Sunday, 6 December 2015

'All-India law banning religious conversions is need of the hour’

Terming that ‘induced religious conversions’ as a threat to national integrity, senior BJP leader and Virat Hindustan Sangam (VHS) national president Subramanian Swamy said it was high time that an All-India law banning religious conversions was enacted, but with an exception that ‘reconversions were not banned’.
Participating in the national convention of the VHS here on Sunday, he said: “People should vote for a Hindu-friendly party in future, if the world’s most ancient (Hindu) civilization are to withstand the onslaught of external forces. People should vote for a Hindu-friendly party in future, if the world’s most ancient (Hindu) civilization were to withstand the onslaught of external forces.”
The majority community (Hindus) must destroy the caste system and revive Sanskrit language to successfully thwart the expansionist agenda of other religions, he observed. On the occasion, Mr. Swamy recalled that the Hindu civilization was among the 46 ancient civilizations listed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
“The Hindus has never discriminated against other religions, but it has of late been facing an unprecedented threat from conversions which are highly detrimental to democracy. The whole world raises a hue and cry when something happens to Muslims and Christians, but there is no one to espouse the cause of over five lakh Kashmiri Pandits who are living in exile in their own country,” he said.
Members of the Hindu community in Malappuram district of Kerala have complained that they could not hold a public meeting for 20 years. Such was the persecution of Hindus in India. This is not acceptable, he said.
“We should ensure that the Hindu population does not fall below the 80 per cent mark but that does not mean they should produce more children,” he observed, warning that ‘a danger was lurking in the form of the New Caliphate named as the Islamic State’.
VHS leaders R. Govind Hari, Jagdish Shetty, Sudhish Rambhotla and others also spoke on the occasion.
It is high time that an All-India law banning religious conversions was enacted, but with an exception that
reconversions are not banned
- Subramanian Swamy,Virat Hindustan Sangam (VHS) national president

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Vijayawada/allindia-law-banning-religious-conversions-is-need-of-the-hour/article7957175.ece?

Supreme Court will ensure rule of law, says CJI Thakur

‘Country has given refuge to those fleeing persecution’.

Noting that there is a political angle to the whole religious intolerance debate, Chief Justice of India Tirath Singh Thakur sent a strong message against divisive forces, saying that India is an inclusive society where people of all faiths and religions flourish with mutual respect and the Supreme Court will ensure that the Rule of Law reigns supreme.
“When the Constitution guarantees Rule of Law to those who are not our citizens, there is no question that citizens of India, no matter of what religion or faith should feel unprotected. We (Supreme Court) have no reluctance to protect the beliefs of our fellow citizens. As long as Rule of Law prevails no one has to be afraid,” Chief Justice Thakur said during a media interaction at his residence on Sunday.
"As long as there is rule of law and independent Judiciary, I don't think anyone need to fear from anything. We should not get upset, " he said.
Chief Justice Thakur, who was sworn in as Chief Justice of India on December 3 and will have tenure till January 2017, said the spirit of India is tolerance and not intolerance.
“There is politics in the religious intolerance debate. But I am not a politician. As a part of the judicial institution, I want to remind you that this country has a history of becoming a home to those who have fled their own countries fearing religious persecution. Here these people of different faiths and beliefs have flourished. Look at the Parsi community, they have contributed so much to national progress in the fields of law, industry, etc,” Chief Justice Thakur pointed out.
When asked by The Hindu why the highest judiciary did not use its extraordinary jurisdiction powers to take suo motu cognizance of attack and murders of activists and writers like Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi, Chief Justice Thakur said an order from the Supreme Court will not stop the killings.
“You think one order from the Supreme Court will stop crime? Crime has been part of human life. These are people who give in to their animal instinct to kill… What the society should learn to nurture is the spirit of tolerance, mutual respect for religions… We are committed to uphold the Constitution,” Chief Justice Thakur replied.
He said there would be zero tolerance towards “devious behaviour” or corruption within the judiciary and appropriate action would be taken if complaints received are found to be genuine on scrutiny.
On the issue of rising judicial vacancies in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Thakur said he would prefer to wait till the five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar finalise and pronounce the guidelines for the Collegium.
“It should not be the case that the Collegium makes appointments of judges first and later discovers that the appointment made were not in consonance with the Constitution Bench’s guidelines. It is better to avoid such confusion and wait till the Constitution Bench pronounces the verdict on the Collegium. It is also not proper for us to make fresh appointments when a Constitution Bench has already reserved the case for judgment,” Chief Justice Thakur made his position clear.
He however said filling up the current 400 judicial vacancies would be a “big challenge” in this year. He said a proposal to increase the retirement age of High Court judges from 62 to 65 is pending and would require an amendment in the law. He said retired judges who are good can also be appointed as ad hoc judges
Citing his criteria in making judicial appointments, CJI Thakur said “we may have more women judges”. He said there should be a balance between regional representation and merit while appointing judges.
On post-retirement jobs for judges, Chief Justice Thakur said “if you don’t need judges anywhere in any jobs, change the law. If you can find a substitute in a politician or a bureaucrat, change the law. If judges are of no use to you, change the law.”
Asked whether he considered death penalty to be a civilized method of punishment of crime, Chief Justice Thakur agreed that there is a strong feeling against courts awarding death penalty even in the rarest of rare cases.
“But as long as the statute allows it, we have no choice. The parliament has to change the law. I believe that there are certain offences, terrorism and heinous crimes, for which a court finds the accused guilty, the only punishment is death ,” the Chief Justice of India said.
Concerning the release of the juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, Chief Justice Thakur said amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act is before the parliament and the Supreme Court has kept aside similar cases of juveniles accused of heinous crimes to wait for the final word from the law makers. 

