutional courts, said that in retrospect he believes that NJAC was dealt with quickly at that time.

“Yes, I believe, in retrospect it was dealt with quickly at that time. Some of the judges who were party to the bench (which delivered the judgement) later on said that we had made a mistake. I get a cue from that, so maybe it could have been given a chance. Maybe it could have been tweaked or changed,” Justice Kaul told ANI.

“But the post (NJAC) judgment process has brought certain challenges in the Collegium system, not otherwise. I think the Collegium system has been tweaked, but the insistence of the political setup for a larger role than envisaged in the Collegium system has been a matter of some friction,” he added.

The Supreme Court on March 2, 2023, had directed for the constitution of a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners in India.

However, the new Bill passed by the Parliament has dropped the CJI from the selection committee to appoint CEC and ECs. The Bill faced criticism from the Opposition saying it would give the executive the power to select CEC and ECs who would favour the ruling party.

On the removal of CJI from the selection committee, Justice Kaul told ANI that the Supreme Court passed its judgement to fill the vacuum that was there earlier because there was no law.

“So what the court said was to fill in a vacuum. It said that because there is no law we are doing this. Now the government in its wisdom has filled that vacuum and has taken through Parliament. So, the law is created by Parliament unless it is challenged (in the top court) and dealt with.”

“Yes, the Election Commission does have a very important role. (In the) past the Election, Commissioners have been appointed that way only. So it’s being debated now because of the Supreme Court judgment. It will be for the court to test this proposition. But somehow the consensus could not be built in Parliament to have Chief Justice or any other nominee or somebody as a third person,” he added.

Justice Kaul also favoured increasing the retirement age of High Court judges, which is 62, to 65 as of Supreme Court judges.

On being asked about his retirement plans, Justice Kaul, who hails from Kashmir, said he has made a bucket list of all those things which he would do post-retirement and made it clear that he would not accept any government posts after retirement.

“Retirement plans are to do what I have not been able to do. Spend more time with my family, especially my grandchildren, who are young in age. I used to play golf which I left. Maybe start, listen to music, read books, go and see films, watch plays which I have an interest in. (To) travel, (as) I am very fond of travelling. I have made a bucket list of all those things. Also, I had some interest in Kashmir and would be travelling more there to spend more time there than I had been able to. And lastly, I have to do some private legal work to keep my mind occupied,” Justice Kaul said.

Justice Kual has authored several ground-breaking judgments since his elevation to the apex court on February 17, 2017. Prior to his appointment in the Supreme Court, Justice Kaul served as the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Madras High Court. Before that, he was a judge in the Delhi High Court. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Kiren Rijiju

Rijiju rips Cong, DMK MPs For Questioning SC Ruling On Article 370

By LokMarg

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday hit out at leaders of INDIA block partners Congress and the DMK over their ‘disparaging’ remarks on the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling, upholding the revocation of special constitutional privileges under Article 370 from the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcating the region into separate Union Territories (UTs) — Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Sharing a video clip of proceedings in the Lok Sabha in the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament, Rijiju posted from his official handle on X, “This is not only pejorative remarks on the Supreme Court but the motive behind is very dangerous for our country’s unity.”

In the video clip shared by the Union Minister, DMK MP Mohamad Abdulla and Congress member Venugopal are heard criticising the apex court ruling on the abrogation of Article 370 on the floor of the Rajya Sabha, prompting a heated exchange with Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who scolded the members saying that “they can’t ridicule the judgement of the highest court of law”.

“India is known for its diversity but if we allow Congress & DMK agenda to succeed, India will break up. Freedom of speech is not for self-determination,” the Union Minister added in his post.

Coming to the DMK member’s defence, Congress Rajya Sabha MP KC Venugopal is heard saying in the clip, “The member has the freedom to speak about that (Supreme Court judgement). He holds every right to criticise the judgment also.”

“Every race has a right to self-determination that appeals to the people of Kashmir,” DMK MP Mohamad Abdulla said in the Upper House, during a debate on two draft legislations on Jammu and Kashmir, ruffling feathers in the Treasury benches.

Taking strong objection to the DMK MP’s remarks, Dhankhar said, “This is improper. The highest court of the land has given a judgement. The honourable member is talking about…You can’t ridicule the judgement.”

