Tag: Supreme Court

Haldwani Railway Land

SC Rejects Plea Seeking Details Of 2018 Collegium Meet

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking a copy of the agenda, a copy of the decisions, and a copy of the resolution of a 2018 Collegium meeting and clarified that only a resolution drawn and signed by all the Collegium members could be said to be the final decision.

A bench of justice MR Shah and CT Ravikumar rejected RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court order. The top court said that there was no substance in the plea challenging the Delhi High Court order and the same deserves to be dismissed.
SC clarified whatever is discussed in the Collegium meeting shall not be in the public domain and “only final decision required to be uploaded,”

SC also clarified that the consultation of December 12, 2018, was not concluded and was, therefore, adjourned.

The petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj, in the RTI application, had sought a copy of the agenda, a copy of the decisions, and a copy of the Resolution of the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.

The court said that only after the final resolution drawn and signed by the Collegium, which is always after completing the due procedure and process of discussion, deliberation, and consultation, is the same required to be published on the Supreme Court website.

The court noted that no final decision was taken in the December 2018 Collegium meeting which was required to be drawn and signed by all members of the Collegium.

The court also said that the 2019 resolution is very clear which specifies that the process of consultation in the earlier meeting was not over and remained unconcluded.

The petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj, who was represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan and Ria Yadav, challenged the order dated July 27 2022 of the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed his plea for information under the Right to Information Act.

The appellant in the RTI Application had sought a copy of the agenda, a copy of the decisions, and a copy of the Resolution of the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.

According to the petition, the resolution of the subsequent meeting affirms that there was indeed an agenda of the previous collegium meeting of 12.12.2018 and further that certain decisions were indeed taken and this was also affirmed through the public statements of Justice (Retd.) Madan Lokur and the statements made in the autobiography written by former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi (who were both members of the collegium as of 12.12.2018). In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the information does not exist, the petitioner said. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

SC Criticises Centre On Judicial Appointment

By LokMarg

Centre faced Supreme Court’s ire on Thursday as the top court again criticised the government over judicial appointment issues and remarked that Parliament has the right to enact new law but at the same time must adhere to existing legal positions.

A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that it expects the Attorney General to play the role of the seniormost law officer to advise the government on the existing legal position.
The court also said the government cannot conveniently cite the views of some judges on MoP to oppose Collegium recommendations.

The Supreme Court said that Parliament has the right to enact a law but it is also subject to the scrutiny of courts and “it is important that the law laid down by this court is followed else people would follow the law which they think is correct”.

The court observation came while hearing a plea against the Centre for keeping pending a name that the Collegium recommended in the list for appointment to various High Courts and the apex court.

The court also took note of the Centre’s recent decision to send back a second time reiterated names and said it is a breach of its earlier direction. The court said that it is not aware of the special circumstance for which this name was dropped.

The court also told the Attorney General to advise Union Ministers to exercise some control over their public criticism about the Collegium and said that the statements made recently are not being taken very well and the ministers ought to exercise some control.

The court remarked that it has told the Attorney General that the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) is final till government suggestions are looked into, MoP as finalised has to apply.

The court also cited the earlier Constitution Bench decision of the top court upholding the Collegium system and said that the government is bound to implement and enforce the law as laid down.

The court opined that there will be a breakdown if everyone starts choosing what to follow.

The Supreme Court said that there is an existing MoP and the government thinks some alterations are required but that does not take away from the existing legal process.

Observing that it looks just like a blame game, the court noted that years after the name for the judicial appointment was returned which Collegium again reiterated.

SC said, “How do we sort out these issues. This is some kind of an infinite battle. AG you will have to do a little better to sort out this”.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner also said that rule of the law has to be followed and take strong objection to the comments on Collegium.

In the last hearing, the Court had also expressed its disappointment with the statement given by the Law Minister to a news channel.

In 2014, the National Democratic Alliance government brought the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in an attempt to change the system of appointment of judges.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently passed a certain remark on the 99th Constitutional Amendment Bill paving way for the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which was undone by the Supreme Court in 2015. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

RS Chairman Dhankhar

RS Chairman Dhankhar Slams NJAC verdict

By LokMarg

Noting that the Supreme Court striking down the NJAC Act in 2015 was an unparalleled development in democratic history where a duly legitimized constitutional prescription was “judicially undone” and is “a glaring instance of severe compromise of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the mandate of the people”, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar said on Wednesday that “this House, in concert with the Lok Sabha, is duty bound to address the issue”.

