Supreme Court Archives - Page 5 of 17 - Lokmarg

Same Sex Marriage: Review Petition Filed Against Constitution Bench Order

By LokMarg 1st November 2023

A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking to review its judgement denying marriage equality rights to queer persons, urging for an open court hearing on the petition.

The review petition raised that the majority judgment has failed to take the logical next step of prohibiting discrimination. The Majority Judgment’ is facially erroneous because it finds that the Respondents are violating the Petitioners’ fundamental rights through discrimination, and yet fails to enjoin the discrimination.

“Nonetheless, the Majority Judgment fails to take the logical next step of prohibiting the discrimination. It instead invites the Respondents to consider such impacts and make necessary recommendations,” read the review petition, lamenting that “whether this will happen through proactive action of the State itself, or as a result of sustained public mobilisation is a reality that will play out on India’s democratic stage, and something only time can tell.”

The review petition has been filed against the judgement dated October 17, 2023, passed by the five-judge Constitution Bench. The review petition said that the judgement suffers from several errors.

The petition has sought to direct the instant review petition to be listed for an open court hearing to enable the petitioners to address oral arguments in support of the review petition.

“It is most respectfully submitted that for a Constitutional Court to specifically identify discrimination; but fail to grant appropriate remedies, is an abdication of its responsibility under the Constitution of this country,” read the petition.

It further added, “As correctly noted by the Chief Justice, the Majority Judgment fails to address whether Regulation 5(3) is discriminatory for distinguishing between married and unmarried couples for the purpose of adoption and for the disproportionate impact that it has on the members of the queer community while simultaneously holding that “the State cannot, on any account, make regulations that are facially or indirectly discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation.”

The petition states that the majority judgement is self-contradictory in its understanding of “marriage”.

It acknowledges that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (the “Act” / “SMA”) confers the “status” of marriage, observing that the Act “in fact created social status or facilitated the status of individuals in private fields” and that the Parliament “has intervened and facilitated the creation of social status. (marriage) through SMA,” the petition highlighted.

The review petition also said that the majority judgement is manifestly unjust because it countenances animus-motivated depravation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights.

“The Majority Judgment erroneously likens this case to a petition for ‘the construction of a road’ to enforce the right to travel, or creation of a ‘platform’ for a ‘poet who wishes to share their work’, when in fact, here, the Respondents have constructed the metaphoric road and poetry platform–only that homosexuals are barred from both because the Respondents think homosexuals are inherently a problem,” read the review petition.

“The Majority Judgment effectively compels young queer Indians to remain in the closet and lead dishonest lives if they wish for the joys of a real family. It is fallacious that, under these facts, and in the absence of a fundamental right to marry or form a union, the rights to equal protection, dignity and fraternity are insufficient to justify judicial intervention,” the review petition said.

The plea has sought a review of the top court’s five-judge bench order, which refused to give marriage equality rights to same-sex couples.

The review petition has been moved by one of the 21 petitioners through Karanjawala & Co.

On October 17, the five-judge Constitution bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha delivered the order.

There were four judgements separately authored by the CJI and Justices Kaul, Bhat and Narasimha. While the CJI and Justice Kaul had the same opinion, Justices Bhat, Narasimha and Kohli agreed with each other.

The majority judges by 3:2 held that non-heterosexual couples cannot be granted the right to jointly adopt a child. However, CJI and Justice Kaul said that these couples have the right to jointly adopt a child.

Around 21 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

One of the petitions earlier raised the absence of a legal framework that allowed members of the LGBTQIA+ community to marry any person of their choice. (ANI)

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

Marriage Equality Rights Refused To LGBTQIA+

By LokMarg 17th October 2023

A five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench has in majority verdict ruled that for LGBTQIA+ couples there is no unqualified right to marriage and that conferring legal status to civil union can only be through enacted law.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha delivered the verdict it had reserved on May 11 this year.

