Tag: Supreme Court

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

3-Month Extension To SEBI To Conduct Probe Into Hindenburg Report Against Adani

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted an extension of time for three months to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conduct a probe into the Hindenburg report against Adani Group.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justices PS Narsimha and JB Pardiwala granted an extension of time for three months to SEBI.
The court said that SEBI is granted time till 14th August 2023 to conduct the probe.

The court also said that the matter will be listed in July and requested the expert committee to continue to assist the court.

The court also said that the expert committee may hold further deliberations in the meantime.

The court also said that the copies of the report of the expert committee shall be made available to the parties and their counsels to assist the court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has informed SC, SEBI is seeking an extension of time for conducting the probe and needs six months to reach any conclusion.

In a rejoinder filed recently, The Securities and Exchange Board of India apprised the Supreme Court on Monday that the market regulator is already investigating Adani Group companies since 2016 is factually baseless.

SEBI has filed a rejoinder affidavit in response to a petition relating to Hindenburg Research’s report on Adani Group.

SEBI had sought an extension to conclude the investigation in the report by US short-seller Hindenburg Research by a period of six months. The top court on Friday orally remarked that they will extend the time for the probe to SEBI, but not for six months and they can extend the time for the probe by three months.

SEBI told the SC that the investigation done earlier by SEBI pertains to the issuance of Global Depository Receipts (“GDRs”) by 51 Indian listed companies, in respect of which investigation was conducted. SEBI submitted before the Supreme Court that no listed company of Adani Group was part of those 51 companies it was investigating.

“Pursuant to completion of investigation, appropriate enforcement actions were taken in this matter. Hence, the allegation that Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) is investigating Adani since 2016 is factually baseless. I, therefore, say and submit that reliance sought to be placed on the investigation pertaining to GDRs is wholly misplaced,” SEBI said in a rejoinder affidavit.

SEBI submitted before Supreme Court that in the context of investigation into Minimum Public Shareholding (“MPS”) norms, SEBI has already approached eleven overseas Regulators under the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (“MMOU”) with International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”). Various requests for information were made to these Regulators. The first request to overseas Regulators was made as early as on October 6, 2020, SEBI apprised the court.

SEBI submitted before the Supreme Court that the application for extension of time filed by SEBI is meant to ensure carriage of justice keeping in mind the interest of investors and the securities market since any incorrect or premature conclusion of the case arrived at without full facts material on record would not serve the ends of justice and hence would be legally untenable.

SEBI has informed Supreme Court that in respect of the investigation and examination relating to 12 transactions referred to in the Hindenburg Report, prima facie it is noted that these transactions are highly complex and have many sub transactions across numerous jurisdictions and a rigorous investigation of these transactions would require collation of data/information from various sources including bank statements from multiple domestic as well as international banks, financial statements of onshore and offshore entities involved in the transactions and contracts and agreements, if any, entered between the entities along with other supporting documents.

On March 2, the apex court directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the Adani Group in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group’s market value.

Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group companies. The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre.

The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months.

The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including on the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors’ interests.

The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate.

The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as “an unethical short seller”, stating that the report by the New York-based entity was “nothing but a lie”. A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

Read More: lokmarg.com

Article 370

Why Should You Not Allow It To Run?: SC On ‘The Kerala Story’

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the West Bengal government on the plea of the makers of the movie, ‘The Kerala Story’, challenging the decision of the Mamata Banerjee government to ban the screening of the movie in the State.

Supreme Court also issued notice to Tamil Nadu on a de-facto ban on the movie in the State.
Supreme Court sought a response from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu governments and posted the hearing of the plea on Monday.

“The movie is being exhibited all over the country, why should West Bengal ban the movie, why should you not allow it to run? The film is running in different parts of country with similar demographic profiles. This has nothing to do with the cinematic value of the movie, it may be good or bad,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.

The West Bengal government in a notification, last week, said that the movie ‘The Kerala Story’ is “likely to cause a breach of peace” and that it has prohibited the screening of the film to avoid “any incident of hatred or violence to maintain law and order in the state”.

West Bengal was the first state to ban the film, which narrates the ordeal of three women who are trafficked to ISIS camps after being converted to Islam through marriage.

On the decision to ban the film, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said, “It is to avoid any incident of hatred and violence, and maintain peace in the state.”