In his maiden speech in Rajya Sabha on the first day of the winter session of Parliament, the Vice President said democracy blossoms and flourishes when its three facets – the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive scrupulously adhere to their respective domains.
The Vice President talked of the need to catalyze a wholesome environment to promote the synergic functioning of Constitutional Institutions and emphasized the need to respect “Laxman Rekha”.

He said the Parliament in a much-needed historic step passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Bill paving way for the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC).

Dhankar said there was unprecedented support for the legislation and the two Houses passed it almost unanimously in August 2014.

“Rarely in Parliamentary democracy, there has been a such massive support to Constitutional legislation. This process fructified into a Constitutional prescription, after 16 State Assemblies out of 29 States ratified the Central Legislation; the President of India in terms of Article 111 accorded his consent on December 31, 2014,” he said.

Dhankar said the historic parliamentary mandate “was undone” by the Supreme Court on October 16, 2015 by a majority of 4:1 finding the same as not being in consonance with the judicially evolved doctrine of ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution.

“There is no parallel to such a development in democratic history where a duly legitimized constitutional prescription has been judicially undone. A glaring instance of severe compromise of parliamentary sovereignty and disregard of the mandate of the people of which this house and the Lok Sabha are custodians,” he said.

“We need to bear in mind that in democratic governance basic of any ‘Basic Structure’ is the prevalence of primacy of the mandate of the people reflected in the Parliament. Parliament is the exclusive and ultimate determinative of the architecture of the Constitution,” he added.

Dhankar said it is disconcerting to note that on such a momentous issue, so vital to the democratic fabric, “there has been no focus in the Parliament, now for over seven years”.

“This House, in concert with the Lok Sabha, being the custodian of the ordainment of the people, is duty bound to address the issue, and I am sure it will do so,” he said.

The Vice President said the sublimity of the doctrine of separation of powers, is realized when the legislature, judiciary, and executive optimally function in tandem and togetherness, meticulously ensuring scrupulous adherence to the respective jurisdictional domain.

“Any incursion by one, howsoever subtle, in the domain of other, has the potential to upset the governance apple cart. We are indeed faced with this grim reality of frequent incursions. This house is eminently positioned to take affirmative steps to bring about congeniality amongst these wings of governance. I am sure you all will reflect and engage in a way forward stance,” he said.

Dhankar said parliamentary sovereignty is inviolable in any democracy and members have taken oaths to preserve it.

“Essence of democracy lies in the prevalence of the ordainment of the people reflected through the legitimized platform.”

He said the power of parliament of the day to act in exercise of its constituent power to “amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure” is unqualified and supreme, not amenable to executive attention or judicial intervention except for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution envisaged in article 145(3) of the Constitution.

The Vice President said using this Constitutional power to amend, Parliament effected wholesome structural governance changes to further spinally strengthen democracy. This has been by way of incorporation of Part IX, IX A, and IX B in the Constitution providing a comprehensive mechanism for Panchayati Raj, Municipalities, and Co-operative Societies, he said.

Dhankar said authorities in constitutional positions in any institution are required to exemplify their conduct by high standards of propriety, dignity, and decorum.

“Time for all constitutional institutions to reflect and give quietus to public display of adversarially challenging stance, trading or exchange of advisories emanating from these platforms. I urge the Members of the House to proactively catalyze the evolution of wholesome cordial ecosystem ending this aberration,” he said.

“It is institutional seamless connection marked with mutual trust and respect that generates an ecosystem best suited for serving the nation. This House needs to catalyze this wholesome environment to promote synergic functioning of Constitutional Institutions, emphasizing the need to respect Laxman Rekha,” he added.

Dhankar said he looked forward to contributing to the growth trajectory of the largest vibrant democracy in the world and vindicating its trust and confidence.

He said the terms ‘Upper House’ or ‘House of Elders’ though not part of the official glossary, amply reflect the uniquely significant importance of this institution.