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cji-tirath-singh-thakur-talks-about-intolerance-debate-in-india/article7954906.ece

Thursday, 3 December 2015

Profile of Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur

Sitting Hon'ble Judges

Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur

Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur (DoB 04.01.1952)
Term of Office: 17.11.2009 to 03.01.2017

CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

Appointed as The Chief Justice of India on 03.12.2015.
PROFILE
  • Born on 04th January, 1952. He was enrolled as a Pleader in October, 1972 and joined the Chamber of his father Late Shri D.D. Thakur, a leading Advocate and later, a Judge of High Court of J & K. He practised in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Taxation and Service matters in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. Was designated as a Senior Advocate in the year 1990.
  • Was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of J & K on 16th February, 1994 and transferred as Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in March, 1994.
  • He was appointed as a permanent Judge in September, 1995. Was transferred as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi in July 2004.
  • Was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on 09.04.2008 and took over as Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on August 11, 2008.
  • Elevated as Judge of Supreme Court and assumed charge on 17.11.2009.
  • Appointed as The Chief Justice of India on 03.12.2015.

  • Due to retire on 4th January, 2017 (F/N).

Justice T.S.Thakur sworn in as 43rd CJI

  • Justice T.S. Thakur being sworn-in as 43rd Chief Justice of India by President Pranab Mukherjee at Rashtrapati Bhawan, in New Delhi on Thursday. Photo: V. Sudershan
  • Justice Tirath Singh Thakur.
    The Hindu Justice: Tirath Singh Thakur.

63-year old Justice Thakur took over from incumbent Justice H L Dattu who retired on Wednesday.

Justice Tirath Singh Thakur was on Thursday sworn in as 43rd Chief Justice of India by President Pranab Mukherjee at an elegant function in Rashtrapati Bhavan.
The senior-most judge of the apex court, 63-year old Justice Thakur took over from incumbent Justice H L Dattu who retired on Wednesday.
As a Supreme Court judge, he headed the bench which had delivered the verdict to reform cricket controlling body BCCI in the wake of allegations of betting and spot-fixing scandal in the Indian Premier League.
Justice Thakur also headed the bench which ordered probe into the multi-crore chit fund scam in eastern India, also known as Saradha scam.
He has also heard the multi-crore rupee NRHM scam, in which ex-UP minister Babu Singh Kushwaha is also an accused, besides other politicians and bureaucrats.
Born on January 4, 1952, he would have the tenure as CJI for a little over one year and would retire on January 4, 2017.
Son of former Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Devi Das Thakur, a well known jurist and judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Justice Thakur enrolled as a Pleader in October, 1972 and joined the Chamber of his father.
He was designated as a senior advocate in 1990. On February 16, 1994, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and transferred as a judge of the Karnataka High Court in March 1994.
He was appointed as a permanent judge in September 1995 and transferred to the Delhi High Court in July 2004.
Justice Thakur was appointed as acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on April 9, 2008 and on August 11, 2008, he took over as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
He was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court and assumed charge on November 17, 2009.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/justice-tsthakur-sworn-in-as-43rd-chief-justice-of-india/article7944506.ece?css=print

