News Analysis India

Tag: Supreme Court

  • SC to deliver verdict on legal validation of same sex marriages on Tuesday

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will deliver on Tuesday its judgement on pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.

    On May 11, after an extensive 10-day-long hearing, a Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha had reserved their verdict.

    The top court’s judgement will decide as to whether the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ can be replaced with the word person and the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ can be replaced with the word ‘spouse’ in the Special Marriage Act (SMA).

    The bench had also said that the very notion of a man and a woman, as referred to in the Special Marriage Act, is not “an absolute based on genitals”.

    Some of the petitioners had urged the apex court to use its plenary power, “prestige and moral authority” to push the society to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA++ people to lead a “dignified” life like heterosexuals. LGBTQIA++ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and ally persons.

    Notably on the first day of the hearing, the bench had defined the contours of the pleas and had said that it would not go into personal laws governing marriage and instead will look into the issue of registration of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

    Another significant development which took place during the hearing was willingness to consider if certain rights could be conferred upon same-sex couples short of legal recognition as marriage.

    While hearing the matter on May 11, the bench had observed it cannot give a declaration on same-sex unions on the anticipation as to how Parliament is likely to respond to it.

    Meanwhile, the petitioners in their rejoinder submission on Thursday last week submitted that they were not seeking the interpretation of every gendered word in the SMA in a gender-neutral way. They said they were only assailing those parts of the SMA that require a Constitution-compliant reading on grounds of discrimination.

    Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the state by excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage was declaring that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples.

    “When it comes to the use of gendered terms to specifically address gendered imbalances of power and therefore achieve substantive equality, limiting such terms to their gendered, heterosexual context is what is consistent with the law’s underlying thrust. Civil union is not a solution, not an equal alternative. Civil unions do not address the constitutional anomaly presented by exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from the institution of marriage,” Singhvi said.

    Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said that lack of recognition leads to the denial of equal protection under the law.

    Arguments were also made by Senior advocates KV Vishwanathan, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, Maneka Guruswamy, and advocates Karuna Nundy, and Vrinda Grover.

    The petitioners underlining the real question before the court which was “who would take a call on what constitutes a valid marriage and between whom”, also contended that the Parliament was aware of the concept of “gays” and “lesbians” even while the Special Marriage Act was promulgated in 1954 but there was a “conscious omission” to not recognise same sex marriages.

    During the arguments, the Centre had told the apex court that any constitutional declaration made by it on the petitions seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage may not be a “correct course of action” as the court will not be able to foresee, envisage, comprehend and deal with its fallout.

    The Centre’s stand has been that the issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages through the SMA should be left for the Parliament to decide since it is the appropriate forum to conceive several situations which would arise from recognising the same “legally.”

    The Centre had also told the top court that the governments of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Assam had opposed the petitioners’ contention seeking legal endorsement for such wedlock.

    Stressing on the fact that all the civil as well as criminal laws define “man and woman in conventional sense”, the Centre had submitted that the right to marry does not include the right to compel the state to create a new definition of ‘marriage’.

    On May 3, the Centre had told the court it will constitute a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine the administrative steps that could be taken for addressing “genuine humane concerns” of same-sex couples without going into the issue of legalising their marriage.

    The Centre’s submission was pursuant to the apex court asking it on April 27 whether social welfare benefits like opening joint bank accounts, nominating life partner in provident funds, gratuity and pension schemes can be extended to same-sex couples without going into the issue of legal sanction to their marriage.

    (With additional inputs from PTI) Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will deliver on Tuesday its judgement on pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.

    On May 11, after an extensive 10-day-long hearing, a Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha had reserved their verdict.

    The top court’s judgement will decide as to whether the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ can be replaced with the word person and the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ can be replaced with the word ‘spouse’ in the Special Marriage Act (SMA).googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    The bench had also said that the very notion of a man and a woman, as referred to in the Special Marriage Act, is not “an absolute based on genitals”.

    Some of the petitioners had urged the apex court to use its plenary power, “prestige and moral authority” to push the society to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA++ people to lead a “dignified” life like heterosexuals. LGBTQIA++ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and ally persons.