“Nation justifiably expects the House of Elders to take the decisive directional lead in reaffirming and enhancing the core values of the Republic and set up the traditions of parliamentary democracy exemplifying the highest deliberative emulative standards,” he said.

“Today, as we are in Amrit Kaal, we cherish one of the world’s finest constitutions as our own. Members of the Constituent Assembly were enormously talented with impeccable credentials and immense experience. The Constituent Assembly, given the scenario then, was as representative as was practicable,” he added.

Dhankar said with each election there has been progressively authentic enhancement in the representation gradient. “Presently the parliament reflects with authenticity the mandate and aspirations of the people as never before.”

He said the Constituent Assembly addressed sensitive, complex and critical issues, exemplifying sublimity engaging in dialogue, discussions, deliberations, and debate marked with a cooperative and consensual attitude.

“Diverse issues were traversed without there being any disruptions or rancor. Obstruction and Disruption of proceedings as parliamentary practice or option are antithetical to democratic values. The contemporaneous scenario on this count is concerning and makes it imperative for us to follow the high standards set in the Constituent Assembly. We need to be cognizant of severe public discomfort and disillusionment at lack of decorum in the temple of democracy,” he said.

Referring to his visit to Cambodia for India-ASEAN and East Asia Summits and FIFA World Cup Inaugural Ceremony in Qatar, Dhankar said he was sharing with members his “deep sense of pride and satisfaction of the level of respect India commands amongst world leaders and hope our growth trajectory generates for global peace and prosperity”. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Mathura On High Alert

Mathura On High Alert, After ABHM Calls For Recital Of Hanuman Chalisa

By LokMarg

Security in Mathura has been beefed up amid the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha’s (ABHM) call to recite the Hanuman Chalisa at Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi complex-Shahi Idgah Masjid maidan in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

Police barricading has been placed at various places in Mathura this morning and vehicle checking is being done.
Amid the ABHM’s call, the Mathura district administration has directed Police forces and security personnel to remain on high alert.

Earlier on Saturday, the ABHM sought permission from the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to perform Laddu Gopal’s ‘Jalabhishek’ and recital of the ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ at the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Idgah on December 6.

ABHM’s request came after the district administration imposed restrictions on December 1 in the wake of the 30th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. The restrictions will remain in effect till January 28.

District Magistrate Pulkit Khare imposed the prohibitory order. It has been stated in the order that any political, social, or religious organisation, or any other gathering of five or more people, any kind of gathering, picketing, demonstration, etc. will not be allowed without permission. In the event of a violation, strict action will be taken against the person or organisation in question under Section 188 of the Code of Police Criminal Procedure

Earlier on Friday, national treasurer of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Dinesh Sharma released a video claiming that he had written a letter with his blood to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, requesting permission to recite the Hanuman Chalisa at the complex on December 6.

He has also asserted that “if you cannot grant permission to recite the Hanuman Chalisa, then grant us permission for euthanasia because we do not want to live if we are not allowed to worship our idol.”

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished by ‘karsewaks’. Following the demolition of the structure, more than 40 cases were registered in Ayodhya. The cases were later clubbed together.

On September 30, 2020, the special CBI court pronounced the verdict in the criminal trial and acquitted all the accused in the case.

Criticizing the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused, the appellants had contended that the trial court had committed a “mistake” by not convicting the accused even though sufficient evidence was on record.

Back in 2019, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to give five acres of suitable land to Sunni Waqf Board and at the same time make necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple by forming a trust.

A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a bunch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court which trifurcated the site between the parties — Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Section 319 CrPC SC

Section 319 CrPC Can Be Exercised Before Acquittal Or Sentence: SC

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday held that Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which deals power to summon persons, can be invoked before the pronouncement of the order of either acquittal or before sentence in case of conviction of the case.

“The power under Section 319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced,” a constitution bench said.
“Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by the imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable,” the court said.

The order was passed by the five-judge bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna.

The court was dealing with whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC to summon additional accused when the trial with respect to other coaccused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order.

The Court also dealt with the issue of whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial.

The court held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split-up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the

basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.

Section 319 of CrPC gives trial courts the power to summon persons other than the accused if it appears to the trial court that such persons have committed an offence in that case.