The court, however, said the judgement will not preclude the right of Queer persons to enter into relationships. The apex court also said that the challenge to Special Marriage Act (SMA) on the ground of under-classification is not made out.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli were in agreement on these positions, while CJI Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul took divergent positions.

At the start of the judgment the bench clarified that there were four judgements in the case. One by CJI Chandrachud, another by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, a third by Justice Ravindra Bhat and the last by Justice Narasimha.

In his judgement the CJI passed the directions that the Union government and State governments must ensure there is no discrimination against the Queer community.

The CJI said it should be ensured that there is no discrimination in access to goods and services to the queer community. There is a need to sensitise public about queer rights. The Union and state Governments must create a hotline for queer community to prevent harassment. The government must create safe houses for queer couple. Government also must ensure inter-sex children are not forced to undergo operations.

The CJI said that it should be ensured that no person shall be forced to undergo any hormonal therapy. There shall be no harassment to queer community by summoning them to police station solely to enquire about their sexual identity. Police should not force queer persons to return to their natal family. Police should conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR against a queer couple over their relationship.

The CJI said this Court has the power to hear the case. Queer is a natural phenomenon known to India from ages. It is neither urban or elitist. Marriage is not static. Supreme Court cannot strike down Special Marriage Act or read words into the Act due to the institutional limitations. Failure of the State to recognise the bouquet of rights flowing from a queer relationship amounts to discrimination.

Right to enter into union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing laws including personal laws.

On adoption of children by queer couples, the CJI in his judgement said, unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child. The Union Government, State Government and Union Territories shall not discriminate against the right of the queer community to enter into union.

The CJI directed the Union Government to constitute a committee to decide the rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions. The Committee shall consider to include queer couples as family in ration cards, enabling queer couples to nominate for joint bank account, rights flowing from pension, gratuity etc. The Committee report to be looked at the Union Government level.

In his concurring judgement Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said legal recognition of same sex unions is a step towards marriage equality, however, marriage is not the end. Justice Kaul said let us preserve the autonomy as it does not impinge on others rights.

Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Narasimha disagreed with the CJI on various aspects of the judgement.

Justice Bhat said there cannot be an unqualified right to marry which is to be treated as a fundamental right. While we agree that there is a right to relationship, we squarely recognise that it falls within Article 21. It includes the right to choose a partner and enjoy physical intimacy with them including right to privacy, autonomy etc. and should enjoy this right undisturbed from the society and when threatened State has to protect the same. There cannot be any doubt that there is a choice to have a life partner.

Justice Bhat said the Court can’t put State under any obligation when there is no constitutional right to marry or legal recognition of unions among non-heterosexual couples. Justice Bhat said the Court cannot create a legal framework for queer couples and it is for the legislature to do as there are several aspects to be taken into consideration. All queer persons have the right to choose their partners but State cannot be obligated to recognise the bouquet of rights flowing from such a union.

Justice Bhat further said a general neutral interpretation of Special Marriage Act may not be equitable at times and can lead to women being led to vulnerabilities in an unintended manner. The purpose of terms like wife, husband etc. is aimed to protect the vulnerable and the women facing domestic violence is there to ensure they receive justice. Thus, interpreting the Special Marriage Act as desired would render it unworkable.

Justice Bhat also disagreed with the CJI on the right of queer couples to adopt and he raised certain concerns.

In his conclusion Justice Bhat said there is no unqualified right to marriage. Conferring legal status to civil union can only be through enacted law. But these findings will not preclude the right of queer persons to enter into relationships.

In his order Justice Bhat said challenge to Special Marriage Act on the ground of under-classification is not made out. Transgender persons in homosexual relationships have the right to marry. State shall ensure queer persons are not harassed.

Justice Hima Kohli said she agrees with the view of Justice Ravindra Bhat. Justice Narasimha also said he agrees with the view of Justice Ravindra Bhat.

The five-judge Constitution bench was dealing with a batch of petitions pertaining to marriage equality rights for LGBTQIA+ community. The order was reserved on May 11 after counsels from all sides concluded their arguments.