    Notably on the first day of the hearing, the bench had defined the contours of the pleas and had said that it would not go into personal laws governing marriage and instead will look into the issue of registration of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

    Another significant development which took place during the hearing was willingness to consider if certain rights could be conferred upon same-sex couples short of legal recognition as marriage.

    While hearing the matter on May 11, the bench had observed it cannot give a declaration on same-sex unions on the anticipation as to how Parliament is likely to respond to it.

    Meanwhile, the petitioners in their rejoinder submission on Thursday last week submitted that they were not seeking the interpretation of every gendered word in the SMA in a gender-neutral way. They said they were only assailing those parts of the SMA that require a Constitution-compliant reading on grounds of discrimination.

    Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the state by excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage was declaring that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples.

    “When it comes to the use of gendered terms to specifically address gendered imbalances of power and therefore achieve substantive equality, limiting such terms to their gendered, heterosexual context is what is consistent with the law’s underlying thrust. Civil union is not a solution, not an equal alternative. Civil unions do not address the constitutional anomaly presented by exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from the institution of marriage,” Singhvi said.

    Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said that lack of recognition leads to the denial of equal protection under the law.

    Arguments were also made by Senior advocates KV Vishwanathan, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, Maneka Guruswamy, and advocates Karuna Nundy, and Vrinda Grover.

    The petitioners underlining the real question before the court which was “who would take a call on what constitutes a valid marriage and between whom”, also contended that the Parliament was aware of the concept of “gays” and “lesbians” even while the Special Marriage Act was promulgated in 1954 but there was a “conscious omission” to not recognise same sex marriages.

    During the arguments, the Centre had told the apex court that any constitutional declaration made by it on the petitions seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage may not be a “correct course of action” as the court will not be able to foresee, envisage, comprehend and deal with its fallout.

    The Centre’s stand has been that the issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages through the SMA should be left for the Parliament to decide since it is the appropriate forum to conceive several situations which would arise from recognising the same “legally.”

    The Centre had also told the top court that the governments of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Assam had opposed the petitioners’ contention seeking legal endorsement for such wedlock.

    Stressing on the fact that all the civil as well as criminal laws define “man and woman in conventional sense”, the Centre had submitted that the right to marry does not include the right to compel the state to create a new definition of ‘marriage’.

    On May 3, the Centre had told the court it will constitute a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to examine the administrative steps that could be taken for addressing “genuine humane concerns” of same-sex couples without going into the issue of legalising their marriage.

    The Centre’s submission was pursuant to the apex court asking it on April 27 whether social welfare benefits like opening joint bank accounts, nominating life partner in provident funds, gratuity and pension schemes can be extended to same-sex couples without going into the issue of legal sanction to their marriage.

    (With additional inputs from PTI) Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

  • SC to hear CBI’s plea against interim bail to former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar, husband in loan fraud case

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the CBI’s plea against grant of interim bail to former ICICI Bank CEO-cum-MD Chanda Kochhar and her businessman husband Deepak Kochhar by the Bombay High Court in a loan fraud case.

    A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi issued notice to Chanda Kochhar and her husband on the probe agency’s petition and sought their responses in three weeks.

    Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, said the high court proceeded on a wrong presumption that the offence is punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment without considering section 409 of the IPC (criminal breach of trust by public servant) which entails sentence ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.

    The bench asked Raju how section 409 of the IPC came into play when ICICI was a private bank. Raju replied that the bank may be private but it involves public money. The bench said it is issuing notice to the couple and seeking their replies in three weeks.

    The CBI has challenged the January 9 order of the high court granting interim relief to the Kochhars.

    The top court had on October 10 questioned the CBI over not objecting to the repeated extension of the two-week interim bail granted to them in January this year.

    The high court had pulled up the CBI for arresting the couple in a “casual and mechanical” manner and “clearly without application of mind” in the loan fraud case and granted them interim bail.

    The CBI arrested the Kochhars on December 23, 2022, in connection with the Videocon-ICICI Bank loan fraud case. The couple had moved the HC challenging their arrest, terming it as “illegal and arbitrary”. They had sought their release from jail on bail by way of an interim order.