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

CIC offers apology on Priyanka’s contempt petition

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday closed the contempt proceedings against the state Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioner on a petition filed by Priyanka Gandhi following an unconditional apology tendered by them.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice P.S. Rana passed the orders on the writ petition filed by Priyanka Gandhi relating to their order on summoning records of land purchased by her at Chharabra, 14km from Shimla.
Issuing the contempt notice on the petition of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on September 11 last, the Division Bench had also directed both the respondents Bhim Sen, the state Chief Election Commissioner and Information Commissioner Kali Dass Batish to appear in person.
Ms Vadra had alleged that despite the stay order passed by the High Court in her writ petition, the Information Commission proceeded with the matter and had summoned the records relating to the land purchased by her.
The Information Commission had on July 23 rapped government officials, including Deputy Commissioner Dinesh Malhotra, and summoned them for not providing the desired information.
On the other hand, the respondent state had filed a reply to the writ petition of Pryinka Gandhi which was taken on record by the court.
RTI Applicant Dev Ashish Bhattacharaya, who is also one of the respondents, had filed an application seeking permission to bring some additional documents on record.
The Court directed the respondents to file reply to the said application, if any, within three weeks. - PTI

Medico-legal terms dictionary launched

Former Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir (left) with the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court Manjula Chellur during the book launch in Kolkata on Saturday.- Photo: PTI
Former Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir (left) with the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court Manjula Chellur during the book launch in Kolkata on Saturday.- Photo: PTI
A unique dictionary of medico-legal terms, Medico-Legal Dictionary and Jurisprudence, was launched by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court Manjula Chellur here on Saturday.
The book consists not only of etymological meaning of medical and legal terms but also provides elaborate legal analysis of the terms.
Authored by senior advocate of the Calcutta High Court Tapash Gan Choudhury, the dictionary also provides analyses of the application of these terms from a medical perceptive.
Justice Chellur said that medical jurisprudence played a key role in the administration of justice and pointed out that the book would provide “valuable assistance” to the court in this regard.
Justice Chellur also said that with the advancement of medical science, medical jurisprudence was no longer limited to criminal cases as it gained significance in civil cases also.
“The role of medical jurisprudence has now extended to civil cases such as those regarding the legal heir where processes like DNA tests come into play,” said Justice Chellur. Emphasising the need for wider and more in depth understanding of medical jurisprudence, she pointed out that there were still “grey areas” concerning to what extent the court can “place reliance” on technologies such as brain mapping and lie detection.

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/medicolegal-terms-dictionary-launched/article7928434.ece?css=print

Law Minister wins case in SC as a litigant

Union Law Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda.
Union Law Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda.
In a legal victory for Union Law Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda, the Supreme Court on Friday gave him a clean chit in a building law violation case and declared that the Karnataka politician had never abused his power to “arm-twist” local authorities to turning a blind eye.
The Law Minister turned a litigant when he approached the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order directing the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to take back adjacent plots allotted to him and BJP MLA D.N. Jeevaraj for illegally constructing a “multi-storey” building on them.
In a judgment, a Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and S.A. Bobde criticised the High Court for assuming the role of a statutory authority.
The judgment dismissed contentions raised against Mr. Gowda that he had exercised his influence as the Chief Minister of Karnataka to bully the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and construct the building contrary to the sanctioned plan.
“Insofar as the present case is concerned, in spite of the clout that Mr. Sadananda Gowda may have wielded in Karnataka, his actions relating to the construction of the building on his plot of land do not suggest any abuse,” the judgment said and cleared Mr. Gowda’s name.
The judgment further noted that the PIL petition was filed in the Karnataka High Court against Mr. Gowda on the very day he was appointed Chief Minister on August 4, 2011.
Mr. Gowda and Mr. Jeevaraj had moved the Supreme Court after the High Court in 2012 ruled against them on the writ petition filed by Nagalaxmi Bai for a declaration that the building being constructed on the allotted plots at HSR Layout in Bangalore were in violation of the lease-cum-sale agreement Mr. Gowda entered into with the BDA.
The agreement had barred the allottees from either sub-dividing the plots or constructing commercial buildings on them.