The Constitution bench had begun the hearing on the matter on April 18 and the hearing went on for nearly 10 days. The court had clarified that it will deal with the issue under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and will not touch the personal laws on this aspect.

The Centre has opposed the plea and said that parliament and not the court, should consider the issue. The Centre called it an Urban elite concept but the court did not agree

During the hearing the Centre had agreed to examine issues relating to giving some certain rights to LGBTQIA + but opposed legal recognition to the same-sex couple. (ANI)

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

Judgement On Marriage Equality Rights For LGBTQIA+ Community Tomorrow

By LokMarg 16th October 2023

The Supreme Court will deliver its judgement on various petitions pertaining to marriage equality rights for the LGBTQIA+ community on Tuesday.

The five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha is dealing with a batch of petitions pertaining to marriage equality rights for LGBTQIA+ community.

The order was reserved on May 11 after counsel from all sides concluded their arguments.

Constitution bench began the hearing on the matter on April 18 and the hearing went on for nearly 10 days.

Supreme Court is handling various petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. One of the petitions earlier raised the absence of a legal framework allowing members of the LGBTQIA+ community to marry any person of their choice.

The court has clarified that it will deal with the issue under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and will not touch the personal laws on this aspect.

According to one of the petitions, the couple sought to enforce the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to marry any person of their choice. It said that “the exercise of which ought to be insulated from the disdain of legislative and popular majorities.” The petitioners, further, asserted their fundamental right to marry each other and prayed for appropriate directions from this Court allowing and enabling them to do so.

The petition was represented by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Saurabh Kirpal.

Centre has opposed the plea and said that Parliament and not the court should consider the issue.

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court that the entire architecture of laws is from the perspective of the welfare of the child being paramount and adoption is not an alternative to biological birth in families of heterosexual couples.

Centre on April 18 issued a letter to states, asking them to give their opinion on the issues relating to same-sex marriage.

States of Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan have opposed the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the country. (ANI)

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

SC Gives No Interim Relief To Azam Khan

By LokMarg 11th October 2023

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give any interim relief to Samajwadi Party leader Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan in a matter related to the protest case.

A bench of justices MM Sundresh and PK Mishra posted the matter for further hearing after the report on juvenility is filed.

The top court on September 26 has referred to the District Judge, Muradabad for addressing the question relating to the correct date of birth of the petitioner Khan and send a finding to this Court for further consideration in the matter.

The court had noted that the correct date of birth relating to the petitioner is relevant for ultimate consideration of the issues raised and to decide the juvenility.

The court was hearing SP leader Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan plea challenging Allahabad High Court order which rejected his plea seeking stay on his conviction in a matter related to protest case.

Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan, who is son of Senior SP leader, has moved the Supreme Court against Allahabad HC order

Recently, Allahabad High Court has refused to stay the conviction of Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan in connection with a 2008 protest case, which led to his disqualification as an MLA from the Uttar Pradesh assembly.

The Supreme Court had earlier requested the Allahabad High Court to decide at earliest Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan plea seeking stay of his conviction in a matter related to protest.

Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan claiming that he was was a juvenile as on the date of the incident, has challenged the Allahabad High Court order dated March 17.

Mohd Abdulllah Azam Khan was disqualified from UP Legislative Assembly after he was convicted and sentenced to two-year imprisonment in a 15-year-old case. Abdulla Azam Khan was representing Suar in Rampur district in the Assembly.

Abdullah Azam Khan, and his father, was convicted by a local court in Uttra Pradesh of allegedly using criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a matter pertaining to a dharna on a state highway in January 2008.

Abdullah Azam Khan moved Allahabad High Court against trial court order seeking suspension of his sentence.

In the plea, Abdullah Khan apprised the court that on March 17, High Court of Allahabad after perusing the Application preferred by the Petitioner granted the Respondent State a time period of 3 weeks to file counter affidavit, however, failed to appreciate the fact that if the Application is not decided expeditiously then the same would be rendered infructuous and the Petitioner would suffer irreparable harm.