    The high court had said the Kochhars’ arrest was not in accordance with the provisions of law and they were entitled to be released on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of their petitions.

    The grounds for arresting the petitioners (Kochhars), as stated in the arrest memos, are unacceptable and contrary to the reason(s)/ ground(s) on which a person can be arrested, it had said.

    ALSO READ  | SC questions CBI over not objecting to repeated extension of interim bail to Chanda Kochhar, husband

    Apart from the Kochhars, the CBI also arrested Videocon group founder Venugopal Dhoot in the case.

    The central agency has alleged the ICICI Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs 3,250 crore to the companies of the Videocon group in violation of the Banking Regulation Act, Reserve Bank of India’s guidelines and credit policy of the top private lender.

    The CBI had named Chanda Kochhar, who was ICICI Bank CEO and MD from 2009 to 2018, Deepak Kochhar, Dhoot along with a slew of firms – Nupower Renewables (NRL), Supreme Energy, Videocon International Electronics Ltd and Videocon Industries – as accused in the FIR registered under Indian Penal Code sections related to criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

    Nupower Renewables is managed by Deepak Kochhar.

    The central agency has alleged as quid pro quo (favour or advantage granted in return for something), Videocon group founder Dhoot made an investment of Rs 64 crore in Nupower Renewables through Supreme Energy Pvt Ltd (SEPL) and transferred SEPL to Pinnacle Energy Trust managed by Deepak Kochhar through a circuitous route between 2010 and 2012. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the CBI’s plea against grant of interim bail to former ICICI Bank CEO-cum-MD Chanda Kochhar and her businessman husband Deepak Kochhar by the Bombay High Court in a loan fraud case.

    A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi issued notice to Chanda Kochhar and her husband on the probe agency’s petition and sought their responses in three weeks.

    Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, said the high court proceeded on a wrong presumption that the offence is punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment without considering section 409 of the IPC (criminal breach of trust by public servant) which entails sentence ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    The bench asked Raju how section 409 of the IPC came into play when ICICI was a private bank. Raju replied that the bank may be private but it involves public money. The bench said it is issuing notice to the couple and seeking their replies in three weeks.

    The CBI has challenged the January 9 order of the high court granting interim relief to the Kochhars.

    The top court had on October 10 questioned the CBI over not objecting to the repeated extension of the two-week interim bail granted to them in January this year.

    The high court had pulled up the CBI for arresting the couple in a “casual and mechanical” manner and “clearly without application of mind” in the loan fraud case and granted them interim bail.

    The CBI arrested the Kochhars on December 23, 2022, in connection with the Videocon-ICICI Bank loan fraud case. The couple had moved the HC challenging their arrest, terming it as “illegal and arbitrary”. They had sought their release from jail on bail by way of an interim order.

    The high court had said the Kochhars’ arrest was not in accordance with the provisions of law and they were entitled to be released on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of their petitions.

    The grounds for arresting the petitioners (Kochhars), as stated in the arrest memos, are unacceptable and contrary to the reason(s)/ ground(s) on which a person can be arrested, it had said.

    ALSO READ  | SC questions CBI over not objecting to repeated extension of interim bail to Chanda Kochhar, husband

    Apart from the Kochhars, the CBI also arrested Videocon group founder Venugopal Dhoot in the case.

    The central agency has alleged the ICICI Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs 3,250 crore to the companies of the Videocon group in violation of the Banking Regulation Act, Reserve Bank of India’s guidelines and credit policy of the top private lender.

    The CBI had named Chanda Kochhar, who was ICICI Bank CEO and MD from 2009 to 2018, Deepak Kochhar, Dhoot along with a slew of firms – Nupower Renewables (NRL), Supreme Energy, Videocon International Electronics Ltd and Videocon Industries – as accused in the FIR registered under Indian Penal Code sections related to criminal conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

    Nupower Renewables is managed by Deepak Kochhar.

