Chief Justice DY Chandrachud Archives - Lokmarg

SC Nixes Electoral Bond Scheme As Violative Of RTI, Article 19 (1)A

By LokMarg 15th February 2024

A five-judge bench of Chief Justice of Inda DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered a unanimous verdict on Thursday, striking down the Electoral Bonds scheme as unconstitutional

The bench was ruling on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the Central government’s Electoral Bonds Scheme, which allows for anonymous funding to political parties.

At the start of the judgement, CJI Chandrachud said there are two opinions, one by himself and another by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and both arrive at same conclusion.

The bench said that the petitions raised two main issues; whether amendments are violative of right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and whether unlimited corporate funding violated free and fair elections.

The CJI while reading out his judgement said that the Supreme Court holds that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of Right to Information and Article 19(1)(a).

The Supreme Court said that information about corporate contributors through Electoral Bonds must be disclosed as the donations by companies are purely for quid pro quo purposes.

The court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court said infringement to the Right to Information is not justified for the purpose of curbing black money.

The Apex Court ordered banks to forthwith stop issuing Electoral Bonds and that the State Bank of India (SBI) shall furnish the details of Electoral Bonds encashed by the political parties. The court said that SBI should submit the details to the Election Commisison of India and ECI shall publish these details on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud had on November 2 last year reserved its verdict in the matter.

The scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.

According to the provisions of the scheme, only the political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and which secured not less than 1 per cent of the votes polled in the last elections to the Lok Sabha or a state legislative assembly are eligible to receive electoral bonds.

An Electoral Bond is an instrument in the nature of a promissory note or bearer bond which can be purchased by any individual, company, firm or association of persons provided the person or body is a citizen of India or incorporated or established in India.

The bonds are issued specifically for the purpose of contribution of funds to political parties. The Centre in an affidavit had said that the methodology of the Electoral Bonds scheme are “completely transparent” mode of political funding and it is impossible to get black money or unaccounted money.

Various petitions had been pending before the top court challenging amendments made to different statutes through Finance Act 2017 and Finance Act 2016 on the ground that they have opened doors to unlimited, unchecked funding of political parties. (ANI)

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

LGBTQ Members Should Not Be Stigamatised: Petitioner In SC

By LokMarg 18th April 2023

A petitioner on Tuesday argued before the Supreme Court that LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community should not be stigmatised but assimilated with society by allowing marriage equality.

During the hearing, the court remarked that the present matter shall be restricted to the Special Marriage Act and not interfere with personal laws.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners said that the members of the LGBTQ+ shall not be stigmatised and should be assimilated within the society. The assimilation of members of the LGBTQ+ will only happen after state accepts the same-sex marriage, the lawyer argued.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha was hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to ‘marriage equality rights for LGBTQAI+ community’.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta submitted that Hindus and Muslims will be affected and stressed that states should be heard while deciding the issue.

SG Mehta said that the legislative intent throughout has been that marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman.

CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that the very notion of a biological man is absolute which is inherent. SG Mehta responded that biological man means biological man and there is no notion. But CJI remarked that there is no such thing as an absolute concept of biological man and woman.

SG Mehta’s submission was made while he was stressing SC to hear the first Centre application which raised preliminary issues to the present petitions and said that question pending before the top court Bench is to deal with the creation of a socio-legal relationship of marriage. SG Mehta said that this is in the domain of the legislature.

SG Mehta also submitted that there is no legal lacuna in the transgender act and apprised that there is a clarification that none will discriminate against transgender persons. SG Tushar Mehta said that there are provisions of reservation for transgender

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the top court in various judgements such as Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India and KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India have already recognised the rights of the members of the LGBTQ+ community.

The petitioner’s lawyer urged the top court that the Supreme Court should now provide positive rights by granting the declaration of marriage equality rights to all people including to same-sex couples.

The members of the LGBTQ+ shall not be stigmatised and should be assimilated within society. The assimilation of members of the LGBTQ+ will only happen after state accepts the same-sex marriage, the lawyer argued.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the intervening applicants, raised the question that what will happen to the adopted child or other various things if the marriage breaks down between the same-sex couple. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said these issues cannot be done in piecemeal. He pointed out that it is a very complex issue which will have ramifications.

Senior advocate Rohatgi argued about the Roman emperor Nero who married twice, two men, at that time. He also apprised the court about widow remarriage which was earlier not accepted by society.