“It (Freedom of Speech) does not give you the licence to say whatever you feel. You have to be highly accountable. You have to be accountable,” Dhankhar warned Venugopal.

Earlier, the Supreme Court upheld the Union government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir saying that every decision taken by the Centre on behalf of a State can’t be subject to a legal challenge. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Supreme Court

SC Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To SHUATS’s VC

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection from arrest to the Vice-Chancellor and other higher officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Science (SHUATS), accused of persuading a woman to adopt Christianity by offering her job and other allurements.

A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice KV Vishwanathan stayed the Allahabad High Court order, which had refused to stay the FIR registered against the VC and other senior officials.

The High Court, while declining to quash the FIR, had asked them to surrender before the competent court on and before December 20 and seek regular bail.

Challenging the High Court order, they approached the vacation bench of the apex court, seeking protection from arrest and stay on the High Court order.

The vacation bench of the top court, while hearing their plea, also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and listed the case for hearing on reopening of the apex court

“Issue notice. There shall be an interim order protecting the petitioners from arrest in connection with FIR number 305/2023, the bench ordered while staying the High Court order till January 5.

During today’s hearing, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the petitioners, argued that there was grave urgency since it involved a violation of the right to anticipatory bail.

“The High Court says that since this is a heinous offence, the accused must surrender before the majesty of the court. My right of anticipatory bail is gone. It is a university established in 1910, and if you read the FIR, it is like some corruption scam,” Dave argued.

Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the petitioners along with advocates Prastut Dalvi, Vidhi Thaker and Pallavi Sharma.

The FIR was registered at Bewar in Hamirpur district of Uttar Pradesh against Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of SHUATS, its Director Vinod Bihari Lal, and five other officials of the Christian minority institution in a case concerning an attempt to convert people to Christianity.

The appeal before the top court stated that the FIR contains” baseless and unsubstantiated allegations”.

“The present impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intention just in order to falsely implicate, harass and malign the petitioners and the University,” it added.

The incident so mentioned in the impugned FIR dates back to 2005 and the present FIR was registered on November 4, 2023, of which there is no plausible justification coming forward to explain this inordinate delay, the petitioners contended.

The High Court on December 11, 2023, refused to quash the FIR and observed that no true religion would approve of malpractices of religious conversion by undue force by a priest or godmen.

The allegations are that they persuaded a woman to adopt Christianity by offering her a job and other allurements.

In an FIR registered on November 4, 2023, lodged under Section 376D (gang rape) and other IPC sections and relevant sections of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, in Bewar, the woman alleged that she belonged to a lower middle-class family and was trapped by another woman who took her regularly to a church.

In the FIR, she also alleged that she was regularly subjected to sexual exploitation by the accused petitioners, and she was persuaded and pressurized to bring other women for conversion and other illegal work.

However, petitioners have submitted that the victim was offered a job at SHUATS and when she was sacked from her service in 2022, she tailored a story, as mentioned in the FIR, just to rope in all the higher officials of SHUATS, including the Vice-Chancellor. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

SC Adjourns Plea Of Mahua Against Expulsion From LS

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for January 3, 2024, the plea of Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra against her expulsion from Lok Sabha in a cash-for-query case.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti deferred the hearing, saying it had not gone through the case files.

“I got the file in the morning; I did not have time to scan it. Can we keep it on January 3rd or 4th? I would like to go through this,” Justice Khanna told senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Moitra, and posted the matter on January 3.

Moitra approached the top court, challenging her expulsion from the Lok Sabha.

Moitra was on December 8 expelled from the Lok Sabha after a discussion on the report of the Ethics Committee in the ‘cash for query’ that was tabled in the Lower House.

Moitra, who was not allowed to speak during the discussion inside the House, said that the Ethics Committee broke every rule. Speaking outside Parliament on December 8 she had vowed to fight back.

“I am 49 years old and for the next 30 years, I will fight you inside the Parliament and outside; in the gutter and on the streets…We will see the end of you…This is the beginning of your end…We’re going to come back and we’re going to see the end of you,” Moitra had said.

The expelled Lok Sabha MP alleged that she has been found guilty of breaching a code of ethics that ‘does not exist’.

Moitra further alleged that the findings are solely based on the written testimonies of two private citizens whose versions contradict each other in material terms and her right to cross-examine them was snatched.