    The central agency has alleged as quid pro quo (favour or advantage granted in return for something), Videocon group founder Dhoot made an investment of Rs 64 crore in Nupower Renewables through Supreme Energy Pvt Ltd (SEPL) and transferred SEPL to Pinnacle Energy Trust managed by Deepak Kochhar through a circuitous route between 2010 and 2012. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

  • SC lists Vedanta’s plea on Sterlite copper unit in Tuticorin for hearing on November 29

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has listed the Vedanta group’s plea related to the closure of its Sterlite copper unit in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin for a hearing on November 29. According to an update on the apex court’s website, the plea of the Vedanta group firm will be heard on November 29.

    On October 9, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had assured the firm’s counsel that it had directed the registrar to allocate “two dedicated dates” for hearing the Vedanta group’s plea.

    “I am well aware of the situation. I have already directed the registrar to allocate two dedicated dates (for hearing),” the CJI had said.

    The top court had, in May, asked the Tamil Nadu government to take appropriate decisions in pursuance of its April 10 direction by which it had allowed the Vedanta group to carry out the upkeep of its Sterlite copper unit in Tuticorin under the supervision of a local-level monitoring committee.

    In its April 10 order, the top court had also allowed the evacuation of the remaining gypsum at the plant and made available the required manpower as requested by the company.

    It had noted that the district collector had not recommended activities, such as undertaking a civil and structural safety integrity assessment study on the plant premises, removal and transportation of spares and equipment and evacuation of in-process reverts and other raw materials lying idle.

    “As regards the actions which were not recommended by the district collector, C S Vaidyanathan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu, states that the state government will once again evaluate whether any further or supplementary directions should be issued in that regard,” the top court had noted in its April 10 order.

    During the earlier hearing, the counsel for Tamil Nadu had said steps were already taken to implement the directions contained in one of the paragraphs of the April 10 order, which stated that “as regards those actions which have been permitted to be carried out by the communication dated March 6, 2023, we allow necessary consequential steps to be taken.”

    “We direct that all decisions, which are required to be taken in pursuance of the observations contained in paragraphs four and five of the order dated April 10, 2023, shall be taken by the state of Tamil Nadu on or before June 1, 2023,” the bench had said.

    The apex court had then listed the plea for final disposal on August 22 and 23.

    At least 13 people were killed and many injured on May 22, 2018, when police opened fire on a huge crowd of people protesting against environmental pollution allegedly caused by the copper-smelting unit.

    The Tamil Nadu government had, on May 28, 2018, ordered the state pollution control board to seal and “permanently” close the mining group’s plant following violent protests over pollution concerns. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has listed the Vedanta group’s plea related to the closure of its Sterlite copper unit in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin for a hearing on November 29. According to an update on the apex court’s website, the plea of the Vedanta group firm will be heard on November 29.

    On October 9, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had assured the firm’s counsel that it had directed the registrar to allocate “two dedicated dates” for hearing the Vedanta group’s plea.

    “I am well aware of the situation. I have already directed the registrar to allocate two dedicated dates (for hearing),” the CJI had said.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The top court had, in May, asked the Tamil Nadu government to take appropriate decisions in pursuance of its April 10 direction by which it had allowed the Vedanta group to carry out the upkeep of its Sterlite copper unit in Tuticorin under the supervision of a local-level monitoring committee.

    In its April 10 order, the top court had also allowed the evacuation of the remaining gypsum at the plant and made available the required manpower as requested by the company.

    It had noted that the district collector had not recommended activities, such as undertaking a civil and structural safety integrity assessment study on the plant premises, removal and transportation of spares and equipment and evacuation of in-process reverts and other raw materials lying idle.

    “As regards the actions which were not recommended by the district collector, C S Vaidyanathan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu, states that the state government will once again evaluate whether any further or supplementary directions should be issued in that regard,” the top court had noted in its April 10 order.

    During the earlier hearing, the counsel for Tamil Nadu had said steps were already taken to implement the directions contained in one of the paragraphs of the April 10 order, which stated that “as regards those actions which have been permitted to be carried out by the communication dated March 6, 2023, we allow necessary consequential steps to be taken.”

    “We direct that all decisions, which are required to be taken in pursuance of the observations contained in paragraphs four and five of the order dated April 10, 2023, shall be taken by the state of Tamil Nadu on or before June 1, 2023,” the bench had said.

    The apex court had then listed the plea for final disposal on August 22 and 23.

