Tag: Plea

  • Hemant Soren drops plea against arrest after SC questions ‘conduct’

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised Hemant Soren for his “blameworthy conduct” of not disclosing complete facts in a plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) even as the former Jharkhand chief minister’s counsel withdrew the plea.

    A vacation bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta verbally observed that Soren had availed “parallel remedies” by filing two separate pleas, one challenging his arrest and another seeking bail, but did not disclose it to the top court.

    Soren also did not disclose that his regular bail already stands dismissed by the trial court, the bench observed.It disapproved of the “crafty drafting” of Soren’s petition and told senior advocate Kapil Sibal that the court expected “some candour from your client”.AllUttar PradeshMaharashtraTamil NaduWest BengalBiharKarnatakaAndhra PradeshTelanganaKeralaMadhya PradeshRajasthanDelhiOther StatesSibal said it was his own mistake and not of Soren. “It is my personal fault and not of my client,” he told the bench. “The client is in jail and we are lawyers acting for him. Our intention was never to mislead the court and we have never done it.”Speaking for the bench, Justice Datta verbally observed that it appears that “the person in custody is not acting with bona fide”.To this, Sibal responded that Soren “is not in touch with us. It is not his (Soren) fault at all”.Sibal withdrew the plea after the bench said it would dismiss the same.

    Pointing out factual dissimilarities between the case of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Soren, both challenging their arrest by Enforcement Directorate (ED), the apex court on Tuesday had sought to know whether Soren’s plea would be maintainable especially after his regular bail has been rejected and the fact that a special court has taken cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent of a charge sheet) filed by ED against Soren and other accused.

  • Hijab Ban| Rules say that educational institutions have power to prescribe uniform: Supreme Court

    Express News Service

    While hearing pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there were statutory rules which say that educational institutions have the power to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the schools could not restrict entry for not wearing a dress and that a public institution particularly a government institution could not impose a dress code, Justice Hemant Gupta asked, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia said. 

    Bhushan also argued that over the years, Muslim girls wearing hijab had acquired relgious identity which was protected under article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the severe fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions was the dropout of Muslim girls, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim girls in Dakshina Kannada took transfer certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the judge’s question as to whether the TC’s were taken after completion of the class, Sibal said that they were taken before completion of the class. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal said. 

    He also added that the consequence of depriving young girls is depriving them of the fundamental right of access to education, privacy, dignity.  Sibal also said that there was no “compelling need” for the state government to pass the GO. 

    Referring to some students wearing orange shawls to protest against Hijab,  the bench said, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement is not respectful of the minority community, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court. He also said the judges and courts must ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional protection 75 years ago, what is the difference between a turban and hijab? Women feel about the hijab with the same intensity and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels about the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban only affected Muslim girls wearing hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination as it discriminated religion as well as sex.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the fact that there is no concept of barter of fundamental rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam said, GO was an executive order & if the government wanted to restrict hijab, it could only be done by way of law. 

    While hearing pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there were statutory rules which say that educational institutions have the power to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the schools could not restrict entry for not wearing a dress and that a public institution particularly a government institution could not impose a dress code, Justice Hemant Gupta asked, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia said. 

    Bhushan also argued that over the years, Muslim girls wearing hijab had acquired relgious identity which was protected under article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the severe fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions was the dropout of Muslim girls, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim girls in Dakshina Kannada took transfer certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the judge’s question as to whether the TC’s were taken after completion of the class, Sibal said that they were taken before completion of the class. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal said. 

    He also added that the consequence of depriving young girls is depriving them of the fundamental right of access to education, privacy, dignity.  Sibal also said that there was no “compelling need” for the state government to pass the GO. 

    Referring to some students wearing orange shawls to protest against Hijab,  the bench said, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement is not respectful of the minority community, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court. He also said the judges and courts must ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional protection 75 years ago, what is the difference between a turban and hijab? Women feel about the hijab with the same intensity and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels about the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban only affected Muslim girls wearing hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination as it discriminated religion as well as sex.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the fact that there is no concept of barter of fundamental rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam said, GO was an executive order & if the government wanted to restrict hijab, it could only be done by way of law. 

  • Vacancies in tribunals; SC advises patience to litigants seeking urgent hearing

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday advised patience to litigants seeking urgent listing of pleas pertaining to filling up of vacancies in various tribunals across the country.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said that it would take up the pleas on the issue on February 23 and has already asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to be ready to assist it.

    “In PIL matters also, you create a great fuss. Can we call the government today and send him to jail. Please have some patience, we are taking up the matter,” said the Chief Justice of India (CJI) when a lawyer insisted for grant of early hearing of his plea.

    “We are taking up the matter. Yesterday, we had called the attorney general and we would be taking it up on February 23,” the bench said.

    Few pleas pertaining to the vacancies and members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) were mentioned on Thursday for urgent hearing.

    The top court, while hearing another case on Wednesday, rued the “knee jerk” actions in filling up vacant posts in tribunals, saying the bureaucracy has been taking up the issue “lightly”.

    The bench headed by the CJI, which has been proactively dealing with the issue of huge vacancies in various tribunals across the country, had said that after a few appointments made initially, nothing substantial happened.

    “We are getting (pleas for) extension of time for the members of the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal). Some knee-jerk appointments took place and nothing happened after that. We do not know the fate of members and many are retiring. Bureaucracy is taking it (the issue) lightly,” the CJI observed.

    Venugopal, who has been assisting the bench in dealing with the vacancies related matters, attempted to show the list of vacancies and the steps taken to fill them up. The bench had said that it would hear the issue after two weeks.

    The top court has been asking the Centre to make appointments in tribunals that are facing a severe crunch of presiding officers as well as judicial and technical members.

    As per data made available in a hearing in August last year, around 250 posts are lying vacant in various key tribunals and appellate tribunals across the country.

    The Centre, in its affidavit filed in September 2021, had submitted that it has made 84 appointments in six tribunals including ITAT and NCLT and no recommendations of the Search cum Selection Committees (SCSC) is pending with it then.

    The Centre had also given the chart containing details of appointments made in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Telecom Disputes and Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

    “In all, a total of 84 appointments were made to various tribunals during the years 2020 and 2021,” the affidavit had said.