On February 13, Trial Court convicted Abdullah Azam Khan for offences punishable under Section 353, 341 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and sentenced him to undergo two years of simple imprisonment.

Subsequent to the order of the Trial Court on February 13, 2023 convicting Khan, the Assembly Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly on February 15 notified that the Constituency Seat of Suar, District Rampur of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly has become vacant.

The Petitioner appealed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur against the order of the Trial Court and also filed an application for stay of conviction and sentence. However, the Sessions Court dismissed the said application on February 28. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the High Court against the order.

The petitioner said that he believes that during the pendency of the Application before the High Court, by-election to the Rampur constituency would be announced.

The petitioner said he is concerned that if such an announcement is made and thereafter, the High Court passes a stay order the same would be rendered moot due to the announcement of the by-elections. (ANI)

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

SC Appoints Sign-Language Interpreter For Hearing-Impaired Lawyers

By LokMarg 6th October 2023

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it has allowed the appointment of an interpreter to translate through sign language for hearing-impaired lawyers.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said he wanted to have a sign-language interpreter for the Constitution bench hearings.

A sign-language interpreter was seen interpreting the proceedings of the top court to hearing-impaired lawyer Sarah Sunny in a virtual window.

“We have an interpreter today for Sarah. In fact, we are thinking that for the constitution bench hearings, we will have an interpreter so everyone can follow”, said the CJI at the outset of the court’s proceedings.

“This is truly historic and momentous. It shows the diversity in true sense in this court,” senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who was present in the court, told CJI.

After the matter in which Sarah was appearing was over, CJI told her, “Sarah, I hope this was intelligible to you and you were able to understand what was going on in the court.”

Her interpreter said, “Yes sir, she says it was very helpful.”

As Sarah’s counsel Sanchita Ain expressed gratitude to the CJI for arranging the interpreter, CJI replied, “It is our elementary duty to have a more diverse environment.”

CJI Chandrachud then told her, “But Sarah, now you must start arguing your own matters.”

On September 22, a bench headed by the CJI heard Sarah through sign-language interpreter Saurav Roy Chowdhury in a case related to the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD).

Sarah had earlier filed an application before the Supreme Court Registry requesting a court-appointed Indian Sign Language (ISL) interpreter to assist her. (ANI)

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

SC To Hear Bihar Caste Census Matter On Oct 6

By LokMarg 3rd October 2023

The Supreme Court of India has said that it will take up for hearing on October 6 the matter of the caste census in Bihar after the petitioner’s lawyer mentioned before the apex court that the Bihar Government had published caste survey data.

The matter was brought before a bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti.

The petitioner’s lawyer apprised the court that the Bihar Government has already published the caste survey data, prompting concerns and legal challenges from various quarters.

Among the petitioners are organizations like Ek Soch Ek Prayas and Youth for Equality, who have contested the legality and authority of the caste-based survey.

The Central Government also entered the legal fray, filing an affidavit with the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Census Act, 1948, bestows exclusive authority upon the Central Government to conduct census-related activities.

The affidavit reaffirmed the government’s commitment to uplift Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in line with constitutional provisions and applicable laws.

One of the petitions, represented by advocate Tanya Shree on behalf of petitioner Akhilesh Kumar, contested the Patna High Court’s dismissal of pleas challenging the Nitish Kumar government’s decision to conduct the caste-based survey. The High Court’s order was issued on August 1.

The petitioner had argued that the state of Bihar lacked the constitutional competence to initiate a caste-based survey and usurped the exclusive authority of the Union Government in conducting a census.

The petitioner had highlighted that the Bihar government’s notification dated June 6, 2022, and the subsequent appointment of a District Magistrate for supervision violate constitutional provisions, including the distribution of powers between the state and the union.

The petitioner contended that the entire exercise is without legislative competence and is riddled with malafide intentions.

The petitioner underscored that only the Union Government possesses the authority to conduct a census in India, rendering the Bihar State Government’s notification null and void.