    At least 13 people were killed and many injured on May 22, 2018, when police opened fire on a huge crowd of people protesting against environmental pollution allegedly caused by the copper-smelting unit.

    The Tamil Nadu government had, on May 28, 2018, ordered the state pollution control board to seal and “permanently” close the mining group’s plant following violent protests over pollution concerns. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

  • Most of the 70 collegium picks to be notified soon

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Weeks after the Supreme Court’s whiplash against the government’s failure to clear 70 collegium recommendations for promotion/transfer in the higher judiciary, the Centre on Monday told the bench that almost all of them will be notified shortly, including the appointment of the Manipur High Court Chief Justice. 

    “We are processing them and will try to finish it before the October vacation. Will have to speak with the consultee judges,” the Centre informed the bench. A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing two pleas, including one moved by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru seeking contempt action against the law ministry for not following the timeline set by the court.

    “Appointment of chief justice to the high court of a sensitive state has finally received their attention and they are doing it now,” the bench said. Calling it a positive development, the bench said almost 70 names for appointment and transfers recommended by various high court collegiums, which were pending with the ministry since November 2022 have finally landed before the SC’s collegium. It will start processing them immediately.

    On July 5, the SC collegium had recommended the appointment of Delhi High Court judge Siddharth Mridul as the chief justice of the Manipur High Court, amid the ethnic turmoil in the state.  On the issue of transfer of 26 high court judges, the bench noted that “the files in 14 cases have been cleared and notifications will be issued shortly”. As for the remaining 12, they are stated to be under process, the bench said.

    NEW DELHI: Weeks after the Supreme Court’s whiplash against the government’s failure to clear 70 collegium recommendations for promotion/transfer in the higher judiciary, the Centre on Monday told the bench that almost all of them will be notified shortly, including the appointment of the Manipur High Court Chief Justice. 

    “We are processing them and will try to finish it before the October vacation. Will have to speak with the consultee judges,” the Centre informed the bench. A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing two pleas, including one moved by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru seeking contempt action against the law ministry for not following the timeline set by the court.

    “Appointment of chief justice to the high court of a sensitive state has finally received their attention and they are doing it now,” the bench said. Calling it a positive development, the bench said almost 70 names for appointment and transfers recommended by various high court collegiums, which were pending with the ministry since November 2022 have finally landed before the SC’s collegium. It will start processing them immediately.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    On July 5, the SC collegium had recommended the appointment of Delhi High Court judge Siddharth Mridul as the chief justice of the Manipur High Court, amid the ethnic turmoil in the state.  On the issue of transfer of 26 high court judges, the bench noted that “the files in 14 cases have been cleared and notifications will be issued shortly”. As for the remaining 12, they are stated to be under process, the bench said.

  • Supreme Court to constitute seven-judge bench to consider issues relating to Money Bill 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Friday it will constitute a seven-judge bench to consider the issue of the validity of passage of laws like the Aadhaar Act as Money Bill.

    The decision is aimed at addressing the controversy around money bills after the government introduced legislations like Aadhaar Bill and even amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as money bills, apparently to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where it did not have majority.

    A money bill is a piece of legislation which can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject it.

    The Upper House can only make recommendations which may or may not be accepted by the Lower House.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said all pending seven-judge bench matters will be listed on October 12 for procedural directions.

    The matter was mentioned before the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, for urgent listing.

    In November 2019, a five-judge bench of the apex court had referred to a larger bench the issue of examining the validity of the passage of the Finance Act, 2017 as Money Bill.

    “The issue and question of Money Bill, as defined under Article 110(1) of the Constitution, and certification accorded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in respect of Part-XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 is referred to a larger Bench,” it had said.

    The five-judge bench had then struck down in entirety the rules governing the appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals that formed part of the Finance Act.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Friday it will constitute a seven-judge bench to consider the issue of the validity of passage of laws like the Aadhaar Act as Money Bill.

    The decision is aimed at addressing the controversy around money bills after the government introduced legislations like Aadhaar Bill and even amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as money bills, apparently to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where it did not have majority.