Also raking up the ‘Kashmir Files’, a film on the alleged genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, which ran to packed houses despite evoking protests from the Opposition, the Bengal CM said, “What was ‘The Kashmir Files’? It was meant purely to humiliate a particular section of society. What is ‘The Kerala Story’? It is a distorted story.”

The CM directed the state chief secretary to remove the movie from all theatres where it is being screened.

Reacting to the ban, Vipul Amrutlal Shah, the producer of the film, said they will pursue legal options against the decision.

“If state government won’t listen to us, we will explore legal avenues. However, whatever course we take will be based on legal advice,” Shah had told ANI.

Helmed by Sudipto Sen and produced by Vipul Amrutlal Shah, the film evoked sharp opposition from Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who called it “RSS propaganda”. Congress MP from Kerala, Shashi Tharoor accused the makers of “misrepresenting” Kerala.

Campaigning for the BJP in poll-bound Karnataka, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, too, weighed in on the controversy, accusing the Congress of standing with terrorists.

‘The Kerala Story’ stars Adah Sharma, Yogita Bihani, Siddhi Idnani and Sonia Balani in lead roles.

A massive controversy erupted around the film after its trailer claimed that 32,000 women from Kerala had gone missing and joined the terrorist group ISIS. However, in the face of protests, the contentious figure in the trailer was later withdrawn.

Its trailer description was later changed to a story of three women from Kerala. (ANI)

Read More: lokmarg.com

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

Adani-Hindenburg Row: SC To Hear SEBI’s Plea For Extension On Monday

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday listed to hear on May 15 (Monday) the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) plea seeking to extend the time to conclude the investigation in the report by US short-seller Hindenburg Research by a period of six months.

The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chadrachud, and also comprising Justices PS Narsimha and JB Pardiwala, adjourned the matter till May 15.
Meanwhile, the court orally remarked that they will extend the time for the probe to SEBI, but not for six months and they can extend the time for the probe by three months.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta insisted on an extension, citing the involvement of bank statements from multiple domestic and international banks.

SEBI application seeking an extension of time has been opposed by the petitioner, Vishal Tiwari.

In an application moved before the Supreme Court, SEBI submitted that keeping in view the forgoing circumstances, it would take further time to arrive at verified findings and conclude the investigation.

SEBI, in the application, also submitted that for ascertaining possible violations, it would take at least 15 months for completion of the investigation of these transactions, but is making all reasonable endeavours to conclude the same within six months.

On March 2, the apex court directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the Adani Group in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group’s market value.

Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group companies. The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre.

The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months.

The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including on the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors’ interests.

There was a loss of investors’ wealth in the securities market after the Hindenburg report because of a steep decline in the share price of the Adani Group of companies.

The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate.

The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as “an unethical short seller”, stating that the report by the New York-based entity was “nothing but a lie”. A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

Read More: lokmarg.com

Supreme Court

SC: Shinde Govt Gets Relief; Court Can’t Restore MVA As Uddhav Resigned

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it cannot disqualify the Eknath Shinde-led Maharashtra government and rejected the submission to reinstate Uddhav Thackeray as chief minister because the latter had chosen to resign instead of facing a test of strength in the assembly.

After the verdict, Uddhav Thackeray said that people who had left his party had no right to ask him questions, and if Eknath Shinde has any morality he should submit his resignation.
A five-member Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice of India, which had been hearing a batch of petitions filed by both the groups of the Shiv Sena from February this year, today ruled that the exercise of discretion by the then Maharashtra Governor BS Koshyari to conduct a Floor Test was not in accordance with the Constitution of India. The bench also said that the Speaker’s decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale a whip of the Eknath Shinde group was wrong.

The whip has to be appointed by a political party, the court observed.

The Supreme Court referred its 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case to a larger bench for judgment in the case of the defection of 16 MLAs in June 2022 from the then Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena.

The Thackeray faction had sought disqualification of the MLAs under the anti-defection law of the country.

The apex court said that the Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions within a reasonable time.

The top court said there were no communications relied on by the Governor indicating that the dissatisfied MLAs wanted to withdraw support to the government. The Governor erred in relying on the resolution of a faction of MLAs of Shiv Sena to conclude that Uddhav Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of MLAs.