Countering the Centre’s submission, senior advocate Rohatgi said that the choice of an individual is not an “elitist concept” but it is innate and people are born with it like Nero.

Senior Advocate Rohatgi said it can not be criminalized but same-sex couples are being stigmatized.

Advocate Rohtagi made further submissions that the rights of people of the LGBTQAI+ community are already envisaged in the Constitution of India as well as by the top Court over time. He submitted that the top Court is not expected to reinvent the wheel, and rather only seeks an affirmative declaration of rights which are already held to be enshrined within the conspectus of the Constitution in a catena of decisions.

Rohatgi urged the Court that it is the conscience keeper of the Constitution of India and it cannot be a defence for the State to contend that the Petitioners should await appropriate legislation by the Parliament on the issue.

The matter, which is being heard day-to-day, will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday. (ANI)

SC permits Adoption Of Child Of Unmarried Girl Who Earlier Sought Abortion

By LokMarg 2nd February 2023

The Supreme Court on Thursday permitted the adoption of the child of a 21-year-old girl who had earlier sought abortion of 29-week pregnancy but later agreed to deliver the child, and also directed AIIMS to ensure that all necessary facilities are made available so that the delivery can take place in a safe environment.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud with justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution taking regard to the extraordinary situation as a young woman in distress moved the top court at a late stage of her pregnancy.
“We are adopting the present course of action consistent with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution having regard to the extraordinary situation which has emerged before the Court involving a young woman in distress, who moved this Court at a late stage of her pregnancy,” the bench said.

The court said that the delivery of the child by the petitioner shall take place at AIIMS.

The court requested the Director of AIIMS to ensure that all necessary facilities are made available without the payment of fees, charges or expenses of any nature so that the delivery can take place in a safe environment at AIIMS.

“The privacy of the petitioner shall be maintained and all steps shall be taken to ensure that the identity of the petitioner is not divulged in the course of the hospitalization at AIIMS,” the court clarified.

The court also granted permission for adoption and said, “Permission is granted for the adoption of the child by the prospective parents whose details have been set out in the CARA registration form. CARA shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the implementation of this order.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati have apprised the Court that an effort has been made to facilitate the process of adoption of the child after delivery, by prospective parents who are registered with the Child Adoption Resource Authority

under the auspices of the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development.

The Court was also apprised of the fact that two prospective parents who have been registered with a parent registration number under CARA are ready and willing to adopt the child.

“We are adopting the present course of action consistent with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution having regard to the extraordinary situation which has emerged before the Court involving a young woman in distress, who moved this Court at a late stage of her pregnancy,” the court said.

The adoption situation was taken care of after the court noted that the petitioner does not wish to retain the child with her after delivery and would not be in a position to care for the child.

“In the circumstances, having regard to the late stage of the pregnancy, it has been considered in the best interest of the mother and the fetus that the child, upon delivery, may be given in adoption,” the court said.

The petitioner is reported to have lost her father during the Covid-19 pandemic and has a mother, who is unwell. The petitioner also has a married sister who is about ten years older than her. ASG Aishwarya Bhati has informed the Court that she has also interacted with the sister of the petitioner to explore whether she would be willing to take the child in adoption, however, the sister expressed her inability to do so for a variety of reasons.

The Supreme Court earlier asked the director of AIIMS, Delhi, to constitute a team of doctors on Friday to examine whether the termination of 29 weeks pregnancy of an unmarried B. Tech student can be conducted safely.

It has also asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to assist the court in the case.

The lawyer appearing for the girl told the bench that she is living in a hostel in Ghaziabad. He said the girl wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy which is approximately 29 weeks. Advocates Amit Mishra and Rahul Sharma were the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

SC Seeks Gujarat Govt’s Response On Godhra Convicts’ Bail Pleas

By LokMarg 30th January 2023

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Gujarat government to file a reply on the bail pleas of some convicts in the 2002 Godhra train coach-burning case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the Gujarat government to file a reply on the bail pleas.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, said that this is not a matter of stone pelting but that a bogey with 59 passengers inside was locked which led to the death of several passengers.

Solicitor General’s response came when a senior advocate of some convicts submitted the state government has filed appeals against the Gujarat High Court order which has commuted the sentence of some convicts from the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Around 58 people lost their lives when some coaches of Sabarmati Express were torched at the Godhra Railway Station in Gujarat on February 27, 2002. The incident triggered large-scale riots in Gujarat.