The court appreciated for the assistance rendered by all the counsel including Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, who assisted the Court as an Amicus Curiae. For the petitioner, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, whereas for the respondents ASG SV Raju, advocate Vinod Ghai, and Ardhendumouli Kumar Prasad appeared while for Intervenor, counsel Ashish Dixit appeared in the matter. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Haldwani Railway Land

SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Stay On MCD Elections

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking to stay the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections, scheduled to be held on December 4.

A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka said that the petition has become infructuous as it noted the election is in 3 days, i.e., on Sunday.
The petition has challenged the Delhi High Court’s November 9 decision for not staying

the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections, scheduled to be held on December 4.

The plea was filed by the National Youth Parth pertaining to the delimitation of the constituency of the civic polls.

Notably, the leaders of political parties will make last ditch effort as campaigning for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) elections is set to end today.

With a massive number of roadshows, the BJP campaigning was undertaken by several Union ministers and state Chief Ministers including national president JP Nadda for a massive show of strength.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national President JP Nadda exuded confidence and said that people are eager to vote for BJP as they are fed up with Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) work. He also hit out at the AAP for not cleaning the Yamuna despite thousands of crores disbursed from the Centre to the Kejriwal government.

The BJP has been in power in the MCD since 2007.

On Friday, Aam Admi Party (AAP) leader and Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia will hold a roadshow in Patparganj.

While trying to revive its prospects in MCD polls, the Congress, in its election manifesto has promised RO water purifying systems for drinking water, clearing the three landfills in Delhi in 18 months and waiver of outstanding house tax due.

Making ‘Delhi will be Sheila ji’s Delhi’ as party’s poll pitch, Congress makes a mention of two schemes named after former Chief Minister Sheila Dixit – Sheila Dixit Swasthya Sahayatha Yojana for medicines at half the price, and the Sheila Dixit Gharelu Majdoor Kalyan Yojana for financial assistance for domestic workers. Assistance for domestic workers includes admissions for their children to MCD schools and financial help in case of accidents. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

ISRO Spy Case: SC Cancels Anticipatory Bails Of Ex-Officials

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to persons in connection with the 1994 ISRO espionage case relating to the framing of alleged scientist Nambi Narayanan.

A bench headed by Justice MR Shah remitted the bail applications back to the Kerala High Court and asked it to decide it as early as possible, within a period of four weeks.

The apex court also granted protection from arrest to the accused for five weeks as an interim arrangement till the High Court finally decides the matter.

The CBI had challenged the Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to five persons. The apex court bench reserved the order on November 28.

The Kerala High Court had granted anticipatory bail to four accused — the former Gujarat Director-General of Police (DGP) RB SreeKumar, former Kerala Director General of Police (DGP) Siby Mathews, two former police officers of Kerala S Vijayan and Thampi S Durga Dutt, and retired intelligence official PS Jayaprakash — in connection with the case.

Seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted them, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had said the grant of anticipatory bail might derail the investigation in the case.

Earlier CBI had told the apex court that it has found in its probe that some scientists were tortured and framed in the matter due to which development of the cryogenic engine was hit and this led to India’s space programme going back by almost one or two decades.

Opposing the bail granted to the accused, CBI had said it is a “very serious matter” and there may be a larger conspiracy at the behest of foreign hands which is being investigated.

The CBI had alleged that there was a clear indication that the accused were part of a team, which had ulterior motives to torpedo the attempts of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) for manufacturing the cryogenic engine.

It had registered a case against 18 persons for various offences, including criminal conspiracy, in connection with the arrest and detention of Narayanan, who was accused of spying in 1994.

The case relates to allegations of transfer of certain confidential documents on India’s space programme to foreign countries by two scientists and four others, including two Maldivian women.

CBI had earlier given a clean chit to Narayanan and said that the Kerala police had “fabricated” the case. The investigating agency stated that the technology ex-scientist was accused to have stolen and sold in the 1994 case did not even exist at that time and then top police officials in Kerala were responsible for his illegal arrest.

On September 14, 2018, the top court had appointed a three-member committee and directed the Kerala government to give Rs 50 lakh compensation to Narayanan for compelling him to undergo immense humiliation.

