Azam Khan Plea

SC Declines Azam Khan’s Plea Seeking To Transfer Cases Out Of UP

Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan’s plea seeking to transfer certain cases against him from Uttar Pradesh to another state.

The Supreme Court asked Azam Khan to approach the concerned High Court and directed that his petition may be taken up on an expeditious basis.
The SP leader is currently facing nearly 90 cases including a case of hate speech, corruption, and theft.

The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat earlier in October announced the disqualification of Khan from the House after a court sentenced him to three years in jail in a hate speech case.

The case of hate speech was registered against Azam Khan in April 2019 for levelling serious allegations against administrative officials posted in Rampur, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during an election meeting.

During the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Khan was booked for making inflammatory speeches while addressing a public meeting in Khatanagaria village of the Milak Kotwali area.

A video of Khan’s statement also surfaced on social media. Khan was released from jail earlier this year after the Supreme Court granted him an interim bail in a cheating case. He spent nearly two years in jail.

He had won the Rampur Sadar Assembly seat in the last UP Assembly polls for a record 10th time.

After becoming an MLA, he resigned from the Lok Sabha. In June this year, BJP’s Ghanshyam Lodhi wrested the Rampur parliamentary seat from the Samajwadi Party, defeating his nearest rival by over 42,000 votes in a bypoll. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176

SC: Cinema Owners Can Prohibit Outside Food In Halls

SC: Cinema Owners Can Prohibit Outside Food In Halls

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that cinema hall owners are fully entitled to set their terms and conditions for selling food and beverages inside the halls.

“Suppose someone starts getting jalebis. The owner would not want anyone wiping their hands on the seats,” a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha said.
The apex court further remarked that the “owners may not want the tandoori chicken to be bought in” but elaborated that no one was forcing cinemagoers to buy popcorn.

It said a moviegoer has a choice not to consume the food and beverages served inside theatres.

A cinema hall is the private property of the owner of such hall and he is entitled to put such terms and conditions as he deems fit provided the same are not contrary to public interest or safety, it further observed.

CJI Chandrachud said, “A cinema hall owner has the right to regulate the entry of food and beverage. Whether to consume what is available is entirely the choice of the moviegoer. Viewers visit halls for entertainment.”

The apex court said that the viewer has to adhere to the rules of the cinema hall owner and it is evidently a matter of a commercial decision of the theatre owner.

“The cinema hall is not a gym where you need healthy food. It is a place of entertainment. It is privately owned, so it is the owner’s prerogative,” the apex court noted.

The top court set aside the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which had ordered multiplexes and movie theatres not to prevent cinemagoers from carrying their own food and beverages into movie halls.

The apex court was hearing a batch of appeals filed by theatre owners and the Multiplex Association of India challenging a 2018 verdict of the High Court. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176

Supreme Court Demonetization Decision

Supreme Court Upholds Govt’s 2016 Demonetization Decision

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the decision of the Central government taken in 2016 to demonetize the currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1,000 denominations.

A five-judge Constitution bench dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s 2016 decision to demonetize Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes and said the decision, being the Executive’s economic policy, cannot be reversed.

Supreme Court bench said: “There was consultation between the Centre and the RBI before demonetization. There was a reasonable nexus to bring such a measure, and we hold that the doctrine of proportionality did not hit demonetization.”

The apex court had reserved its judgments on the batch of 58 petitions on December 7.

Earlier, it had asked the Centre and Reserve Bank of India to place before it the records pertaining to the 2016 demonetization decision in a sealed envelope.

It had said that it has the power to examine the manner in which the decision for demonetization was taken adding that “the judiciary cannot fold its hands and sit just because it is an economic policy decision”.

The top court’s remarks came when the Reserve Bank of India counsel made the submission that judicial review cannot apply to economic policy decisions.

The RBI had told the apex court about the objective of the demonetization policy to curb black money and fake currencies.

Attorney General R Venkatramani had said that the economic policy of demonetization was connected to a social policy where three evils are attempted to be addressed. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176

Kerala Govt Cheating Farmers Over Buffer Zone Issue: Cong | Lokmarg

Kerala Govt Cheating Farmers Over Buffer Zone Issue: Cong

Accusing the Kerala Government of cheating the state’s farmers over the issue of buffer zones along protected areas, senior Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala on Monday said that the state Government is taking a hypocritic stand on the issue.