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/law-minister-wins-case-as-a-litigant/article7924597.ece?css=print

Court comes to rescue of 83-year-old pensioner

The Madras High Court Bench here has come to the rescue of an 83-year-old pensioner by restraining Assistant Treasury Officer at Peraiyur near here from deducting Rs.1,000 from the octogenarian’s monthly pension for recovering Rs.2.08 lakh reportedly paid in excess.
No notice
Justice D. Hariparanthaman stayed the operation of an order passed by the Assistant Treasury Office on October 15 after the writ petitioner N. Rajagopal claimed that the order was passed without notice to him and after deducting Rs.1,000 from the pension amount paid to him in the month of October.
The petitioner’s counsel RM. Arun Swaminathan pointed out that his client was born on August 15, 1932 and he had served as a Post Graduate Assistant Teacher at Gandhi Niketan Higher Secondary School in T. Kallupatti near here before his retirement from service on superannuation on August 31, 1990.
He had been in receipt of monthly pension since his retirement and the amount was also revised periodically as per the norms.
Sudden reduction
Though he was receiving Rs.22,796 till September this year, the amount was suddenly reduced by Rs.1,000 in the month of October forcing the petitioner to make enquiries.
It was only after a clarification was sought from the Assistant Treasury Officer that the order under challenge was passed stating that it had been decided to recover Rs.2.08 lakh from his pension, he claimed and assailed the correctness of the order on many grounds including violation of natural justice.
“I did not commit any wrong or misrepresentation or fraud but the respondents have issued the order without informing me. I have already crossed 83 years and depending only on my pension amount… Now, there is no alternative remedy except approaching this court,” the petitioner said in his affidavit.

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/high-court-comes-to-rescue-of-83yearold-pensioner/article7926369.ece?css=print

Court dismisses plea to ban ‘Bajirao-Mastani’

Court dismisses plea to ban ‘Bajirao-Mastani’


A local court has quashed a petition seeking a ban on producer-director Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s historical film Bajirao Mastani.
Following a raging online campaign by a descendant of Peshwa Bajirao, a city resident earlier this week filed the plea seeking an injunction on the release of the film under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), claiming that the film-makers had distorted history.
Contention
The film, scheduled for release on December 18, would affect the sentiments of the people, the petitioner has said.
Dismissing the plea, Judge S.S. Gulhane said the plaintiff could approach an ‘appropriate’ authority such as the Censor Board which had the right to decide on “obscenity, vulgarity or alleged distortion of facts” in feature films.
‘Not a public nuisance’
The court observed that the production of a film could not be termed ‘a public nuisance’ on grounds that it was affecting the sentiments of a particular class.
“It is the Censor Board’s duty in its capacity as a government-appointed agency, to check ‘hazardous’ elements in a film. Since this movie has already been passed by the Board, the applicants, in this case, can only approach the authority concerned with any grievances about the film. The suit is not maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC, hence, the application is rejected.”
Case against Bhansali, cast
Firoze Mohammad Shaikh filed the case against Mr. Bhansali and cast members, Priyanka and Deepika, who essay the roles of Kashibai, the Peshwa’s first wife and that of Mastani respectively.
The petition took strong objection to the song ‘Pingaa’ alleging that it incorrectly portrayed the characters of Kashibai and Mastani and was offensive to Marathi women and culture.
Judge says plaintiff could approach an ‘appropriate’ authority such as the Censor Board

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/court-dismisses-plea-to-ban-bajiraomastani/article7925375.ece?css=print

Monday, 30 November 2015

A setback for surrogacy in India?

“Almost all surrogate mothers and commissioning parents agree that foreign surrogacy should not be stopped.”
AP
“Almost all surrogate mothers and commissioning parents agree that foreign surrogacy should not be stopped.”

After a court ban and proposed changes to legislation, the lucrative industry could lose its best paying ‘customer’ — commissioning couples from other countries.