Terming the police action against Narayanan as a “psycho-pathological treatment”, the top court had also said that his liberty and dignity, basic to his human rights, were jeopardised as he was taken into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, was compelled to face “cynical abhorrence”. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court on living will

Centre Step-Motherly Towards Tamil Refugees; CAA Arbitrary: DMK To SC

By LokMarg

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has told the Supreme Court that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 is “arbitrary” as it only considers religious minorities from three countries while keeping Sri Lankan Tamils staying in India as refugees.

The Central government has “categorically remained silent to the plight of the Tamil refugees. Step-motherly behaviour of Respondent No.1 (Centre) towards the Tamil refugees has left them living in constant fear of deportation and an uncertain future,” stated the affidavit filed by DMK.
The DMK said that CAA is “arbitrary” as it relates to only three countries — Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and confines to only six religions — Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian Communities and expressly excludes Muslim religion.

Filing an affidavit before the Supreme Court in its plea challenging the CAA, DMK said that even while considering religious minorities, the Centre keeps such Tamils of Indian origin who are presently staying in India as refugees after fleeing from Sri Lanka due to persecution.

The Act is “against Tamil race” and keeps out the similarly placed Tamils who are residing in Tamil Nadu from the purview of the Act, it said.

“The impugned Act ignores the reality that for several decades Tamil refugees who have settled in Tamil Nadu are deprived of fundamental rights and other rights due to non-citizenship and due to non-naturalisation and the impugned Act does not provide for any reasons to exclude them,” stated the affidavit filed by organising secretary RS Bharati, the governing party of Tamil Nadu.

“Being stateless, they have been denied employment in the government services or in organised private sectors, the right to hold property, right to vote, enjoyment of government benefits received by the citizens and others despite there being an agreement for the same,” it added.

Due to such an ambiguity, they are forced to stay in camps where they are often exploited having no prospects of security in future, said the DMK in its affidavit.

“The lack of jobs, access to basic rights and amenities has left these refugees handicapped and distraught. These refugees who arrived at the country of their origin i.e. India with the hope that the Indo-Sri Lankan agreements will protect them from the ensuing persecution so that they could have brighter futures, discrimination-free environments, and better standards of life are now in a far worse state than before. The requests for citizenship by these Tamil refugees who have spent years in refugee camps have fallen on deaf ears of the Centre,” it added.

It said that the reasons for their fleeing from Sri Lanka have not changed as many displaced persons escaped their country due to the large-scale violence and unsafe circumstances and came to India hoping for a better future.

The party has also said that the Act introduces a completely new basis for the grant/non-grant of citizenship on the grounds of religion, which “destroys the basic fabric of secularism”.

The Act deliberately keeps away Muslims who had suffered persecution in the six countries and therefore it is highly discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary, said DMK.

At least 220 petitions against the CAA were filed before the top court.

The CAA was passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019, and it was met with protests all across the country. It came into effect on 10 January 2020.

A Kerala-based political party Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), DMK, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Congress leader and former Union minister Jairam Ramesh, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress leader Debabrata Saikia, NGOs Rihai Manch and Citizens Against Hate, Assam Advocates Association, and law students, among others, had filed pleas before the top court challenging the Act.

In 2020 Kerala government had also filed a suit in the apex court becoming the first state to challenge the CAA.

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 top court had earlier issued notice to the Centre and refused to pass an interim order staying the law without hearing the Centre.

The Centre had filed its affidavit before the apex court saying that the CAA Act is a “benign piece of legislation” which does not affect the “legal, democratic or secular rights” of any of the Indian Citizens.

The CAA does not violate any fundamental right, the Centre had said while terming the legislation legal and asserted that there was no question of it violating constitutional morality.

The petitions contended that the Act, which liberalises and fast-tracks the grant of citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, promotes religion-based discrimination.

The amendments have also been challenged on several other grounds, including violation of secularism, Articles 21 (right to life), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 19 (right to freedom), as well as provisions on citizenship and constitutional morality.

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)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Haldwani Railway Land

Freedom Of Religion Doesn’t Include Fundamental Right To Convert Others To A Particular Religion: Centre To SC

By LokMarg

The Central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that the right to freedom of religion does not include a fundamental right to convert other people to a particular religion.