    A money bill is a piece of legislation which can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject it.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The Upper House can only make recommendations which may or may not be accepted by the Lower House.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said all pending seven-judge bench matters will be listed on October 12 for procedural directions.

    The matter was mentioned before the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, for urgent listing.

    In November 2019, a five-judge bench of the apex court had referred to a larger bench the issue of examining the validity of the passage of the Finance Act, 2017 as Money Bill.

    “The issue and question of Money Bill, as defined under Article 110(1) of the Constitution, and certification accorded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in respect of Part-XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 is referred to a larger Bench,” it had said.

    The five-judge bench had then struck down in entirety the rules governing the appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals that formed part of the Finance Act.

  • Supreme Court refuses to restrain Bihar govt from publishing further data from caste survey

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday refused to restrain the Bihar government from publishing further data from its caste survey, saying it cannot stop the state from taking any policy decision.

    A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti issued a formal notice on a batch of pleas challenging the August 1 order of the Patna High Court that gave the go-ahead for the caste survey in Bihar. It listed the matter in January 2024.

    The top court rejected the objections of the petitioners that the state government had preempted the stay order by publishing some data and demanded that a complete stay should be ordered on further publication of data.

    “We are not staying anything at this moment. We cannot stop the state govt or any govt from making a policy decision. That would be wrong. We are going to examine the other issue regarding the power of the state govt to conduct this exercise,” the bench said.

    Senior advocate Aprajita Singh, appearing for the petitioners, said there was a breach of privacy in the matter and the High Court order was wrong.

    To this, the bench said since the name and other identities of any individual have not been published, therefore the argument that there was a breach of privacy may not be correct.

    “The more important issue for consideration of the court is a breakdown of data and its availability to the public,” the bench said.

    On October 2, the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar released findings of its caste survey, months ahead of the 2024 Parliamentary elections. The data revealed that OBCs and EBCs constitute a whopping 63 per cent of the state’s total population.

    READ MORE | TN parties demand the state government to hold caste survey 

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday refused to restrain the Bihar government from publishing further data from its caste survey, saying it cannot stop the state from taking any policy decision.

    A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti issued a formal notice on a batch of pleas challenging the August 1 order of the Patna High Court that gave the go-ahead for the caste survey in Bihar. It listed the matter in January 2024.

    The top court rejected the objections of the petitioners that the state government had preempted the stay order by publishing some data and demanded that a complete stay should be ordered on further publication of data.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    “We are not staying anything at this moment. We cannot stop the state govt or any govt from making a policy decision. That would be wrong. We are going to examine the other issue regarding the power of the state govt to conduct this exercise,” the bench said.

    Senior advocate Aprajita Singh, appearing for the petitioners, said there was a breach of privacy in the matter and the High Court order was wrong.

    To this, the bench said since the name and other identities of any individual have not been published, therefore the argument that there was a breach of privacy may not be correct.

    “The more important issue for consideration of the court is a breakdown of data and its availability to the public,” the bench said.

    On October 2, the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar released findings of its caste survey, months ahead of the 2024 Parliamentary elections. The data revealed that OBCs and EBCs constitute a whopping 63 per cent of the state’s total population.

    READ MORE | TN parties demand the state government to hold caste survey 

  • Supreme Court junks bail plea of convicts in 1998 Coimbatore blasts case

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the bail pleas of some of the convicts in the 1998 Coimbatore bomb blasts case while noting that their act, in which 58 people lost their lives, was “unforgivabale.”

    Hearing the pleas by the convicts who said they were behind bars for over two decades, a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said “bail is out of question” for those involved in the “atrocious” incident.

    The convicts were approaching the apex court challenging the Madras High Court verdict upholding their conviction and sentence being listed for the first week of February 2024.

    ALSO READ | Land-for-job scam case: Delhi court grants bail to Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav

    One of the advocates appearing for the convicts, while pleading for bail, said they have been awarded life imprisonment and are in custody for the last around 25 years.

    “How many people died?” asked the bench, also comprising Justices C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia. When told about the number of people killed in the serial blasts, the court said, “They have been convicted for something in which 58 people had died.”

     “Bail is out of question,” observed the bench, as the counsel for the state said apart from killing so many people, what the convicts had done to the city was  “unforgivable”.