A local court in 2011 convicted 31 accused and acquitted 63 people. Eleven accused were sentenced death penalty while the rest were awarded life imprisonment.

Later Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court decision to convict the 31 accused but commuted the death sentence of 11 to life imprisonment. The convicts then moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court order. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

SC To Hear Plea Against Centre’s Decision To Ban BBC Documentary

By LokMarg 30th January 2023

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list on February 6 a Public Interest Litigation against the Centre’s decision to ban a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots in the country.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said it would list the matter for hearing on next Monday.
Advocate ML Sharma, who has filed the PIL, mentioned the matter for an early hearing.

The PIL sought quashing of the January 21 order of the Centre, terming it “illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and unconstitutional”.

Meanwhile, senior advocate CU Singh also mentioned before the bench on how tweets by senior journalist N Ram and advocate Prashant Bhushan with links to the BBC documentary were deleted using “emergency powers” and how students from Ajmer were suspended for streaming the documentary.

The PIL filed by advocate Sharma also urged the apex court to call and examine the BBC documentary – both parts I and II – and sought action against persons who were responsible and were involved directly and indirectly with the 2002 Gujarat riots.

PIL has raised a constitutional question and the apex court has to decide whether citizens have the right under Article 19 (1) (2) to see news, facts, and reports on the 2002 Gujarat riots, Sharma said.

“Issue writ of mandamus to the Respondent for quashing of the impugned order dated January 21, 2023, issued under rule 16 of IT rule 2021 being illegal, malafide and arbitrary unconstitutional and void ab-initio and ultra vires to the Constitution of India to provide complete justice,” the PIL stated.

As per the sources, on January 21, the Centre issued directions for blocking multiple YouTube videos and Twitter posts sharing links to the controversial BBC documentary.

Whether the central government can curtail freedom of the press which is a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (2) of the Constitution, asked the PIL.

It added, “Whether without having an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution of India by the president, Emergency provisions can be invoked by the central government?” (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

K’taka Hijab Ban: SC Assures To Consider Listing The Matter Before Three-Judge Bench

By LokMarg 23rd January 2023

The Supreme Court on Monday assured the petitioners to list the matter pertaining to the ban on Hijab in the educational institutes in Karnataka.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora mentioned the matter related to the headscarves before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
Arora said that many girls have lost out on the entire year because they have refused to take off their hijab.

She also apprised the court about practicals in educational institutes in February and sought an early hearing for interim directions.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud assured that it will list the matter and give a date. The court also observed that the matter would be heard by a three-judge bench of the top court.

The court asked the lawyer to mention the matter before the registrar.

The top court had earlier given a verdict on various petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court order which upheld the ban on Hijab in educational institutes.

Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeal while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed it. The matter was thereafter referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate direction due to divergent opinions.

The judgement was given by a two-judge of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The court was hearing various pleas against Karnataka HC’s judgement upholding the Karnataka Government’s decision to direct educational institutes to prescribe uniforms in educational institutes.

Various petitioners have approached the apex court challenging the Karnataka HC order upholding the Karnataka government’s order which directs strict enforcement of schools and colleges’ uniform rules.

One of the appeals in the top court has alleged “step-motherly behaviour of government authorities which has prevented students from practising their faith and resulted in an unwanted law and order situation”.

The appeal said the High Court in its impugned order “had vehemently failed to apply its mind and was unable to understand the gravity of the situation as well as the core aspect of the Essential Religious Practices enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India”.

A bench of Karnataka High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit, and Justice JM Khazi had earlier held that the prescription of uniform is a reasonable restriction that students could not object to and dismissed various petitions challenging a ban on Hijab in education institutions saying they are without merit.

The Hijab row erupted in January 2022 when the Government PU College in Udupi allegedly barred six girls wearing the hijab from entering. Following this, the girls protested outside the college over being denied entry.

After this, boys from several colleges in Udupi started attending classes wearing saffron scarves. This protest spread to other parts of the state as well leading to protests and agitations in several places in Karnataka.

As a result, the Karnataka government said that all students must adhere to the uniform and banned both hijab and saffron scarves till an expert committee decided on the issue.

On February 5, the pre-University education board released a circular stating that the students could only wear the uniform approved by the school administration and that no other religious attire would be allowed in colleges. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/