“The survey report is wrong. But to say that the same will be submitted to the Supreme Court is utter fraud and hypocrisy,” said Chennithala speaking to media persons.
He said that the Kerala Minister’s statement that the flawed report will be submitted to the Supreme Court cannot be accepted under any circumstances. “The decision to submit this flawed report to the Supreme Court is a gross betrayal and murder of the farmers,” he added.

Hinting that a new report might be prepared, Kerala Forest Minister A K Saseendran on Sunday said that the report would not be submitted before the Supreme Court in its present form.

“The Kerala government should have adopted the positions of the governments of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and others. Zero buffer zone should have been adopted,” said the Congress leader. He alleged that the government at first decided to have a 3 km buffer zone and then a 1 km buffer zone.

“The satellite survey report cannot be accepted under any circumstances,” Ramesh Chennithala added.

The survey was conducted by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre and it had identified nearly 50 thousand structures like schools, houses, hospitals etc in 115 villages.

However, it was alleged that the survey missed out on small huts and shops and tiny buildings which fall under the tree cover.

The survey was being conducted due to a June 3 order of the Supreme Court which said that every protected area of the country should have a mandatory eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) of 1 km. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court on Bilkis Bano

Bilkis Bano Case: SC Dismisses Plea Against Remission Of 11 Convicts

The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea of Bilkis Bano seeking a review of its earlier order by which it had asked the Gujarat government to consider the plea for the remission of 11 convicts in a gangrape case under 1992 policy.

A bench of judges headed by Justice Ajay Rastogi dismissed the review plea of Bano who had challenged the apex court’s May judgment which had held that remission of the convicts should be considered as per the policy existing at the time of conviction.
“I am directed to inform you that the review petition above mentioned filed in Supreme Court was dismissed by the court on December 13, 2022,” read a communication sent to Bano’s counsel Shobha Gupta by the Supreme Court’s assistant registrar.

As per procedures, review pleas against top court judgments are decided in chambers by circulation by the judges who were part of the judgment under review.

She has filed a review plea against the May order of the Supreme Court which allowed the Gujarat government to apply the 1992 remission Rules which were in place in the State where the crime was actually committed. The trial of the case took place in Maharashtra.

Bano, besides filing a review petition, also filed a plea challenging the premature release of 11 convicts, who had gang-raped her and murdered her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots.

Bilkis said that even being the victim of the crime, she had no clue about any such process of remission or premature release initiated.

Gujarat’s remission order is a mechanical order of remission by completely ignoring the law’s requirements as consistently laid down, the plea said.

Earlier, some PILs were filed seeking directions to revoke the remission granted to 11 convicts.

The pleas were filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, whose General Secretary is Annie Raja, Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, social activist and professor Roop Rekha Verma, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra.

In its affidavit, the Gujarat government defended remission granted to convicts, saying they completed 14 years of sentence in prison and their “behavior was found to be good”.

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

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

The affidavit stated, “State government considered all the opinions and decided to release 11 prisoners since they have completed 14 years and above in prisons and their behavior was found to be good.”

The government had also questioned the locus standi of petitioners who filed the PIL challenging the decision saying they are outsiders to the case.

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

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

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

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

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

Nirav Modi UK

Nirav Modi Loses Bid Against Extradition In UK Supreme Court

The UK Supreme Court on Thursday denied fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi’s plea against his extradition to India.

Modi lost the bid to take his fight against extradition to India on charges of fraud and money laundering to the UK’s Supreme Court.

“The appellant’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused,” Lord Justice Stuart Smith said in his statement.

The diamantaire, who fled India in 2018 before details of his alleged involvement in large-scale fraud at the Punjab National Bank became public, has argued there is a high risk of suicide if he is extradited.

In November, Nirav Modi filed an application before the UK High Court for permission to appeal against his extradition to India in the UK Supreme Court. He lost the appeal on Thursday to take his fight against extradition to the UK Supreme Court.

Nirav Modi reportedly filed an application in the High Court in London, seeking permission to appeal against his extradition order, two weeks after a UK court dismissed his plea against extradition back to India.

On November 9, Nirav Modi lost his appeal against extradition to India with a United Kingdom court dismissing his plea. Earlier, the High Court of London (United Kingdom) dismissed the appeal of Nirav Modi, who is wanted in India to face money laundering and fraud cases.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) later welcomed the UK High Court’s decision to reject Nirav’s plea.