It is “cognizant of the gravity and the seriousness” of the issue, said the Centre in its affidavit filed on a PIL claiming that fraudulent and deceitful religious conversion is rampant across the country.
Such issue of conversion shall be “taken up in all seriousness by the Union of India and appropriate steps shall be taken as the Central government is cognizant of the menace”, the Centre said in its affidavit.

“The right to freedom of religion certainly does not include the right to convert an individual through fraud, deception, coercion, allurement or other such means,” it said.

The central government further said that nine States over the course of the years passed enactments seeking to curb this practice. Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Haryana are the States which already have legislation in place on conversion, the affidavit added.

The affidavit stated that “such enactments are necessary for protecting cherished rights of vulnerable sections of the society including women and economically and socially backward classes.”

The right to freedom of religion, and more importantly, the right to the consciousness of all citizens of the country is an extremely cherished and valuable right that ought to be protected by the executive and the legislature, it said.

As the matter came up for hearing, a bench headed by Justice MR Shah said the issue of forced religious conversion is “very serious” and asked the Centre to file a detailed affidavit to make its stand clear.

It asked the Centre to file an affidavit with instructions from the State governments.

The bench has now posted the matter for hearing on December 5.

Earlier, the top court had remarked that forced religious conversion is a “very serious issue” and may affect the “security of the country” along with the freedom of conscience of citizens as far as religion is concerned.

It had said, “It is a very dangerous thing. Everyone has freedom of religion. What is this forceful conversion?”

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay claiming that fraudulent and deceitful religious conversion is rampant across the country, and that the Central government has failed to control its menace.

The plea sought directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a report and a Bill to control “deceitful religious conversion”.

It further sought a declaration from the Court that fraudulent religious conversion and conversion by intimidation, threatening and through gifts and monetary benefits offends Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

The PIL said, “There is not even one district which is free of religious conversion by hook and cook and the carrot and the stick.”

“If such conversions were not checked, Hindus would soon become a minority in India. Thus, the Centre was obligated to enact a country-wide law for the same,” it added.

Earlier, the apex court had dismissed a similar petition filed by Upadhyay. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Gyanvapai mosque

Gyanpavi: HC Seeks ASI Affidavit On Conducting Carbon Dating Of Shivling

By LokMarg

Allahabad High Court on Monday asked the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to file an affidavit on whether the ‘carbon dating of the purported ‘Shivling’ found inside the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque, can be conducted without defacing its shape.

The High Court directed the ASI to file its affidavit on the next date of hearing — November 30.
The HC was hearing a review petition filed by Lakshmi Devi and three others, challenging the Varanasi district court’s order of a ‘scientific survey’ of the purported Shivling, which is claimed to be a part of the fountain of the wazu khana by the mosque management.

In its order on Monday, the single bench of Justice JJ Muneer asked the ASI to confirm if ‘carbon dating’, a method to determine an object’s age, can be conducted without defacing the purported Shivling.

“The subordinate court has rejected the application for conducting a scientific survey in view of the status quo order issued by the Supreme Court. Apprehension has been expressed that carbon dating may damage the alleged Shivling,” the bench stated, adding that it was necessary to determine the age of the ‘Shivling’ without deforming its shape.

The counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, said only a scientific survey (carbon dating) can bring forth correct information on the ‘Shivling’ found in the Gyanvapi mosque complex, along with other religious items.

It will also establish beyond any reasonable doubt how old the ‘Shivling’ and other idols found there are, the counsel for the petition further submitted.

Earlier, the petitioners had filed an application in the district court, Varanasi seeking a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid complex.

The court, however, rejected the plea on October 14 saying that doing so could damage the structure.

The single-bench of the Allahabad HC on Monday also directed the principal secretary of the Department of Religious Affairs, Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit on the government’s position or stand in the matter on the next date of hearing — November 30.

The chief standing counsel of the state government, Pancham Bipin Bihari Pandey, was directed to clarify the government’s stand by filing an affidavit on behalf of the principal secretary, Department of Religious Affairs, UP.

Advocate Manoj Singh, appearing for the Union government, had sought three months’ time to clarify its position on the matter. However, the court directed that an affidavit is to be filed by November 30. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/