It stated that the status quo cannot be restored as Uddhav Thackeray did not face the Floor Test and tendered his resignation. Hence, the Governor was justified in administering the oath to Eknath Shinde with the support of the largest party BJP.

The Supreme Court said that a Floor Test cannot be used as a medium to settle inter and intra-party disputes.

The Nabam Rebia judgment had held that Speakers cannot issue disqualification notices when a notice seeking their removal is pending.

The Supreme Court also said the Speaker if he finds that the motion for his removal is not as per procedure, then he could proceed with the petitions seeking disqualification of the MLAs.

The apex court held that the Speaker’s decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale (Eknath Shinde) as the whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegal. The top court said that the Speaker should recognize only the whip appointed by the political party.

The judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha.

The five-judge bench delivered the judgment on a batch of cross-petitions filed by Uddhav Thackeray and chief minister M Eknath Shinde factions on the Maharashtra political crisis.

The then-governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision to invite Shinde to form the government along with the Bharatiya Janata Party after Thackeray chose to resign.

The court had earlier reserved the order after all the parties concluded their arguments. (ANI)

Read More: lokmarg.com

Adani Group on hidenbrug report

Delhi Govt Ought To Have Control Of Services Subject To Public Order: SC

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favour of the Delhi government over control on services in the national capital and held it must have control over bureaucrats.

However, the court said the legislative power over services excludes public order, police and land.
The verdict is being seen as a victory for Aam Aadmi Party led by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The Supreme Court gave its verdict in the case related to the administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in Delhi.

The court said that control over services shall not extend to entries related to public order, police and land. Delhi government similar to other States represents the representative form of government and any further expansion of the Union’s power will be contrary to the Constitutional scheme, the court said.

Supreme Court held that if administrative services are excluded from the legislative and executive domains, the ministers would be excluded from controlling the civil servants who are to implement the executive decisions.

It said that states too have the power but the executive power of the State will be subject to the law existing of the Union. It has to be ensured that the governance of States is not taken over by the Union.

Supreme Court said in a democratic form of government, the real power of administration must rest with the elected government. If a democratically elected government is not given the power to control the officers, the principle of the triple chain of accountability will be redundant.

It said if the officers stop reporting to the ministers or do not abide by their directions, the principle of collective responsibility is affected. The officers feel they are insulated from the control of the government, which will dilute accountability and affect governance

CJI DY Chandrachud said they are unable to agree with Justice Ashok Bhushan in the split judgement of 2019.

A five-judge Constitution bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha pronounced the judgment on Thursday.

The five-judge bench had reserved its judgment on January 18 this year.

Governance of the national capital has witnessed a power struggle between the Centre and the Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) came to power in 2014.

The case was posted before a Constitution bench after a three-judge bench had in May 2021 decided to send it to a larger bench on a request by the Central government.

On February 14, 2019, a two-judge bench of the top court delivered a split verdict on the question of powers of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Union government over services and referred the matter to a three-judge Bench.

While Justice Ashok Bhushan had ruled the Delhi government has no power at all over administrative services, Justice AK Sikri, had said the transfer or posting of officers in top echelons of the bureaucracy (joint director and above) can only be done by the Central government and the view of the Lieutenant Governor would prevail in case of a difference of opinion for matters relating to other bureaucrats.

The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court which was hearing pleas on six matters pertaining to a long-running conflict between the Centre and the Delhi government, had given a unanimous order on the remaining five issues except the control over services.

Prior to February 2019 judgement, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had on July 4, 2018, laid down the broad parameters for governance of the national capital.

In the landmark verdict, it had unanimously held that Delhi cannot be accorded the status of a State but clipped the powers of the LG saying he has no “independent decision-making power” and has to act on the aid and advice of the elected government.

It had restricted the jurisdiction of the LG to matters pertaining to land, police and public order and on all other matters, it held that the LG would have to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. (ANI)

Read More: lokmarg.com

Manipur DGP

SC To Pronounce Verdict On Uddhav, Shinde Factions Tomorrow

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court is likely to deliver the verdict on Thursday on various petitions filed by the rival factions Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in connection with the Maharashtra political crisis.

The verdict will be delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
CJI Chandrachud on Wednesday said that “We are going to be delivering two judgments tomorrow.”

The five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha was dealing with the issue related to Maharashtra political crisis.

The court had earlier reserved the order after all the parties concluded their arguments.