In India, the engine that drove the multi-billion surrogacy industry was globally falling birth rates, and over the past decade, India’s “liberal” laws further propelled the entirely unregulated sector to organise itself into a fast growing profitable venture.
Now, the rules are set to change.
On November 4, the Supreme Court imposed a ban on the customer in question — foreign nationals. Through the introduction of the proposed Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Bill, the Central Government now seeks to narrow surrogacy services to Indian couples or foreigners married to Indian citizens.
There is now unhappiness.
“It’s foul play,” a group of commercial surrogate mothers tells this correspondent. They believe they are doing a “noble job”. The money doesn’t hurt either.
“The couple of the child I am carrying have been trying to have kids for 15 years,” says ‘Y’, a 24-year-old commercial surrogate and a biological mother to her two-year-old child. Her husband is a driver and they are in the business “because it also pays well.’’
“I want to go back to my village, buy land and settle down,” she says. “This money is the only way out. My husband will never be able to earn enough for us to return home. But if become a surrogate mother, we will have enough money,” she explains.
Another surrogate, ‘X’, said she did this for her child’s future. “What is wrong in this?” ‘X’ has a seven-year-old biological son who she hopes to send to a good school and away from the rigours of city life. “After this delivery and sending my child to hostel, I will work full-time. If my husband and I work, we will be able to ensure that my child becomes a doctor and escapes this life of struggle,” she explains. “After all, we have no pension or government security in our old age. Who knows if our children will take care of us? It’s only prudent to save for the future. Motherhood and the ability to have children is a gift that nature has given to lucky women... I don’t think there is anything wrong in ‘gifting’ and ‘sharing’ this divine power and engaging in something that is mutually beneficially to all the parties involved,” she adds.
The arguments are not new. A group of surrogate mothers has moved the Supreme Court seeking a withdrawal of the November 4 circular banning foreign commissioning parents.
Grey area

Commercial surrogacy, largely an unregulated grey area, has been allowed in India since 2002. The Supreme Court (2008) called surrogacy a medical procedure legal in several countries including India. The surrogacy debate started with the Baby Manji Yamada case in which the commissioning parents divorced during the pregnancy and the commissioning mother refused to accept the baby. The court finally granted custody to the baby’s grandmother. In 2008, another case, on the citizenship of surrogate babies, led the Gujarat High Court to state that there is “extreme urgency to push through legislation” which addresses issues that arise out of surrogacy.
A draft ART Bill, pending in Parliament since 2010, is now expected to be taken up in the on-going winter session.
It is India’s first attempt at regulating the surrogacy industry which was earlier guided by the National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India, 2005, and subsequently amended in 2008, 2010 and 2013.
It is being seen as a setback for commissioning parents. After being married for over a decade, Dr. R, a British passport holder and a gastroenterologist of Indian-origin came back to India to “complete his family”.
“Adoption wasn’t an option,” says Mrs. L as she hugs her newborn child. Now a mother after a year of the surrogacy process was initiated at a Delhi clinic, she is very clear about why she and her husband came to India. “The country offers the best in terms of medical advancement, it’s reliable, cheap and world class. Besides, surrogate mothers are available here in India which isn’t the case in most parts of the world.”
Almost all surrogate mothers and commissioning parents this correspondent spoke to agree that foreign surrogacy should not be stopped. The association of medical practitioners providing fertility treatments are concerned that the government, instead of effecting better regulation, has imposed a blanket ban on a section of customers. Dr. Shivani Sachdev Gour, secretary, Indian Society for Third Party Assisted Reproduction (Instar) said, “We feel the new restrictions are too binding. You have to understand that surrogacy needs a more humane approach and more individual case-by-case attention. We cannot have a single blanket rule to govern the ethical and legal nuances of surrogacy.”
But women’s rights organisations say that “poor” women should not be exploited in the name of noble work. Dr. Ranjana Kumari, director, Centre for Social Research said, “There are many issues besides sex selection and exploitation of the poor surrogate mothers. There are countries that do not allow surrogacy. What would the nationality of the child be when the intended parents are from that country? About 48 per cent couples opting for surrogacy are foreigners.”
Dr. Kumari notes that surrogates aren’t given their due. “Though the couple who wants to have a baby through a surrogate mother pays anything between Rs.2 lakh to Rs.5 lakh to agents, the woman who delivers the baby gets only Rs.75,000 to Rs.1 lakh,” she says.
Cheap medical facilities, advanced reproductive technological knowhow, coupled with poor socio-economic conditions and a lack of regulatory laws in India are what make India an attractive option.
In India, the business of providing “wombs on rent” is now valued at $500 million. The number of cases of surrogacy is believed to be increasing at a galloping rate,” says Dr.Kumari.
Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) data says that approximately 2,000 babies are born every year through commercial surrogacy. Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) figures claim that surrogacy is a $2.3 billion industry in India, because it is largely unregulated and cheap. Clinics function in tight cliques; unrelated centres like dental clinics sometimes assist fertility clinics, say experts.
ICMR says that professional surrogates need to “protected against exploitation”. A senior official said, “We hope to ensure accountability of the ART banks and ensure that the malpractices — private clinics advertise for surrogates and the money paid is arbitrary — is eliminated altogether. Also, [the] rights of the commissioning couples will be protected and the industry will be streamlined and brought under the preview of proper rules and regulations.” 

