Tag: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

SC Confirms Death Penalty To Mohammad Arif: Red Fort Attack Case

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq seeking a review of the top court’s earlier order, upholding the death sentence awarded to him in connection with the 2000 Red Fort attack case.

A bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Bela M Trivedi confirmed the death penalty sentencing to Mohammad Arif observing that his guilt has been proved.
According to the prosecution, on the night of December 22, 2000, at about 9 pm terrorists belonging to a banned militant organization Lashkar-e-Toiba armed with AK-56 rifles and hand grenades entered the Lal Quila and started firing indiscriminately and gunned down three Army jawans of 7 Rajputana Rifles.

When the personnel of the Quick Army Reaction Team returned the fire, the intruders made good their escape by scaling the rear side boundary wall of the Lal Quila towards the Ring Road side.

The trial court on October 31, 2005, convicted seven accused including Arif, and awarded him the death penalty in the matter. The death sentence was confirmed by the Delhi High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court.

Arif filed a review petition against the top court judgment upholding his death penalty in the matter. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

SC Asks Govts To Act Against Hate Speeches Or Face Contempt

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday, while expressing concern over the hate speeches in the country, observed “where have we reached in the name of religion” and ordered suo moto action against offenders without looking into religion.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said that hate speeches are “disturbing”, especially for a country that is democratic and religion-neutral.

“Where have we reached? What have we reduced religion to? It is tragic. And we speak of scientific temper,” observed the bench.

The bench also issued notices to Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police and asked them to file a report on what action has been taken against such offences within their jurisdiction.

It further ordered that State governments and police authorities should take suo motu action in cases of hate speeches without waiting for the registration of a formal complaint. The apex court said authorities to take action against offenders without looking at their religion of them.

Failure in taking action would attract contempt of court against the erring officials, it added.

It expressed shock at some of the statements and hates speeches made against minority communities during recent religious congregations.

The top court in its order said, “The Respondents (Delhi, UP and Uttarakhand police) will issue directions to their subordinates in this regard without looking at the religion of the accused so that the secular nature of India is preserved.”

The apex court was hearing a plea seeking its urgent intervention to stop the alleged growing menace of targeting and terrorising the Muslim Community in India.

The petition filed by petitioner Shaheen Abdullah, a journalist working with the Maktoob media, sought direction to the Centre and the State governments to initiate an independent, credible and impartial investigation into the incidents of hate crimes and hate speeches.

It further sought directions to initiate appropriate action under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and other relevant penal laws against the speakers and organisations engaging in such hate crimes.

The plea said news and media platforms that conduct programmes openly demonise the Muslim community.

“Public speeches openly call for genocide of Muslims or speeches calling for economic and social boycott of Muslims. Open participation by members of the ruling political party in delivering hate speeches targeting Muslims,” it added.

“Despite the fact that this Court has been cognisant of the genocidal speeches and hate crimes against Muslims made at several events and several orders have been passed by this Court directing the authorities concerned to take appropriate action, the circumstances of the country only seem to be worsening with the growing radicalisation of the Hindu community and the propagation of widespread hate against Muslims that also culminates into the physical abuse of Muslims by radical elements,” the plea stated. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Nithari

Saibaba To Remain In Jail: SC Stays Release Of Ex-DU Prof, 5 Others In Naxal Links

By LokMarg

Supreme Court on Saturday stayed the release of former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and five others in an alleged Naxal links case.

In a special hearing today, Supreme Court suspended the October 14 order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court which discharged former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and others in an alleged Maoist links case.
The Maharashtra government on Friday approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision.

Supreme Court issued notice to the accused in the case on the Maharashtra government’s plea challenging the High Court order. The apex court has listed the matter for hearing on December 8.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and Bela M Trivedi heard the case today.

On Friday, the High Court allowed an appeal filed by Saibaba and five others challenging a 2017 decision of the trial court convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They were arrested in 2014.