The lawyer appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray camp had said that the illegal act of the Maharashtra Governor is a prior pending sub judice challenge before the trust vote.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray camp had said that political party has primacy in the relationship between the legislature and political party.

Kapil Sibal argued that the Constitution does not recognise any faction whether there is a majority or minority. Sibal further argued that the dissent was outside the House not inside the House.

CJI Chandrachud had sought to know from the lawyer of the Uddhav Thackeray camp whether the Governor cannot look at the number of members who say they want to withdraw support.

CJI noted that there was a group who did not want to support the then government and may face disqualification, which can affect the strength of the House.

Kapil Sibal replied that this used to take place when there was no tenth schedule of the Constitution. He said that the Govornor cannot call for a trust vote based on a faction as calling for a trust vote is based on alliances. He said that suddenly some members decided to withdraw support.

During the hearing, the top court had noted that a merger was not an option for the Shinde camp because it was not their case as a merger may lead to losing their political identity.

The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench earlier said it would decide later on referring the cases related to the Maharashtra political crisis to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration of a 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment on powers of Assembly Speakers to deal with disqualification pleas.

The hearing that went on for almost nine days had witnesses and arguments made by various senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi for the Uddhav camp and Harish Salve, NK Kaul and Mahesh Jethmalani for the Shinde camp.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackeray-led government as they did not want to continue.

During the hearing, the Court observed that Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government and called Maharashtra political crisis a serious issue for democracy.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the Maharashtra Governor,

apprised the Court with the fact that the rival legislators had written to the Governor about their unwillingness to continue with the then government and the Governor invited Thackeray to prove his majority.

Uddhav Thackeray camp had submitted before the Supreme Court that if a crisis like in Maharastra was permitted then it will have far-reaching consequences for the country as any government can be toppled. Uddhav Thackeray camp had also submitted that the rival camp had no defence under the tenth schedule.

Shinde Camp had argued before the Supreme Court that the head counting is not meant for taking place in Raj Bhavan but in the floor of the House and the Governor did nothing wrong by calling the floor test.

Countering the argument of the rival Uddhav Thackeray camp, Senior Advocate NK Kaul, appearing on behalf of the Shinde camp, said that political party and legislative party are conjoined and connected and the argument made by Uddhav Thackeray camp that the other factions represent the legislative party and not a political party is a fallacy. He also said that dissent is the hallmark of democracy. (ANI)

Read More: lokmarg.com

star wrestlers Bajrang Punia

I Have Full Faith In Judiciary: WFI Chief Brij Bhushan

By LokMarg

Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on Friday that he has full faith in the judiciary amid the sexual harrasment allegations against him levelled by several wrestlers.

Delhi Police on Friday apprised the Supreme Court that it agreed to register an FIR based on the allegations levelled by wrestlers against the WFI chief.
“I have full faith in the judiciary. I am not running anywhere. I am in my house. By now a case must have been filed against me. I will cooperate with Delhi Police. Whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, I will follow it. Ask the players who are protesting about the allegations against me,” Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh told ANI.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Delhi Police, apprised the SC bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud that Delhi Police will register the FIR by this evening.

Appearing for the wrestlers, senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court to also issue directions to provide safety to a minor girl, one of the petitioner wrestlers, due to the threat to her. Sibal said he is worried about the safety of the minor girl and other wrestlers.

SG Tushar Mehta said that all these concerns can be addressed by the police.

Top wrestlers have resumed their sit-in protest at Jantar Mantar here in the national capital after filing a complaint at the Connaught Place police station on Friday stating that seven female wrestlers, including one minor, were harassed and exploited by Brij Bhushan in his capacity as WFI chief.

Earlier in the day protesting wrestlers held a press conference at the Jantar Mantar in the national capital.

Tokyo Olympic bronze medallist wrestler Bajrang Punia and star wrestlers like Vinesh Phogat and Sakshi Malik on Friday said that they will continue their protest against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh until he is sent behind bars.

Indian wrestlers are protesting at Jantar Mantar in the national capital against WFI president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh over allegations of sexual harassment. Top Indian grapplers such as Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, Bajrang Punia, and many other wrestlers are involved in the protest against the WFI chief.

On the 6th day of the protest, wrestlers addressed the media after the Delhi Police agreed to register an FIR against the WFI President.