“None of whom I was allowed to cross-examine. One of the two private citizens is my estranged partner, who, with malafide intention, masqueraded as a common citizen in front of the committee. The two testimonies have been used to hang me there at polar opposites to each other,” she said.

The Ethics Committee report probing ‘Unethical Conduct’ of the TMC MP had recommended that Moitra “may be expelled” from the Lok Sabha and called for an “intense, legal, institutional inquiry” by the central government in a “time-bound manner”.

The report was adopted by a 6:4 majority in the panel last month. The report on Moitra’s cash-for-query case revealed that she visited the UAE four times from 2019 to 2023, while her login was accessed several times. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Article 370

SC Upholds Abrogation Of Article 370

By LokMarg

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the validity of the Union government’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution which conferred the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, while pointing out that Article 370 is a “temporary provision”.

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant said, “It can be garnered from the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution that it is a temporary provision.”

The apex court said Article 370 was enacted due to wartime conditions in the State and was meant to serve a transitional purpose.

“Article 370 was introduced to serve two purposes. First, the transitional purpose: to provide for an interim arrangement until the Constituent Assembly of the State was formed and could take a decision on the legislative competence of the Union on matters other than the ones stipulated in the Instrument of Accession, and ratify the Constitution; and second, a temporary purpose: an interim arrangement in view of the special circumstances because of the war conditions in the State,” the Constitution bench stated in it’s verdict.

The top court further said, “We have held that a textual reading of Article 370 also indicates that it is a temporary provision. For this purpose, we have referred to the placement of the provision in Part XXI of the Constitution which deals with temporary and transitional provisions, the marginal note of the provision which states “temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, and a reading of Articles 370 and 1 by which the State became an integral part of India upon the adoption of the Constitution.”

The petitioners, challenging the abrogation of Article 370, had said that Article 370 was no longer a “temporary provision” and it had assumed permanence post the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.

The five-judge bench pronounced three concurring verdicts–one by CJI DY Chandrachud for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna have authored two separate concurring judgments.

The top court held that the State of Jammu and Kashmir did not retain an element of sovereignty when it joined the Union of India.

The apex court said that although Maharaja Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the princely state, issued a proclamation that he would retain his sovereignty, his successor Karan Singh issued another proclamation that the Indian Constitution would prevail over all other laws in the state.

It added, “The Proclamation reflects the full and final surrender of sovereignty by Jammu and Kashmir, through its sovereign ruler, to India–to her people who are sovereign.”

Neither the constitutional setup nor any other factors indicate that the State of Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty, it said. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was only to further define the relationship between the Union of India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, said the bench ruled.

“The State of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India is evident from Articles 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. It is reiterated in Section 3 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which is unamendable,” it added.

The apex court said that simply because the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, it did not mean Article 370 would continue permanently. “The President was empowered to issue the order to abrogate Article 370,” the top court added.

“The exercise of power by the President under Article 370(1)(d) to issue Constitutional Order (CO) 272 is not mala fide. The President in exercise of power under Article 370(3), can unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist. The President did not have to secure the concurrence of the government of the State or Union government acting on behalf of the State government under the second proviso to Article 370(1)(d) while applying all the provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir because such an exercise of power has the same effect as an exercise of power under Article 370(3) for which the concurrence or collaboration with the State government was not required,” the verdict stated.

“Article 370(3) was introduced for constitutional integration and not for constitutional disintegration. Holding that 370(3) cannot be used after constituent assembly was dissolved cannot be accepted,” it added.

It upheld CO 272 issued by the President on August 5 to the extent it made provisions of the Constitution of India applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.

Further, it took into note Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submission that the Statehood of Jammu and Kashmir will be restored, except for the Union Territory of Ladakh.

“In view of the statement we do not find it necessary to determine whether the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir is permissible under Article 3. However. we uphold the validity of the decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh in view of Article 3(a) read with Explanation I which permits forming a Union Territory by separation of a territory from any State,” the bench added.

It directed that steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir by 30 September 2024.

Restoration of Statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible, it added. The Constitution bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution and bifurcating the state into two Union Territories.

A number of petitions were filed in the top court including those of private individuals, lawyers, activists and politicians and political parties challenging the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which splits Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

On August 5, 2019, the Central government announced the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir granted under Article 370 and split the region into two Union territories. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/