The High Court ordered the immediate release of Saibaba and the other accused.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court at Gadchiroli, Maharashtra in March 2017 for offenses under various sections of the Unlawful Prevention of Atrocities Act (UAPA), and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for alleged association with the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), which was alleged to be an affiliate of outlawed Maoist organization.

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted the alleged Naxal ideologue and former Delhi University’s Professor GN Saibaba and his five accomplices of the charges of having links with banned extremist outfits.

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on July 28, 2020, rejected the bail application of the former Delhi University Professor on medical grounds.

On May 22, 2020, the Bombay High Court dismissed Saibaba’s parole application, which sought to be released on the grounds of his ill health and to visit his mother, who was suffering from cancer in Hyderabad and passed away in August that same year. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Ekta Content In XXX Web Series

SC Slams Ekta Over Objectionable Content In XXX Web Series

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday slammed producer Ekta Kapoor over “objectionable content” in the web series ‘XXX’ produced by her saying she was polluting the minds of the youngsters.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar said, “Something has to be done. You are polluting the minds of the young generation of this country. OTT (Over The Top) content is available to all. What kind of choice are you providing to the people?”
The remarks of the bench came after Kapoor filed a plea in the top court challenging the arrest warrants issued against her for the alleged objectionable content in her web series ‘XXX’.

A complaint was filed by Shambhu Kumar, an ex-serviceman against Kapoor for allegedly insulting soldiers and hurting the sentiments of their families in the web series aired on her OTT platform ALTBalaji.

A trial court in Bihar’s Begusarai issued the warrant on a complaint lodged by Kumar in 2020.

The counsel appearing for Kapoor told the apex court that the matter is pending before the Patna High Court against the arrest warrants but there is no hope the matter will be listed for hearing soon.

It was also irked that Kapoor approached the top court and refrained from imposing a cost.

This court is not for those who have voices, this court works for those who don’t have voices, the bench remarked. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Gyanvapi: Court Rejects Plea Seeking Carbon Dating Of Shivling

By LokMarg

A Varanasi court on Friday rejected the plea seeking carbon dating and scientific investigation of the purported ‘Shivling’ claimed to be found in the Gyanvapi mosque complex.

The Hindu side had claimed that a ‘Shivling’ was found in the premises near the ‘wazukhana’ during the videography survey of the mosque premises, which was ordered by the court.
However, the Muslim side said that the structure found was a ‘fountain’. The Hindu side had then submitted an application on September 22 that sought a carbon dating of the object they claimed to be ‘Shivling’.

Carbon dating is a scientific process that ascertains the age of an archaeological object or archaeological finds.

Speaking to ANI, Vishnu Jain, representing the Hindu side said, “The Muslim side said that Shivling is not a part of the suit property and its carbon dating cannot be done. We have given our clarification on both of these points. The court will deliver its verdict on October 14.”

Earlier on September 29, the Hindu side demanded a scientific investigation of the ‘Shivling’ by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the carbon dating of ‘Argha’ and the area around it.

The court had reserved the order in the Gyanvapi Mosque-Shringar Gauri case after hearing both sides’ arguments.

Akhlaq Ahmed, representing the Muslim side had said that the plea by the Hindu side is not maintainable as it is against the order of the Supreme Court that stated protecting the structure (which the Muslim side claims to be a fountain and the Hindu side claims to be a Shivling).

“We responded to the application on carbon dating. Stone does not have the capacity to absorb carbon. The Supreme Court in its May 17 order, according to which, the object that was found by the commission, had to be protected. The order of the SC will prevail, so the object cannot be opened. According to the Hindu side, the process will be scientific, even if it is so, there will be tampering with the object. Chemicals will be used for the test. We will take action based on the order by the court on October 14,” Ahmed told ANI.

Another lawyer representing the Muslim side, Tohid Khan said, “The court will deliver its verdict on whether the application seeking carbon dating is acceptable or should be rejected. The structure is a fountain and not Shivling. The fountain can still be made operational.”

