Tag: Supreme Court

‘We Did Not Expect Such Insensitivity’: Protesting Farmers Refuse To Meet Committee Formed By SC

By LokMarg

Jagjit Singh Dallewal, the convener of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) said that the protesting farmers will not meet the Committee formed by the Supreme Court.

The farmers were to hold a meeting with the committee on Wednesday but refused to meet citing several reasons including holding talks with the central government being one of them.

In his letter addressed to retired Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge Justice Nawab Singh (Committee head), Dallewal said, “As you may already be aware, I have been on a hunger strike at the Khanauri border since November 26. Today marks the 22nd day of my strike, and I trust you are apprised of my medical condition. My hunger strike was announced on November 4 by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (non-political) and the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha, which was 43 days ago. Since then, 22 days have passed since the strike began.”

He highlighted that farmers attempting to march on foot to Delhi from the Shambhu border faced police brutality, allegedly resulting in injuries to over 40 farmers.

“Committee was formed by the Supreme Court to rebuild trust between the farmers and the government, yet you have made no concrete efforts in this direction nor engaged in any serious discussions with the central government to fulfil our legitimate demands,” Dallewal said.

He also asserted that both of the organizations were already sceptical that such committees are formed merely as a formality.

“Nonetheless, respecting you and your committee, our delegation met with you on November 4. However, despite the gravity of the situation, your committee has not found the time to visit the Khanauri and Shambhu borders. It deeply saddens me to see that you have acted only after such a significant delay,” he said.

“Was this committee waiting for my demise? We did not expect such insensitivity from esteemed members of your committee. Considering my medical condition and the plight of the injured farmers at the Shambhu border, both of our organizations have decided that we are unable to attend the meeting with you. Henceforth, any discussions regarding our demands will only take place directly with the central government,” Dallewal added.

In September, the apex court constituted a committee headed by Justice Nawab Singh (Retd) to look into the demands and grievances of farmers agitating at the Shambhu border.

On Tuesday, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Food Processing presented its First Report (Eighteenth Lok Sabha) on the ‘Demands for Grants (2024-25)’ for the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to the Lok Sabha.

The report was submitted by former Punjab Chief Minister and incumbent MP from Jalandhar, Charanjit Singh Channi, who also serves as the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Food Processing.

A notable recommendation of the report is to provide a Minimum Support Price (MSP) to Farmers as a Legal Guarantee.

The Committee observed that the implementation of MSP remains central to discussions on agricultural reforms and farmers’ welfare in India. It emphasised that a legally binding MSP could reduce farmer suicides by ensuring financial stability, mitigating market volatility, and alleviating debt burdens.

Another key recommendation is the Introduction of a scheme to waive off farmers’ and farm labourers’ debt.

The ongoing farmers’ protests entered their 311th day on Tuesday.

“There is pressure from 140 crore Indians, 3 crore Punjabis, and 2.5 crore Haryanvis on the Modi government. We have 12 demands,” Pandher stated. “The singers of Punjab have turned this into a people’s movement,” farmer leader Sarwan Singh Pandher said earlier.

Appealing for public support, he said, “Support farmers’ protests as much as possible. Punjabis need to fight as one.”

Congress MP Manickam Tagore, on Tuesday, moved an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha to discuss Jagjit Singh Dallewal’s hunger strike.

“Dallewal, the president of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Ekta Sidhupur), is in critical condition, with medical experts advising immediate hospitalisation due to his deteriorating health. Despite this, he has refused medical intervention, insisting on continuing his hunger strike for the farmers’ cause,” Tagore noted.

He urged the central government to take immediate action and engage in a meaningful dialogue with farmers’ representatives. (ANI)

The Federation of All India Medical Associations (FAIMA)

Udhayanidhi Made Remarks Voluntarily; Can’t Claim Same Immunity As Media

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday told the Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin that he cannot claim to be in the same position as media and news channels while seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him for his “eradicate Sanatan Dharma” remark.

“You (Stalin) have made the statements voluntarily,” said a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.

The observation of the bench came as Stalin, while seeking the apex court’s intervention to club all the FIRs lodged against him in the matter, relied on judgements rendered by the Supreme Court in cases involving journalists such as Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami, Mohammed Zubair, Amish Devgan and Nupur Sharma.

The bench said, “After all, you have made the statements voluntarily. And the cases you cited–those were news media people who were working as per the diktats of their bosses to get TRPs. You cannot compare yourself to the media.”