    “Look at what you have done. The nature of the crime is an important factor (in granting bail). The bail applications are dismissed,” the top court remarked.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the bail pleas of some of the convicts in the 1998 Coimbatore bomb blasts case while noting that their act, in which 58 people lost their lives, was “unforgivabale.”

    Hearing the pleas by the convicts who said they were behind bars for over two decades, a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said “bail is out of question” for those involved in the “atrocious” incident.

    The convicts were approaching the apex court challenging the Madras High Court verdict upholding their conviction and sentence being listed for the first week of February 2024.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    ALSO READ | Land-for-job scam case: Delhi court grants bail to Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav

    One of the advocates appearing for the convicts, while pleading for bail, said they have been awarded life imprisonment and are in custody for the last around 25 years.

    “How many people died?” asked the bench, also comprising Justices C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia. When told about the number of people killed in the serial blasts, the court said, “They have been convicted for something in which 58 people had died.”

     “Bail is out of question,” observed the bench, as the counsel for the state said apart from killing so many people, what the convicts had done to the city was  “unforgivable”.

    “Look at what you have done. The nature of the crime is an important factor (in granting bail). The bail applications are dismissed,” the top court remarked.

  • Supreme Court rejects plea to construct wall at ‘Ram Sethu’; declares it as ‘national monument’

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to declare the ‘Ram Sethu’ as a national monument and to construct a wall at the site in the sea for a few meters or kilometres, so that it can be open for many to have ‘Darshan’.

    The public interest litigation (PIL) was taken up before a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia and subsequently rejected by the apex court.

    In the plea, petitioner Hindu Personal Law Board, through its president Ashok Pandey, prayed for declaring Sri Ram Setu/ Nalahin Setu/Setu Bandh as a national monument within the provisions of Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958.

    ‘Ram Sethu’, also known as Adam’s bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka.

    “In case this Setu comes in open, it will give way to people across the world to come to Dhanuskoti (Rameshwaram) for the Darshan of the bridge constructed under the orders of Lord Ram. In case it is done, the common man will be able to walk on this bridge for a few meters. It will fulfil the desire of crores of persons like the petitioner to walk, sit and sleep on the bridge through which Ram along with his army went to Lanka to kill Rawan and to establish Ram Raj in Lanka,” the plea said.

    ..it is indeed good that Sri Nitin Gadkari, the minister given the charge of this department declared in the Parliament that Sri Ram Setu will not be destructed and without destruction of the same, the Setu Samudram Shipping Canal Project (SSSCP) will be completed, it said further.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to declare the ‘Ram Sethu’ as a national monument and to construct a wall at the site in the sea for a few meters or kilometres, so that it can be open for many to have ‘Darshan’.

    The public interest litigation (PIL) was taken up before a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia and subsequently rejected by the apex court.

    In the plea, petitioner Hindu Personal Law Board, through its president Ashok Pandey, prayed for declaring Sri Ram Setu/ Nalahin Setu/Setu Bandh as a national monument within the provisions of Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    ‘Ram Sethu’, also known as Adam’s bridge, is a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the south-eastern coast of Tamil Nadu, and Mannar Island, off the north-western coast of Sri Lanka.

    “In case this Setu comes in open, it will give way to people across the world to come to Dhanuskoti (Rameshwaram) for the Darshan of the bridge constructed under the orders of Lord Ram. In case it is done, the common man will be able to walk on this bridge for a few meters. It will fulfil the desire of crores of persons like the petitioner to walk, sit and sleep on the bridge through which Ram along with his army went to Lanka to kill Rawan and to establish Ram Raj in Lanka,” the plea said.

    ..it is indeed good that Sri Nitin Gadkari, the minister given the charge of this department declared in the Parliament that Sri Ram Setu will not be destructed and without destruction of the same, the Setu Samudram Shipping Canal Project (SSSCP) will be completed, it said further.

  • SC Judge SVN Bhatti recuses from hearing plea of ex-Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Judge SVN Bhatti on Wednesday recused himself from hearing former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s petition for quashing the FIR in the alleged scam in the state’s Skill Development Corporation.