The Patna High Court had previously dismissed similar pleas contesting the caste-based survey ordered by the Nitish Kumar administration.

The survey aims to collect data related to people of all castes, sub-castes, and socioeconomic conditions, covering an estimated population of 12.70 crores across 38 districts in Bihar. (ANI)

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

SC Tags Fresh Plea With Pending Case Against Udayanidhi

By LokMarg 27th September 2023

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tagged a plea of a Delhi based lawyer seeking an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin and MP A Raja for their remarks calling for the eradication of ‘Sanatan Dharma’, along with similar pending plea.

A bench headed by Justice Aniruddha Bose did not issue notice on the plea but tagged it along with a similar plea filed by a Chennai-based lawyer in which the apex court last week issued notice.

Additional Advocate General of the Tamil Nadu government opposed the plea saying these petitions are ‘publicity interest litigations’.

There are 40 writ petitions filed across the country in different High Courts for publicity, which makes it incredibly difficult for the State.

“Everyone filing PILs for publicity, they will go to the media and circulate these,” the bench said.

The bench said it will not issue notice on the plea and tag it along with the pending petition. “We have not issued notice. Let it be tagged. We will see on that day,” the bench said.

The apex court was hearing an application filed by advocate Vineet Jindal also seeking contempt of court action against Delhi and Chennai police for not registering suo motu FIR for hate speech in terms of the Supreme Court’s earlier order.

The application was filed in an already pending case of hate speech and sought registration of an FIR against Stalin and Rajya Sabha MP A Raja for their act of outraging religious feelings, insulting the followers of the Hindu religion and instigating enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion.

The lawyer said he is a follower of Sanatan Dharma and he watched a video statement of Stalin and its translation on social media and news reports in which Stalin spoke at an event called ‘Sanatan Abolition Conference’.

“The applicant, being a Hindu and Sanatan Dharma follower, his religious sentiments are hurt by statements made by Udhayanidhi Stalin calling for eradicating Sanatan Dharma and further comparing Sanatan with mosquitoes, dengue, corona, and malaria. His words show his hate towards Sanatan Dharma. He is an MLA and Minister in the Tamil Nadu government and has taken an oath to work as per the constitution of our country and must respect all the regions but he intentionally made a provocative and defamatory statement for the Sanatan Dharma with the intent to promote enmity between groups on the grounds of religion,” the application stated.

Aggrieved by the hate speech made by Stalin, the lawyer made a complaint to Delhi police for registration of FIR under sections 153A & B, 295A, 298 and 505 but the police are yet to register the FIR. The Supreme Court in its order dated April 28 directing all States and Union Territories (UT) to register suo motu FIRs in hate speech offences without any complaint being filed.

“Action be taken irrespective of the religion of the maker of the speech so that the secular character of India as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved,” the application added.

On September 5, 262 eminent citizens including former High Court judges and bureaucrats wrote to the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud urging him to take note of Stalin’s hate speech calling for the eradication of ‘Sanatan Dharma’.

They wrote a letter to the CJI stating that the Supreme Court had directed the governments and police authorities to take suo motu action in hate speech cases without waiting for the lodging of formal complaints.

On September 2, while likening Sanatan Dharma to the coronavirus, malaria, and dengue, Udhayanidhi Stalin, the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin said that such things should not be opposed but destroyed.

Remarks of DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin had triggered a massive political controversy across the country. (ANI)

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

Sanatan Dharma Row: Udhayanidhi Says No SC Summons Received

By LokMarg 23rd September 2023

Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin on Saturday said that he has not received any notice from the Supreme Court asking for his explanation for his Sanatan Dharma remarks which triggered a political storm in the country.

“I saw about the Supreme Court order in the media. There is still no notice received from the Supreme Court asking for an explanation,” Stalin told reporters here.