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for them highlighted the case of BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, against whom multiple FIRs were lodged in different States and later transferred to one State.

“Nupur Sharma is a pure politician,” Singhvi told the bench.

The top court then questioned why Stalin had filed a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 (remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights) of the Constitution instead of invoking Section 406 (power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench then ordered Stalin to amend his plea and file it under Section 406 CrPC and listed the matter for hearing in the week commencing on May 6.

Earlier, the apex court frowned upon Stalin over his remarks calling for the eradication of ‘Sanatana Dharma’ and told him that he is “not a layman but a minister” and he should know the consequences of his remarks.

“You abuse your rights under freedom of speech and expression and right to freedom of religion and then come to Supreme Court for protection under Article 32? Do you not know the consequences of what you said?,” the bench had asked Stalin’s counsel.

Stalin approached the apex court seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him in several states over his remarks.

He sought relief from the top court to club all the FIRs, saying FIRs are registered in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir and Maharashtra.

DMK leader Stalin made remarks comparing ‘Sanatana Dharma’ to diseases like ‘malaria’ and ‘dengue’ while advocating for its elimination on the grounds that it was rooted in the caste system and historical discrimination.

His remarks triggered a massive political controversy across the country. It led to several criminal complaints being filed against him. (ANI)

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

Gyanvapi Masjid Committee

Gyanvapi: SC Refuses Stay Allowing Puja In Vyas Tehkhana

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the Allahabad High Court order, which had upheld the Varanasi district court’s order allowing Hindus to perform prayers of deities inside the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’, southern celler of Gyanvapi mosque.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ordered the Hindu and Muslim sides to maintain the status quo at the Gyanvapi premises to enable both communities to offer ‘puja’ and ‘namaz’.

The status quo should not be altered without the permission of the apex court, said the bench.

The bench took note that the access to the Tehkhana where the ‘puja’ is held and the area where Muslims pray are different.

The top court said that Hindus would enter from the South and pray in Tehkhana and Muslims would enter from the Northern side for prayer.

“At this stage, bearing in mind the fact that namaz is being offered by Muslim communities unhindered after the district court and High Court orders and that prayers in Tehkhana are limited to the Hindu priests, it is important to maintain the status quo, so that both communities can perform religious worship in above terms,” the bench stated in its order.

During the hearing, the apex court also noted the Muslims were offering prayer unhindered and the offering of ‘puja’ was confined to the area of Tehkhana only.

“Are we correct to say that prayers in the South (cellar) do not impact (Muslim) prayers In North. If this is correct.. we can say let no further change happen in the status quo further. We say let namaz continue and worship in the south cellar can continue,” said CJI Chandrachud during the hearing.

It further issued notice to Hindu plaintiffs on an appeal of mosque committee challenging an order of Allahabad High Court over ‘puja’ of deities inside the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’.

The top court now posted the matter for hearing in July.

Mosque committee filed appeal against High Court order contending that the administration was acting in ‘hot haste’ soon after the Varanasi Court’s order to perform the ‘Puja’ at night.

On January 31, Varanasi district court allowed the Hindu side to offer prayers in the southern cellar of Gyanvapi mosque. The court directed the Varanasi district magistrate to make arrangements within seven days for ‘puja’ to be performed by the Hindu side and a poojari nominated by Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.

After the order of the court, ‘puja’ and ‘aarti’ are being performed there.

The district court has issued the order on the plea of head priest of Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth temple, Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas, seeking worship of Shringar Gauri and other visible, and invisible deities in the cellar of the mosque. Vyas is the scion of the family which was performing ‘puja’ in this cellar till December 1993.

The plea had said Vyas’s maternal grandfather, priest Somnath Vyas, used to perform prayers there till 1993 when the cellar was closed by the authorities.

The ASI survey, ordered by the same court, in connection with a related case, suggested that the mosque was constructed during Aurangzeb’s rule over the remains of a Hindu temple. (ANI)

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

NCP Vs NCP

SC Questions TN Governor’s Conduct For Not Appointing K Ponmudy As Minister

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the conduct of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi over his decision to refuse to appoint K Ponmudy as a minister in the state cabinet and said that he had defied the order of the top court.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, made these observations while hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s plea challenging the Governor’s decision to refuse to appoint K Ponmudy as minister in the state cabinet.

The court, while adjourning the matter for tomorrow, also remarked that if it doesn’t hear anything in a positive manner over the issue, then it may pass the order with certain observations.