“I’d like to thank all the athletes who have come out in our support. Abhinav Bindra and Neeraj Chopra have supported us because they understand the value of athletes. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh should be imprisoned soon. He’d continue to misuse his position and he needs to be put behind bars. We’ll protest till the time he goes to jail. We also have to see the sections that the Delhi police have imposed on him. People who felt that our protest will be over after the FIR were wrong and we are in our right to decide on it. All of us protesting need security and the complainants need security because you never know who wants to harm us,” Bajrang Punia said at the press conference.

Star grappler Phogat appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to sack the WFI chief from all positions.

“We don’t trust Delhi police, they took 6 days to register an FIR. We’ll see what they do. We are adamant about our stand to imprison the WFI President. I appeal to the Prime Minister of India to remove the WFI president from all his responsibilities. This is related to all the sports and I’d urge them to come out in our support and I want to stay in touch with all of them. This is when you safeguard the future of sports and athletes in the country. All the renowned sports people should come out and support us and save Indian sports. If they don’t come out today, they’ll never be able to safeguard India’s sporting culture,” Vinesh Phogat said at the press conference.

“We have already given enough evidence and if anything else is required, we’ll present it to Supreme Court not to the Delhi police. This is not a fight to register an FIR. This is a fight against one person who already has 85 cases against him. We need to free wrestling of corrupt people. We’ll respect the decision made by Supreme Court and will act according to their orders,” she added.

“I’d like to thank all the women who’ve come out in our support. We don’t trust the Delhi police at all, they registered the FIR after Supreme Court’s orders. We just demand a fair investigation. We just want Brij Bhushan to be removed from all the positions and he should be punished accordingly and only then we’ll end our protest,” Sakshi Malik said. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Brij Bhushan on supreme court

Matter Is In Supreme Court, It Will Decide: Brij Bhushan

By LokMarg

Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on Tuesday did not directly reply to questions over protesting wrestlers’ allegations against him and said the matter is pending in the Supreme Court.

Some prominent wrestlers, who have resumed their protest seeking registration of criminal case on their allegations against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, moved the Supreme Court on Monday.
“The matter is in the Supreme Court and the court will decide,” Brij Bhushan Singh told media persons.

The wrestlers said they had resumed the protest as “no action has been taken in the matter”.

Ace India wrestler Sakshi Malik broke down while interacting with the media as wrestlers protested at Jantar Mantar.

Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Malik, and Bajrang Punia are among those who have resumed their protest over their demands.

“We wanted to file a sexual harassment FIR against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Two days ago we got a complaint filed but FIR hasn’t been registered yet. There are seven female wrestlers and one of them is a minor. We want the investigation to happen fast. It is a sensitive matter. We are being framed as liars which we cannot bear. We are waiting for two-and-a-half months now but no one is listening. People are saying we are spent force that is why we are protesting. We just won a medal at CWG 2022,” Sakshi Malik told the media at Jantar Mantar.

“It is being heard that we are finished, that’s why we are protesting. For two and a half months the government has not taken any action. We cannot reveal the name of a minor,” she added.

Bajrang Punia, Vinesh Phogat, Ravi Dahiya, and Sakshi Malik, held a sit-in protest in Jantar Mantar in January this year, demanding that Brij Bhushan be removed from and the Wrestling Federation of India be disbanded. They had accused the body and its chief of sexual harassment and mistreatment of wrestlers.

Following the protest, the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports announced the formation of an ‘oversight committee’ to probe the allegations.

Olympic medalist Mary Kom is heading the Oversight Committee. Former wrestler Yogeshwar Dutt, former shuttler Trupti Murgunde, SAI member Radhica Sreeman, ex-CEO of the Target Olympic Podium Plan Rajesh Rajagopalan, and CWG gold medalist Babita Phogat are the other members of the Mary Kom-led committee. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

LGBTQIA

Hope To See Legal Stamp On Rainbow Marriages Of Our Children: Parents Of LGBTQIA+ Children

By LokMarg

In a letter to the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the parents of Indian LGBTQIA+ children appealed to consider the plea for Marriage Equality and added that “we hope to see the legal stamp on rainbow marriages of our children in our lifetime.”