The Supreme Court on Friday had issued notice to him for his remarks calling for the eradication of ‘Sanatan Dharma’.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi had also issued notice to MP A Raja, MP Thol Thirumavalavan, MP Thiru Su Venkatesan, Tamil Nadu DGP, Greater Chennai Police Commissioner, Union Home Ministry, Minister for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department PK Sekar Babu, Chairman of Tamil Nadu State Minorities Commission Peter Alphonse and others.

The apex court which was initially reluctant to entertain the plea and asked the petitioner to approach the High Court, agreed to hear the case.

The bench asked about the context of the remarks, the advocate appearing for Chennai-based lawyer B Jagannath who filed the plea, said, “They have called for eradication of a faith, in an institution.”

The Counsel argued that if such a comment was made by an individual it would be understood, but the State is unleashing its machinery.

He told the bench that circulars have been given asking students to speak against it.

“A constitutional functionary speaking like this is impermissible. Second, students should not be forced to speak out against so and so Dharma,” the counsel said.

The plea filed through advocate Balaji Gopalan sought intervention to not allow Udhayanidhi Stalin and others to make further remarks on Sanatana Dharma.

It also sought to declare the participation of Tamil Nadu Ministers in the meeting — Sanatana Dharma Eradication conference — held on September 2, as unconstitutional.

The petition further sought direction from the respondents — Stalin, Peter Alphonse, A Raja Thol Thirumavalavan and their followers — not to make any further remarks against Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.

The petitioner urged the DGP to submit a report as to how the conference was given police permission and why no action was taken against the perpetrators and the organisation responsible for the event.

The plea sought directions from the Home Secretary and the CBI Director to immediately direct an investigation and enquiry into the background of holding such events, including the sources pertaining to who is responsible for the contribution of the amount to such organisations.

It also sought directions from the Tamil Nadu government’s Higher Education Department, asking them not to hold any events on ‘Sanatana Dharma’ in secondary schools.

The remarks of DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin triggered a massive political controversy across the country.

Read More: https://lokmarg.com/

SC Refuses To Interfere With Delhi Govt’s Decision To Ban Firecrackers

By LokMarg 13th September 2023

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned Delhi Police to apprise it how the crackers will be burst despite the ban imposed by the authorities concerned.

The apex court also remarked that people who want to burst firecrackers during Diwali festivals can find different ways to celebrate as it refused to interfere with the Delhi Government’s decision banning crackers in the state at this stage imposed by the Delhi Government.

A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice MM Sundresh’s remark came while dealing with the issue relating to firecrackers.

One of the pleas was filed by BJP leader Manoj Tiwari in 2022, challenging the blanket ban on firecrackers during Diwali celebrations in Delhi.

In today’s hearing, his counsel apprised the court about various states imposing a complete ban on crackers.

At this stage, the court said that it would not interfere and remarked that they could find different ways to celebrate.

The court asked Delhi Police how the banned crackers burst despite the ban.

Tiwari’s lawyer said that firecrackers are being allowed during election results. The court remarked that they celebrate victory in other ways and can do something to help the people..

The court said that If they feel like bursting crackers go to a state that has not banned it.

The court adjourned the matter for tomorrow asking Delhi Police to apprise it on the issues of bursting banned material despite the ban imposed by the government.

Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Centre, apprised the court about the affidavit filed by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (PESO).

She also apprised the court that various aspects are being considered including tests of chemicals, emissions released and sound testing facilities. She also apprised the court about the training and skills development programmes being carried out and thousands of manufacturers have been trained so far.

PESO, in the affidavit, apprised the court about the Green Cracker approval process and said the Fireworks may be broadly classified as Sound Emitting; Light emitting and Combination fireworks.

However, with respect to light-emitting fireworks, the variation may be four to five varieties with slight differences. The combination of fireworks uses both light and sound-emitting fireworks composition, PESO said.

“Accordingly, manufacturers licensed by PESO or District Magistrate with CSIR-NEERI and obtain improved formulation or New Formulation Fireworks Composition. After obtaining the same from CSIR-NEERI the manufacturers licensed by PESO make an application with PESO for approval of the said composition along with a certificate issued by NEERI. Accordingly, (approved composition) applications received from the manufacturers along with a certificate from NEERI for maintaining emission standards are processed and accorded in-principle approval by the respective offices of PESO strictly adhering to the timeline stipulated by the top court,” the affidavit read.