CJI noted that Ponmudy’s conviction has been stayed by the top court and in spite of that, the Tamil Nadu Governor is not allowing him to swear in. The top court remarked, “Attorney General, what is your Governor doing, Please tell the Governor that it is going to make some observations now.”

The Supreme Court said that after the top court stayed Ponmudy’s conviction, how could the governor say that, Ponmudy’s re-induction as the Minister would be against constitutional morality?

CJI Chandrachud said, “We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor in this case. We did not want to say it out loud in court but you are now constraining us to say that aloud.”

The top court commented that the Governor is defying the Supreme Court of India. The bench also remarked that when a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stays a conviction, the Governor has no business to tell us that this does not wipe off the conviction and observed that those who have advised the Governor have not advised him correctly. Now the Governor better be informed that when the Supreme Court of India stays a conviction, then law has to follow its course, the court said.

The court was dealing with the TN government’s plea against the Governor’s decision refusing to appoint Ponmudy as minister. In the plea, TN Government has urged the top court to issue directions to appoint K Ponmudy as a Member of Legislative Assembly as a Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

Recently, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has refused to accept the recommendation of Chief Minister MK Stalin to appoint K Ponmudy as a minister after he was reinstated as an MLA.

The TN Government submitted that the letter of the Governor refusing to accede to Chief Minister’s request to appoint Ponmudy as the Higher Education Minister amounts to a blatant breach of Article 164(1) of the Constitution and is liable to be set aside. The TN Government said that the Governor is attempting to run a parallel government and is attempting to choose a minister as per his subjective assessment of suitability, which is impermissible.

Disqualified Tamil Nadu minister and DMK senior leader K Ponmudy was reinstated days after the Supreme Court stayed his conviction and three-year jail sentence in a disproportionate asset case on March 13, 2024.

Reinstating Ponmudy, the state legislative assembly speaker, M Appavu, has said he will continue as a member of the Legislative Assembly. However, the Governor has expressed his inability to appoint Ponmudy as a minister again.

Notably, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered a case against Ponmudy and his wife, Visalakshi, in 2011.

Ponmudy was also the minister for higher education and mines during the DMK regime from 2006 to 2011. (ANI)

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

supreme court women dr

Krishna Janambhooomi: SC Disposes Plea Over Consolidation Of 15 Suits

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of the Idgah Committee plea challenging the Allahabad High Court decision to consolidate 15 suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.

A bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that an application to recall the order under challenge is pending before the High Court.

The Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah has challenged Allahabad High Court decision to consolidate fifteen suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.

Allahabad High Court on January 11, 2024, directed to consolidate fifteen suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.

After the hearing, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, told ANI that the Supreme Court asked Shahi Idgah Masjid to present its case in Allahabad High Court.

“Supreme Court asked Shahi Idgah Masjid to present its case in Allahabad High Court. Allahabad High Court had consolidated 15 cases suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute to hear them together and today Shahi Idgah Masjid came to the Supreme Court against that order,” Vishnu Shankar Jain said.

“Supreme Court said that the Idgah Committee has already filed a recall application against the order of consolidation of the Allahabad High Court, so first the recall application should be decided and then you can approach the Supreme Court,” he added.

In the plea, the Idgah Committee said that 15 different suits have been hurriedly consolidated without a proper hearing and the HC’s order deserves to be set aside as the suits have been filed by different parties with competing claims against one another and seeking different reliefs and as such, the consolidation of these suits is bound to lead to severe miscarriage of justice.

The various matters relating to Mathura’s Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute are being dealt in different legal forums.

Earlier, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah has filed an appeal in the top court challenging 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 by 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/

Trinamool Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Derek O'Brien ECI

TMC’s O’Brien Calls For Supreme Court-Monitored Election

By LokMarg

Trinamool Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien on Tuesday demanded Supreme Court-monitored Lok Sabha polls alleging that BJP’s tricks are destroying the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The TMC leader hit out at the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) accusing them of manipulating the electoral landscape ahead of the Lok Sabha elections.

“BJP’s filthy tricks destroying institutions like ECI. Are BJP so nervous to face people that they are turning ECI into a party office to target Oppn? ECI or HMV? Transferring officers of elected State govts! For free & fair elections. We want a Supreme Court-monitored election,” O’Brien stated in a post on X.