Earlier, an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a PIL that sought the appointment of a committee/commission under a judge to study the nature of the structure found in the Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi.

The appeal filed by seven devotees sought direction from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to ascertain the nature of the structure found on the Gyanvapi campus.

The Allahabad High Court had on July 19 dismissed their plea seeking the appointment of a committee/commission headed by a judge of the High Court or supreme court (sitting/retired) to study the nature of the structure found in the Gyanvapi Mosque.

The PIL moved before the High Court seeks direction from a committee to ascertain whether a Shivaling, as claimed by the Hindus, had been found inside the mosque or if it is a fountain as claimed by Muslims.

The appeal in the top court stated that the Allahabad High Court had erred in dismissing the plea.

On May 20, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the case related to worship at Gyanvapi mosque from the civil judge to the District Judge, Varanasi. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

SC Anil Deshmukh's Bail

SC Refuses To Cancel Anil Deshmukh’s Bail

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to cancel the bail granted to former Maharashtra’s former home minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Anil Deshmukh in the money laundering case lodged against him by Enforcement Directorate (ED).

A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order which granted bail to Deshmukh.
The bench clarified that the observations made by the High Court will not influence the trial and are only confined to the issue of bail.

Enforcement Directorate has approached the apex court challenging the Bombay High Court’s order granting bail to Deshmukh, who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case.

On October 4, the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Deshmukh in a money laundering case being investigated by the ED.

The High Court had ordered that the bail order would be effective from October 13, in order to enable the ED to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Deshmukh will continue to be lodged in judicial custody in Arthur Road prison as he is also being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a corruption case.

Earlier, on Deshmukh’s plea, the top court had directed the High Court to hear and decide expeditiously his bail plea.

The top court had expressed displeasure that the Bombay High Court has kept the bail application of Deshmukh pending for so many months and asked it to hear the plea of Deshmukh within this week and decide it expeditiously.

It had noted that Deshmukh’s bail plea is pending in the High Court since March 21 and it observed that keeping bail applications pending for eight months is not in consonance with the jurisprudence of bail.

Deshmukh had sought bail from the High Court in the money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate after the Special Court declined his plea.

Deshmukh was arrested by the ED in November 2021 and is currently in judicial custody.

According to the ED, Deshmukh had misused his position as state home minister and collected Rs 4.70 crore from various bars in Mumbai through some police officers. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

8 Lakh Views To India’s First Live-Streaming Of SC

By LokMarg

In a landmark moment in the history of the Indian judiciary, the Supreme Court on Tuesday live-streamed on YouTube its proceedings for the public to watch.

The proceedings were watched by more than eight lakh viewers.
This step will go a long way in overcoming the barriers of distance and will provide citizens from every nook and corner of the country opportunity to watch the Supreme Court proceedings, said a statement issued by the Supreme Court.

It further stated that this is a humble beginning and the “attempts will now be made to live-stream proceedings in all important matters” until live-streaming of proceedings becomes the order of the day.

“Three Constitution Benches in Court nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Supreme Court of India were sitting today simultaneously and the proceedings in these three Courts were being live streamed through YouTube and other T.V. Channels. Statistics show that more than eight lakh viewers watched the proceedings before the three Constitution Benches,” said the Supreme Court.

The decision to live stream the proceedings of the Constitution benches was taken by the Full Court on September 20, 2022 and soon thereafter trial runs were undertaken by the Registry.

The technical support teams ensured that the live streaming was without any obstruction or difficulty and was completely seamless, the statement added.

Last week Supreme Court decided to hold live streaming of all the Constitution bench hearings from September 27.

Today, three Constitution benches heard the cases relating to pleas challenging the Centre’s decision to grant a 10 per cent quota for the EWS category in admissions and jobs, the Maharashtra political crisis, and control of administrative services in Delhi.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit heard pleas challenging the EWS quota case. The case challenges the 103rd Constitution Amendment.

Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench heard the petitions filed by both the Uddhav Thackeray-led camp and Eknath Shinde group on the issue of Maharashtra political crisis, and the plea of the Delhi government on the contentious issue of who should control administrative services in Delhi over the transfers and postings of officers in the national capital.

While a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul heard the matter relating to the validity of the All India Bar Examination.

Yesterday, CJI said that the Supreme Court will have its own platform to live-stream its proceedings and the use of YouTube for the purpose is temporary.

“These are the initial stages. We will certainly have our own platforms… We will take care of that (copyright issue),” he said while a lawyer told the apex court that the copyright of the top court proceedings cannot be surrendered to private platforms like YouTube.

Currently, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has been hearing a number of cases including economically backward class reservation law, the religious practice of ex-communication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, Centre’s petition on additional compensation for victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy among others.

The cases that the five-judge Constitution bench will hear in near future include challenges to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), abrogation of Article 370, Maharashtra political crisis etc.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising had also written to the CJI and other judges requesting the Supreme Court to begin live streaming of proceedings of matters of public and constitutional importance.

In 2018 the then CJI Dipak Misra-led three-judge bench had agreed to start a live telecast of proceedings in a phased manner.

For the first time, the Supreme Court in August live-streamed its proceedings through a government webcast portal of a ceremonial bench for while giving farewell to outgoing Chief Justice of India NV Ramana. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Uddhav Dig at shinde

SC Allows EC To Decide Which Faction Is The Real Shiv Sena

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to decide on rival claims made by groups led by Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on which faction is the real Shiv Sena.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud declined to stay proceedings before the Election Commission on the Shinde group’s claim for recognition as the ‘real’ Shiv Sena.
The bench also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha rejected the plea of the Uddhav Thackeray group seeking a stay on proceedings before the EC till the Supreme Court decides on the main issue pending before it.

“We direct that there would be no stay of the proceedings before the Election Commission of India. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed,” the bench stated in its order after a day-long hearing.

The ECI will now also look at the issue of allotment of Shiv Sena’s traditional bow and arrow symbol of the party.

Earlier, the apex court had verbally asked the poll panel to not take any precipitative action on the issue.

Thackeray group had filed an application before the top court seeking direction to restrain the Election Commission from deciding the claim raised by the Shinde faction for recognition as the official Shiv Sena party.

During the hearing, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Thackeray group, argued that Shinde has incurred disqualification as his various acts amount to voluntary giving up of the party membership under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule and also he has violated the party whip.

He said that allowing the Election Commission to decide Shinde’s claim can result in “irreparable damage” to the Thackeray group.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also appearing for the Thackeray camp contended that “In whatever form the Shiv Sena exists today, they have no claim that they have merged with the BJP. You (Shinde group) have left the Shiv Sena, but you want the goodwill of Shiv Sena and so you won’t merge.”

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde group, claimed that over 1.5 lakh party members had sent their representations to the Election Commission supporting the Shinde group.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra Governor, told the bench that the Election Commission should be allowed to discharge its duties.

He said, “This is a political question and it is not the first time that such a split has happened and to decide which faction is the real party. It is the election commission which is equipped to look into this.”

The top court is seized of several petitions filed by rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the Maharashtra political crisis.

In August, the top court’s three-judge bench had referred to a five-judge Constitution bench the issues involved in the petition filed by rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the Maharashtra political crisis.

Earlier, the Supreme Court three-judge bench had said that some of the issues involved in the Maharashtra political crisis may require a larger Constitutional bench for consideration.

It had also asked the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Rahul Narwekar not to take any action on the new disqualification notices issued against the members of Shiv Sena. There are various petitions pending before the apex court filed by both the factions of Shiv Sena.

Thackeray-led faction had approached the top court challenging the Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s decision to invite Eknath Shinde to form the government and also the Speaker’s election and floor test. Later they had challenged the Shinde group approaching poll panel claiming they are ‘real’ Shiv Sena.