“For expediting usage of green crackers PESO has already instructed all the Fireworks manufacturers licensed by PESO to comply with the directives passed by this Court vide its order dated 23/10/2018. Accordingly, all fireworks manufacturers are advised to obtain an emission test report for improved formulation or new formulation (Green Cracker) Composition from CSIR-NEERI,” the affidavit said.

In the last hearing, The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) on Thursday apprised the Supreme Court that about the measures being taken by the concerned agencies and the Fireworks Manufacturers to address the concerns raised by the top court earlier.

The Ministry of Environment also urged the Supreme Court to permit it to take steps for the smooth implementation and quality control of Green Crackers.

The Ministry meanwhile apprised the court about the measures being taken by the concerned agencies and the Fireworks Manufacturers to accept and address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court earlier.

The top court was hearing a plea relating to the use of firecrackers during Diwali festivals.

In 2021, the Supreme Court clarified there is no blanket ban on the use of firecrackers and only those fireworks which contain barium salts are prohibited. (ANI)

SC Extends Relief To Editors Guild Members In Manipur Fact-Finding Report Case

By LokMarg 11th September 2023

The Supreme Court on Monday extended its order granting interim protection from arrest till September 15 to the president and fact-finding team members of the Editors Guild of India (EGI) in relation to the two FIRs registered against them by the Manipur Police.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra

extended the operation of its order passed on September 6 on the plea of the EGI till Friday, the next date of hearing.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Manipur government, told the bench that EGI members may be protected for some more time and asked it to send the matter to the Manipur High Court as done in other cases.

However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan, appearing for the EGI, opposed SG’s submission saying the matter be heard by the apex top court as the FIRs have been lodged on the basis of a fact-finding report.

The Chief Justice asked Mehta whether the State would agree to the transfer of the case to the Delhi High Court as a one-off measure. “We will not quash the FIRs here… but we will examine whether such a plea could be heard by the Delhi High Court,” CJI said.

SG initially objected to the transfer of the case to the Delhi High Court, saying the EGI was trying to make it into a “national, political issue” and asked why the petitioners were insisting on Delhi, and not States neighbouring Manipur.

Mehta said the Manipur High Court was functioning regularly and allowed virtual hearing of cases.

Sibal told the bench that EGI’s team had visited Manipur on the “Army’s invitation” to make an “objective assessment” of the “unethical and ex parte reporting” by the vernacular media.

“We did not volunteer to go there. It is the Army that requested us. We got a letter from the Army,” Sibal said.

The Chief Justice expressed surprise as to why the Army wanted the EGI to go to Manipur.

Editors Guild of India approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of two FIRs registered by Manipur police against its president and its fact-finding team over the report on the violence in the State.

The Guild’s 24-page report was released on September 2. The fact-finding team was sent to Manipur to examine the media reportage in the state from August 7 to 10.

The Manipur Police registered an FIR against Guild’s President Seema Mustafa, and three of its members – Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor – who were part of the fact-finding team that visited Manipur to examine how media in the state was reporting the violence. They had concluded that local news reports about the riots were biased.

The first FIR is based on a complaint filed by one Ngangom Sarat Singh who has described the report as “ false, fabricated and sponsored”. The second FIR was registered against the four members of the Guild, with the additional charge of defamation.

The plea sought directions to quash two FIRs registered by the Manipur police against Guild’s members.

The top court is seized of the cases relating to the violence in Manipur between Meitei and Kuki communities.

The violence in Manipur between the Hindu Meiteis and the tribal Kuki, who are Christians, erupted after a rally by the All Tribal Students Union of Manipur (ATSUM) on May 3.

Violence has gripped the entire state since May and the Central government had to deploy paramilitary forces to bring the situation under control. (ANI)