Earlier TMC Spokesperson Kunal Ghosh had also criticised the Union Government after the ECI took the decision to replace DGP Rajeev Kumar.

“We have seen that the BJP is trying its best to grab different organisations including ECI. They have taken over the control of central agencies and different organisations. In this case also, after the announcement of Lok Sabha elections, what we saw today is the reflection of BJP. It is trying its best to grab and monitor the functioning of these kinds of organisations, including ECI” Kunal Ghosh said.

The Trinamool Congress’ claims come after DGP of West Bengal Raveev Kumar was replaced with a new IPS Officer Vivek Sahay by the ECI. The ECI took this decision in anticipation of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. The ECI said the steps to replace the Bengal DGP and Home Secretaries of six states were aimed at upholding the principles of transparency, fairness and freedom in the electoral process.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday issued orders for the removal of Home Secretaries in six states namely Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Apart from this, the ECI also ordered the removal of certain key officials of six states in what it termed a decisive move towards upholding the principles of free, fair and transparent elections.

Additionally, the Secretary of the General Administrative Department in Mizoram and Himachal Pradesh have also been removed.

The Lok Sabha polls in West Bengal will be held in 7 phases starting April 19. In the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections TMC won 22 seats with a vote share of 43.7 percent while the BJP won 18 seats with a vote share of 40.6 percent. The Congress had won two seats in the state. (ANI)

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

Satyendar Jain

SC Rejects Bail Plea Of Jain In Money Laundering Case

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in the money laundering case, asking him to surrender forthwith.

A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the appeal filed by Jain.

The court also rejected the bail plea of the other two co-accused Ankush and Vaibhav Jain.

On May 26, Satyendar Jain was granted interim bail for six weeks on medical grounds and later it was extended from time to time.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), had taken court through concurrent findings of the trial court and high court and other details related to the case.

Countering the ED submission, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Jain, had said that his client had been incarcerated for a year. He also remarked that probe agencies are trying to convert an income tax case into a money laundering matter.

The Senior Advocate urged the top court to grant bail to Jain saying that he is not a flight risk and threat to witness. The senior advocate also said that this is a matter of life and liberty for Jain.

The Enforcement Directorate has opposed the bail plea of former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain and had submitted before the top court that whenever he wants to be out of jail he moves bail on medical grounds and, stays in hospital. Whenever there is an argument on the bail in the court, he falls down, which is a strange coincidence. However, Jain’s counsel called the submission baseless.

Meanwhile, the hearing on Jain’s bail witnessed many twists and turns in December 2023, as Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud explained why the matter was listed before a different combination of bench 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 matter from him because he would 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. Later, the matter was listed before a bench of Justice Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Jain underwent surgery on July 21 last year. The interim bail given to Jain on medical grounds was 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 or leaving Delhi without permission.

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.

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.

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/

BRS chief K Chandrashekar Rao

EC Makes Fresh Electoral Bonds Data Public

By LokMarg

The Election Commission on Sunday made public fresh data on electoral bonds, which was previously submitted to the Supreme Court in sealed covers, following a directive from the apex court to make it available to the public.

“The Election Commission of India has today uploaded the data received in digitized form from the registry of the Supreme Court on electoral bonds on its website,” the poll panel said in a statement.

The ECI had submitted it in the sealed covers to the Supreme Court and was later asked to put them in the public domain.

Notably, this information pertains to transactions that occurred before April 12, 2019, while details of electoral bonds issued after this date were disclosed by the election commission last week.

“Data so received from political parties was deposited in the Supreme Court without opening sealed covers. In pursuance of the Supreme Court’s order dated March 15, 2024, the Registry of the Supreme Court has returned physical copies along with a digitized record of the same in a pen drive in a sealed cover. The Election Commission of India has today uploaded the data received in the digitized form from the registry of the Supreme Court on electoral bonds on its website,” the EC statement said.

According to the new details, DMK received Rs 656.5 crore through electoral bonds, including Rs 509 crore from lottery king Santiago Martin’s Future Gaming.

BJP encashed electoral bonds totalling Rs 6,986.5 crore. The highest amount received by the ruling party was in 2019-20 worth Rs 2,555 crore. Congress redeemed a total of Rs 1,334.35 crore through electoral bonds.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling in February, struck down the Centre’s Electoral Bond Scheme, which allowed for anonymous funding to political parties, and ordered the SBI to stop issuing Electoral Bonds immediately.