“India has been vigorously pursuing the extradition of economic fugitives so that they face justice in India. We welcome the decision of the UK High Court. We want to bring him to India as soon as possible,” said MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi during a press conference.

Nirav Modi, who is a prime accused in the Rs 13,500 crore PNB scam, had fled India. He lost his appeal after he had moved the High Court in London against extradition on mental health grounds.

The bench of Justice Stuart Smith and Justice Robert Jay of the High Court said there are “no features of psychotic illness”.

The court rejected Nirav Modi’s counsel’s claims that he will die by suicide due to severe depression and said “Nirav Modi neither is nor is very likely to be at the most severe end of the scale of depressive illness”.

“He has so far displayed no features of psychotic illness. Although he has exhibited persistent suicidal ideation, he has neither attempted suicide or deliberate self-harm nor disclosed plans to do so, except in the vaguest and general way,” the court said.

The High Court also noted the steps taken to render Barrack 12 safe and to ensure that there is effective constant monitoring to reduce both the risk of attempted suicide and the prospect of suicide being committed.

The court noted that the Government of India sought the appellant, Nirav Deepak Modi.

Nirav Modi last year had moved the UK High Court against District Judge Sam Goozee’s Westminster Magistrate Court ruling in favour of his extradition. He is presently behind bars at Wandsworth Prison in southeast London. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176

Supreme Court on Bilkis Bano

Bilkis’ Rapists Release Case: Justice Bela Recuses From Hearing

Justice Bela M Trivedi, Supreme Court judge, on Tuesday, recused herself from hearing the plea filed by Bilkis Bano, challenging the pre-mature release of 11 convicts, who had gang-raped her and murdered her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said the matter be posted before another bench.
Besides filing a petition against the per-mature release of convicts, Bano has also filed a review petition seeking its earlier order by which it had asked the Gujarat government to consider the plea for the remission of one of the convicts.

The review petition was also listed for hearing today before Justice Rastogi in his camber.

As per procedures, review pleas against top court judgments are decided in chambers by circulation by the judges who were part of the judgment under review.

She has filed a review plea against the May order of the Supreme Court which allowed the Gujarat government to apply the 1992 remission Rules.

Bilkis said that even being the victim of the crime, she had no clue about any such process of remission or premature release initiated.

Gujarat’s remission order is a mechanical order of remission by completely ignoring the law requirement as consistently laid down, the plea said.

Earlier, some PILs were filed seeking directions to revoke the remission granted to 11 convicts.

The pleas were filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, whose General Secretary is Annie Raja, Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, social activist and professor Roop Rekha Verma, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra.

Gujarat government in its affidavit had defended remission granted to convicts saying they completed 14 years of sentence in prison and their “behaviour was found to be good”.

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

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

The affidavit stated, “State government considered all the opinions and decided to release 11 prisoners since they have completed 14 years and above in prisons and their behaviour was found to be good.”

The government had also questioned the locus standi of petitioners who filed the PIL challenging the decision saying they were outsiders to the case.

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

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

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

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

Read More: http://13.232.95.176

Marriage For Muslim Girls

SC Notice To Govt On Uniform Age Of Marriage For Muslim Girls

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW) to make the minimum age of marriage for Muslim girls the same as that of persons belonging to other religions.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha sought a response from the Centre within four weeks.
The minimum age for marriage in India is currently 18 for women and 21 for men. However, the minimum marriage age for Muslim women is when they attain puberty and 15 years is presumed to be that age.

The NCW said that allowing Muslims to marry at the age of puberty (around 15) is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and violative of penal laws.

The plea said even the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) does not provide for those under 18 to consent to sex.

It said the PIL was filed for enforcement of the fundamental rights of minor Muslim women to bring Islamic personal law in consonance with the penal laws applicable to other religions.

Earlier, the apex court agreed to examine the plea of the National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which said a Muslim girl of 15-years-old is competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice under the Muslim Personal Law.

It had issued notice to the Punjab government and appointed senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.

The High Court in June in its order had cited the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law on marriage to rule that a 15-year-old Muslim girl was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice.

The NCPCR sought to ensure the proper implementation of statutory laws that are specifically in place to protect children below the age of 18 years.

The Commission highlighted the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) 2006 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) to put forth its reasons for challenging the High Court ruling.

NCPCR said that the order is violative of PCMA which, the petition said, is a secular law that is applicable to all.