The letter written by the parents of Indian LGBTQIA+ children from a group named Sweekar – The Rainbow Parents, stated, “We desire to see our children and our children-in-law find legal acceptance for their relationship under the Special Marriages Act in our country. We are certain that a nation as big as ours, which respects its diversity and stands for the value of inclusion, will open its legal gates of Marriage Equality to our children too. We are growing old. Some of us will touch 80 soon. We hope that we get to see the legal stamp on the rainbow marriages of our children in our lifetime.”
Sweekar – The Rainbow Parents is a support group for parents of LGBTQIA+ by parents of LGBTQIA+ to help navigate their journey towards acceptance. There are more than 400+ parents from the length and breadth of the nation.

The letter further stated, “We are appealing to you to consider the plea for Marriage Equality.”

“From knowing about gender and sexuality to understanding the lives of our children, to finally accepting their sexuality and their loved one – we have gone through the whole gamut of emotions. We empathise with those who are opposing Marriage Equality because some of us were there too. It took us education, debate, and patience with our LGBTQIA+ children to realize that their lives, feelings, and desires are valid,” the parents said.

“Similarly, we hope that those who oppose Marriage Equality will come around too. We have faith in the people of India, the constitution and the democracy of our nation,” said the parents of Indian LGBTQIA+ children.

On September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of India read down section 377 to decriminalize consensual sexual relationships. In doing so, with its statements, it ascertained that their children should be treated with dignity and acceptance, The Rainbow Parents said.

The letter further said that Gender and Sexuality made to election manifestos and corporate India has also begun opening up gradually to the idea of queer lives.

“Society is a changing and evolving phenomenon. Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, the judgment by the honourable Supreme Court created a ripple effect on society and has helped move the needle from hate to tolerance to acceptance,” the rainbow parents said. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Lalit Modi contempt case

Lalit Modi Contempt Case Closed, SC Warns Him Against Any Future Remarks

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday closed the contempt proceedings against former IPL chairman Lalit Modi for making contemptuous remarks against the Indian judiciary after he tendered an unconditional apology.

A bench of Justice MR Shah and CR Ravikumar directed Modi to desist from any such activity to tarnish the image of the judiciary.
Court always believes in forgiveness when an apology is tendered unconditionally and with a broad heart, Justice Shah said while accepting his apology.

The apex court warned Modi that any such attempt to tarnish the judiciary would be taken “very seriously”.

“We accept the unconditional apology. We remind the respondent (Modi) that any such attempt on his part in future, which would be tantamount to remotely tarnishing the image of the Indian judiciary and courts, will be seen very seriously. We accept the unconditional apology with a broad heart because the court always believes in forgiveness more particularly when an apology is tendered unconditionally and from the bottom of the heart. Accepting the apology we close the present proceedings,” the bench stated in its order.

It further said that its only concern was that everybody should respect the institution as a whole.

Last week, the bench directed Modi to tender an unconditional apology on social media platforms and national newspapers for his remarks against the judiciary and slammed him for his remarks.

The bench had observed that Modi is not above the law and the institution and also directed him to file an affidavit before it tendering an apology.

The affidavit has to state that no such posts will be made in future which would be tantamount, even remotely, to tarnish the image of the Indian judiciary, the apex court had said.

Senior advocate CU Singh had filed the contempt plea against Modi saying he made a tweet on March 30, 2023 which tarnished the image of judiciary and made scandalous remarks against judges.

Earlier, the apex court while hearing an application in connection with remarks made by Modi against senior advocate and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had orally observed that lawyers should not be involved in a family outburst.

It had orally instructed Modi’s counsel senior advocate Harish Salve to use his ‘good office’ and advise his client to take ‘remedial measures’.

Salve had told the bench that the post made against Rohatgi has been taken down.

Modi had made some comments on the Instagram post about Rohatgi. Later, through another post, he reportedly apologised to the senior advocate.

Former Attorney General and senior advocate Rohatgi is one of the counsels representing Bina Modi, mother of Modi, in the vexatious property dispute.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Bina Modi, had submitted that there was an undertaking that there would be no posts while mediation was going on.

On January 19, the apex court had agreed to examine a plea alleging Modi made some “scurrilous” remarks in a social media post against Rohatgi and the judiciary.

In August 2022, the apex court appointed former top court judge Justice RV Raveendran as a mediator to settle the family property dispute involving the former IPL head and his mother Bina Modi, wife of late industrialist KK Modi. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/