It had asked SBI to furnish details of each electoral bond encashed by parties, including the date of encashment and the denomination of the bond.

On Monday, the top court dismissed an application of SBI seeking an extension of time till June 30 to submit details of electoral bonds to the Election Commission, asking the bank to disclose the details by March 12.

The apex court also directed the poll panel to compile the information to be furnished by the SBI and publish the details on its official website no later than March 15, 2024, by 5 pm. (ANI)

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

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen

Owaisi Approaches SC Seeking Stay On Implementation Of CAA

By LokMarg

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi has approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

In his petition, Owaisi sought directions to the central government not to entertain or process the applications seeking grant of citizenship status under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as it stands amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019) during the pendency of the proceedings.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, Asaduddin Owaisi’s attorney, told ANI that they filed an application in 2019 when the act was passed in Parliament.

“We had filed a petition in 2019 when CAA was passed, challenging its constitutional validity in Articles 21 and 25. At that time, the application for interim stay was not argued because the lawyers for the central government had said that they had no intention of immediately operationalising the act. Now, after four years, the government has notified rules to operationalise the act and therefore we are filing an interim application asking for a stay of implementation of the act and the rules,” he said.

The Union Home Ministry notified the rules for implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on March 11.

Asaduddin Owaisi questioned the fate of 1.5 lakh Muslims, who were allegedly left out of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list in Assam after the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was implemented in the state.

Addressing a public meeting in Hyderabad on Friday, days after the BJP-led Centre published the rules for implementing CAA across the country, Owaisi said, “Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma said the 12 lakh Hindus not listed in the NRC that was conducted in the state will be given Indian citizenship under the CAA. But what about the 1.5 lakh Muslims?”

The CAA rules, introduced by the Centre and passed by the Parliament in 2019, aim to confer Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim migrants, including Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians who migrated from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and arrived in India before December 31, 2014. (ANI)

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

The Federation of All India Medical Associations (FAIMA)

SC To Hear On March 19 Pleas Seeking Stay On CAA Rules 2024

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on March 19 the pleas seeking a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules, 2024, which opened implementation of CAA granting speedy citizenship to members of persecuted minority in Islamic countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra accepted the request of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing on of the petitioners in the case.

Mentioning the matter for urgent hearing Sibal said, “CAA was passed in 2019. At that time there was no rules, so no stay was granted. Now they have notified the rules ahead of elections. If citizenship is granted, it will be impossible to reverse. So the interim application may be heard.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, none of petitioners has any locus to question the grant of citizenship.

The bench then said it will list all the applications seeking stay on Rules for hearing on Tuesday.

The apex court also said that the whole batch comprising 237 petitions will be listed along with the latest applications.

The Central government on March 11 notified the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 which effectively brought into force the controversial CAA of 2019.

A day after the Central government issued the Rules for the CAA, Kerala-based political party Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) approached the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the implementation of Rules.

The Kerala-based political party demanded that the impugned statute and regulations be stayed, and that no coercive steps be taken against persons belonging to Muslim community who have been deprived of the benefit of this law.

Apart from IUML, Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), Leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saika, and Congress MP from Assam, Abdul Khaleque, and others also filed applications seeking stay on Rules.

The IUML (petitioner), which was one of the first parties to challenge the CAA before the top court in 2019, filed application seeking stay on the Rules, saying, it creates a “highly truncated and fast-tracked process” for the grant of citizenships to non-Muslim migrants from the specified countries, thereby making operational a “manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory” regime solely on the ground of religious identity.

The plea stated that Rules are manifestly arbitrary and creates an unfair advantage in favour of a class of persons solely on the ground of their religious identity, which is impermissible under articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

The plea said, “Since the CAA is discriminates on the basis of religion, it strikes at the root of secularism, which is the basic structure of the Constitution… India’s constitutional framework, read with obligations under the international law, mandates a framework of refugee protection that is non-discriminatory.”

Plea said Act and Rules would result in valuable rights being created and

citizenship being granted to persons belonging to only certain religions, thereby resulting in a “fait accompli situation”.

CAA, passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019 and got the President’s assent the following day, met with protests all across the country. The CAA came into effect on 10 January 2020.

The law fast-tracks the process of granting citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.

The 2019 Act amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, which makes illegal migrants eligible for citizenship if they (a) belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities, and (b) are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. It only applies to migrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. As per the amendment, certain areas in the Northeast are exempted from the provision. (ANI)

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