Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Archives - Lokmarg

Yasin’s Presence In SC Was Serious Security Lapse: Solicitor General

By LokMarg 21st July 2023

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Friday expressed his concern at Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chief Yasin Malik’s presence in the Supreme Court today and wrote a letter to Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla, flagging the issue of security to Malik.

Yasin Malik, who is serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail after being convicted in a terror funding case, was presented before the top court for a hearing on a CBI plea against Jammu court order.
Stating that Yasin Malik’s presence in Supreme Court was a serious security lapse raising apprehension that he could have escaped, forcibly taken away or could have been killed, Mehta said, “It is my firm view that this is a serious security lapse. A person with a terrorist and secessionist background like Mr Yasin Malik who is not only a convict in a terror funding case but has known connections with terror organisations in Pakistan could have escaped, could have been forcibly taken away or could have been killed.”

In his letter to Bhalla, Mehta further said that even the security of the Supreme Court also would have been put at serious risk if any untoward incident were to happen.

“In any view of the matter so long as the order under section 268 of CrP Code subsists, jail authorities had no power to bring him out of jail premises nor did they have any reason to do so,” the SG said.

The Solicitor General further said that considering this to be a matter serious enough to once again bring it to your personal notice so that suitable action and steps can be taken at your end.

In the letter, it was mentioned about an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to the said Yasin Malik under section 268 Criminal Code of Procedure which prevents the jail authorities to bring the said convict out of the jail premises for security reasons.

“Everyone was shocked when news was received that the jail authorities are bringing Yasin Malik personally to appear before the Supreme Court as per his desire to appear as party in person,” he said.

The letter also mentioned about SG had telephonically intimated Home Secretary about this fact, however, by that time Yasin Malik had already reached the precincts of the Supreme Court of India.

Neither the Court had summoned his personal presence nor was any permission taken from any authority of the Supreme Court of India in this regard.

“When I enquired from the officer who was in charge of the security of Mr Yasin Malik in the Supreme Court, the only thing he could show me was a printed notice in a general format of the Supreme Court which is sent with regard to every party to any matter in the Court. The said printed notice informs the recipients of the notice to appear before the Court either in person or through an authorised Advocate,” SG said.

He also said that printed notice in a general format of the Supreme Court is not either the permission of the Supreme Court to bring a convict facing an order under section 268 of CrP Code to come out of jail nor it is requiring mandatory personal presence of the recipient of the order. (ANI)

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)

Split Verdict In Hijab Case, Matter To Be Placed Before CJI

By LokMarg 13th October 2022

The Supreme Court on Thursday pronounced a split verdict in the Karnataka Hijab ban case.

A bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced the judgement today.
Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the petitions against the hijab ban, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed them.

One of the lawyers representing the petitioner said that the matter would be placed before the Chief Justice of India and he would decide whether a new bench would hear the matter or the matter gets referred to a larger bench.

Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order which had upheld the state government’s order to ban wearing hijabs in educational institutions of the state

Justice Gupta said, “There is a divergence of opinion. In my order, I have framed 11 questions. First is whether the appeal should be referred to the Constitution Bench.”

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed the appeals and set aside the Karnataka High Court order.

“It’s a matter of choice, nothing more nothing less,” Justice Dhulia said while pronouncing the order.

The apex court had earlier reserved its order on various petitions challenging Karnataka High Court upholding the ban on hijab in educational institutes.

The arguments in the matter went on for 10 days in which 21 lawyers from the petitioners’ side and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, Karnataka Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi argued for the respondents.

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.

Addressing the court, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, in his rejoinder submission had said that the Karnataka Government Circular which enforced the dress code has no reference to the Popular Front of India (PFI).

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 this year when the Government PU College in Udupi allegedly barred six girls wearing the hijab from entering. Following this, the girls sat in protest 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)