They had also challenged the newly appointed Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s action recognising the whip of the Eknath Shinde group as the whip of Shiv Sena. The plea said the newly appointed Speaker has no jurisdiction to recognise whips nominated by Shinde as Uddhav Thackeray is still the head of the Shiv Sena official party.

Thackeray camp’s Sunil Prabhu had filed a plea seeking suspension from the Maharashtra Assembly of new Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and 15 rebel MLAs against whom disqualification pleas are pending.

Shinde groups challenged the disqualification notices issued by the Deputy Speaker to 16 rebel MLAs as well as the appointment of Ajay Choudhary as Shiv Sena Legislature Party leader, is also pending before the apex court.

On June 29, the top court gave a go-ahead to the floor test in the Maharashtra Assembly on June 30. Refusing to stay the Maharashtra Governor’s direction to the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority support on the floor of the House on June 30, the bench had issued notice on Prabhu’s plea against floor test.

After the apex court’s order, Uddhav Thackeray announced his resignation as the Chief Minister and Eknath Shinde was later sworn in as the Chief Minister.

On June 27, the top court granted interim relief to Shinde and other rebel MLAs to file their reply to disqualification notices issued to them by Deputy Speaker by July 12, 5.30 pm. Earlier, Deputy Speaker had granted them time to file a reply by June 27, 5.30 pm. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Listing Of Article 370 Hearing After Dussehra Break: SC

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would list the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories after the Dussehra break.

“We will certainly list it after Dussehra break,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit.
The break for Dussehra is between October 3 and 9.

The counsel mentioning the matter on the urgent list told the bench that the matter has been pending for a year. Earlier, former CJI NV Ramana had said he will try to list in July a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of the move scrapping Article 370.

Various petitions are pending before the top court challenging the validity of the law scrapping Article 370 of the constitution and special status to Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcating the state into two Union Territories.

Later, some petitions were filed against the government’s action for delimitation in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019.

These petitions said sweeping changes are being brought about by the Centre that impacts the rights of a large number of people.

Despite the petition being pending before the Supreme Court since 2019, the central government has taken some irreversible actions, the petitions added. The petitions have stated that the Centre has constituted a delimitation commission to mark boundaries in the territory for all the constituencies before an assembly election can be held.

On August 5, 2019, the Central government announced its decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir granted under Article 370 and split the region into two Union territories.

A five-judge Bench in March 2020 had declined to refer to a larger 7-judge bench a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 on August 5, saying there were no reasons to refer the matter to a larger bench.

A number of petitions have been filed in the top court including those of private individuals, lawyers, activists and politicians, and political parties challenging the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which splits Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Hijab Ban In Karnataka

SC Reserves Order On Hijab Ban In Karnataka Schools

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on various petitions challenging Karnataka High Court upholding a ban on Hijab in educational institutes.

A bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved its judgment after the parties appearing from both sides concluded their arguments.

The arguments in the matter that continued for 10 days, involved 21 lawyers from the petitioner’s side and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, Karnataka Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi argued for the respondents.

The court was hearing several pleas against the Karnataka HC’s judgment upholding the state government’s decision to direct educational institutes to prescribe uniforms in educational institutes.

Addressing the court, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, in his rejoinder submission said that the Karnataka Government Circular which enforced a dress code has no reference to the Popular Front of India. Senior Advocate Dave was representing the petitioner.

Countering the submission of the respondent, the petitioner’s lawyer Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid said that the respondent’s arguments mentioned the examples of France and Turkey. Khurshid further said that anything that expresses religious belief is not allowed to be displayed in public including a cross.

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

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

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

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

The Hijab row erupted in January this year when the Government PU College in Udupi allegedly barred six girls wearing the hijab from entering. Following this, the girls sat in protest outside the college after they were denied entry.

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

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

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

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/