“The provisions of POCSO say no child below the age of 18 years can give valid consent,” it said.

The high court order had come on a plea by a Pathankot-based Muslim couple that had approached the court seeking protection after allegedly being threatened by their families for marrying without their permission.

The girl and a 21-year-old man had said that they got married as per Muslim rites and ceremonies.

The High Court had granted protection to the Muslim couple noting that the law is clear that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by Muslim Personal Law. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Haldwani Railway Land

Don’t Portray Religious Processions As Source Of Riots: SC

Don’t portray as if all religious processions are a source of riots, said the Supreme Court on Friday while dismissing a PILs seeking strict regulation of religious processions across the country.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha declined the plea saying it is a law and order issue and can be taken care of by the State police and the District Magistrates.
The PIL filed by NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace demands guidelines to regulate religious processions across the country where people brandish weapons.

CJI Chandrachud said India’s cultural diversity varies from district to district and there can’t be uniform guidelines to regulate religious processions as he dismissed the PIL.

Senior advocate CU Singh appearing for the NGO told the bench that processions are taken out brandishing swords, and firearms during religious festivals.

He contended that riots have become common during such processions taken out during religious festivals.

Why do we want to portray it that riots take place during festival sessions, asked the bench.

The apex court said religious processions are taken out during the Ganpati festival in Maharashtra, but no riots occur.

“Why do you pick up some stray incidents of riots during a religious festival to paint everything with the same brush? Try to see the positive…,” said the bench.

The plea has sought strict prohibition of the display of arms and ammunition during such processions. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

SC Criticise UPSC Over Issues Relating To Nagaland DGP

The Supreme Court on Friday criticized the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) over the process of appointment of Nagaland DGP and refused to give 60 days time for convening the Empanelment Committee Meeting for preparation of a panel of officers for making appointments to the post.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that UPSC is duty-bound to comply with the order of the Court.
The court also set December 19, 2022, as a deadline for taking a decision. The court said that the formalities are to be undertaken by the UPSC, MHA, and the State.

UPSC has urged the court to grant at least 60 days time for convening the Empanelment Committee Meeting for the preparation of a panel of officers for appointment to the post of DGP (HOPF), Nagaland, as the consultation with the MHA on the matter is still under process.

UPSC submitted that this would not result in any administrative dislocation in so far as the Government of Nagaland is concerned because the incumbent DGP’s extended tenure will be over only on February 28, 2023, and the process of recommending the panel of DGP (HOPF) can be completed before that date.

“We are of the view that UPSC has no justification that no administrative dislocation would be caused as the incumbent DGP has an extension till February 2023,” the bench said and clarified that if this order is not complied with, the court would be constrained to take the coercive arm of the law.

On August 31, 2022, the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs conveyed the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for the extension of service and extension of inter cadre deputation tenure of T John Longkumer, IPS from Chhattisgarh cadre to Nagaland cadre for a period of six months from the date of his superannuation on August 31, 2022.

The court, in the last hearing, had said that they are of the considered view that in view of the communication which has been issued by the UPSC on 1 April 2022, the State of Nagaland must immediately send the list of impaneled officers for appointment to the post of DGP.

The court said that the list of impaneled officers shall be drawn up in accordance with law after duly rectifying the deficiencies which were pointed out by the UPSC in its communication dated April 1, 2022.

The list of eligible officers who are impaneled shall be communicated to the UPSC no later than by October 31, 2022. The UPSC shall take a decision thereon on or before 30 November 2022, the court said in its October 17’s order.

Nagaland Law Students’ Federation, an intervenor in the matter, has alleged that Nagaland state has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner, to appoint an officer at the highest post in the State Police, who first does not belong to the State Cadre, who already served his tenure, whose name has been rejected by the UPSC for a further extension, and who is today continuing on the said post.

The Federation also alleged that it indicates the malafide intent of the State Government. The Federation also said that Nagaland state has flouted the directions of the top Court, by removing Shri Rupin Sharma, before the expiry of the mandated “two years” tenure.

The intervenor has sought to recall the Order dated August 31, 2022, granting a six-month extension to T. John Longkumer, IPS after his superannuation.

On June 20, 2018, Rupin Sharma was removed from the post of DGP and On June 27, 2018, T John Longkumer, a 1991 Batch IPS Officer from the Chhattisgarh Cadre was appointed to the post of DGP of the Nagaland State. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/