    As soon as the matter came before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti for hearing, the former said, “My brother has little difficulty in hearing this matter. We are directing it to be listed before another bench next week.”

    Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Naidu, said he be permitted to mention the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for an urgent hearing.

    “You may do so. Should we pass over this matter to be taken up later?” senior advocate Harish Salve, also representing Naidu, said if the bench is not hearing the matter, then passing it over may not help, and the court may directly list it next week.

    Justice Khanna said the bench cannot directly list it on a specific date but may order a listing next week.

    Naidu had moved the top court on September 23 challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court order dismissing his petition for quashing the FIR against him in connection with an alleged scam in the Skill Development Corporation. The high court had rejected his plea last Friday.

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Judge SVN Bhatti on Wednesday recused himself from hearing former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu’s petition for quashing the FIR in the alleged scam in the state’s Skill Development Corporation.

    As soon as the matter came before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti for hearing, the former said, “My brother has little difficulty in hearing this matter. We are directing it to be listed before another bench next week.”

    Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Naidu, said he be permitted to mention the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for an urgent hearing.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    “You may do so. Should we pass over this matter to be taken up later?” senior advocate Harish Salve, also representing Naidu, said if the bench is not hearing the matter, then passing it over may not help, and the court may directly list it next week.

    Justice Khanna said the bench cannot directly list it on a specific date but may order a listing next week.

    Naidu had moved the top court on September 23 challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court order dismissing his petition for quashing the FIR against him in connection with an alleged scam in the Skill Development Corporation. The high court had rejected his plea last Friday.

  • Senior IPS officer must probe Muslim student slapping case: SC to UP govt

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint a senior IPS officer to monitor the probe into the Muzaffarnagar incident where a Muslim student was slapped by his classmates, on the instruction of the class teacher, as a punishment for poor performance. 

    Terming the incident as serious, a bench of Justices A S Oka and Pankaj Mithal remarked that the UP government prima facie failed to comply with the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules. 

    “If allegations made by the victim’s parents are correct, this is the worst kind of physical punishment imparted by the teacher… There can’t be any quality education if a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. There is a prima facie failure on part of the state to comply with RTE Act & rules framed there under,” the bench said in its order.

    The court also directed the UP government to provide counselling to the victim as well as the other students involved in the incident. The SC’s order came on a plea by Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi, who sought an independent, time-bound probe and registration of FIR. 

    In his plea, Gandhi alleged the child’s family is under pressure to strike a compromise with the offender.

    He told the court that the police charged the teacher only under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC that deal with cruelty to child and intentionally causing hurt, and not Section 153A of the IPC for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, caste and language. 

    The bench said the IPS officer nominated by the state shall decide on invocation of Section 153A in the FIR.

    ‘Ensure Professional Counselling’The SC took exception to the fact that counselling of the victim was done by the district welfare officer, saying this should have been done by a professional counsellor and that too for all the students involved

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint a senior IPS officer to monitor the probe into the Muzaffarnagar incident where a Muslim student was slapped by his classmates, on the instruction of the class teacher, as a punishment for poor performance. 

    Terming the incident as serious, a bench of Justices A S Oka and Pankaj Mithal remarked that the UP government prima facie failed to comply with the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules. 

    “If allegations made by the victim’s parents are correct, this is the worst kind of physical punishment imparted by the teacher… There can’t be any quality education if a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. There is a prima facie failure on part of the state to comply with RTE Act & rules framed there under,” the bench said in its order.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The court also directed the UP government to provide counselling to the victim as well as the other students involved in the incident. The SC’s order came on a plea by Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi, who sought an independent, time-bound probe and registration of FIR. 

    In his plea, Gandhi alleged the child’s family is under pressure to strike a compromise with the offender.

    He told the court that the police charged the teacher only under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC that deal with cruelty to child and intentionally causing hurt, and not Section 153A of the IPC for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, caste and language. 

    The bench said the IPS officer nominated by the state shall decide on invocation of Section 153A in the FIR.

    ‘Ensure Professional Counselling’
    The SC took exception to the fact that counselling of the victim was done by the district welfare officer, saying this should have been done by a professional counsellor and that too for all the students involved