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-setback-for-surrogacy-in-india/article7927730.ece?css=print

Preamble to a 2015 debate: How 'secular' and 'socialist' came to be in the Constitution, and why they remain part of it.


Sunday, 1 November 2015

Surrogacy may be limited to childless Indians

New Delhi:


A day after deciding to ban commercial surrogacy , the Centre on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it was inalising a legislation to al ow surrogacy only to child ess Indian couples and address the finer points, ncluding parental rights over surrogate child, linked to the sensitive issue. Solicitor general Ranjit Kumar informed a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana about the government's decision to restrain foreign couples from using Indian surrogate mothers for having a child and requested for two weeks' time to file an affidavit detailing the notifications issued on this issue.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com



Now, lawyer's contempt plea against Justice C S Karnan

New Delhi:


Judges initiating contempt proceedings against litigants or advocates is common but in an unprecedented action, a Chennaibased advocate has moved the Supreme Court seeking initiation of such proceedings against a Madras high court judge. The application was filed by advocate E G Rejendran against Justice C S Karnan, who had plunged Madras HC into a huge crisis by threatening contempt of court proceedings against Chief Justice Sanjay K Kaul by accusing him of interfering in his judicial work and seeking a CBI probe into alleged forged educational qualification of another HC judge.
Apart from contempt of court action, Justice Karnan had also threatened to ask the National Commission on Scheduled Castes to initiate a detailed inquiry against the HC chief justice for harassing him, a member of the Dalit community, and also slapping a case against the chief justice under stringent provisions of SCST Atrocities (Prevention) Act. rushed to the SC accusing Justice Karnan of judicial indiscipline, challenging the authority of the HC chief justice, passing order without jurisdiction and lacking in selfrestraint. The SC had on May 11 restrained Justice Karnan from initiating any action against the chief justice.
In this pending matter, advocate Rejendran had filed an application in the SC seeking a direction to the HC chief justice “not to allocate any judicial work to Justice Karnan and transfer him out of the HC before things go out of control“. In his recent application, Rejendran alleged that on September 25, Justice Karnan sent a letter to the SC middle income group legal aid society levelling “false and baseless“ charges against the advocate.
“The intervenor (Rejendran) submits that it is a defamatory statement. Justice Karnan has sent the letter only to coerce and threaten me to withdraw the petition filed by me before the Supreme Court. The action of Justice Karnan amounts to interfering with the judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court. This amounts to criminal contempt of court,“ he said. The advocate pleaded with the SC to “initiate contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, against Justice Karnan“.
Exposing the SC's limitations in restraining an HC judge, Justice Karnan had sharpened his tirade against the HC chief justice and was trying to involve Dalit political leaders Mayawati and Ramvilas Paswan in an internal issue of the HC.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com

SC refuses to impose ban on bursting crackers

New Delhi:


Diwali in Delhi this year will be as noisy and polluting as ever. The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to impose any fresh restrictions on bursting of crackers despite a desperate plea by three toddlers for a ban. The toddlers, through a senior advocate, requested a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra to pass an interim order restricting cracker bursting period to three days -two days before Diwali and Diwali day -and limiting the fireworks to two hours. The SC said such a directive could not be passed as an interim measure. “We must pass orders which can be implemented. If anyone bursts crackers outside his house saying it was his right, how does the court stop him?“ it said.
However, it took adverse note of the fact that the government had not implemented its October 16 direction for wide publicity through print and electronic media about the ill-effects of crackers.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com



Muslim personal law has to evolve with the times: SC




Validity Of Talaq Comes Under Lens
With Muslim women at a disadvantage under the Muslim Personal Law with no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and polygamy , the Supreme Court has now decided to examine the validity of such practices saying that it amounts to violation of women's fundamental rights. A bench of Justices A R Dave and A K Goel said laws dealing with marriage and succession are not part of religion and the Muslim Personal Law has to evolve with the changing times. The bench said it is high time for the judiciary to examine these issues which the court had earlier refrained from venturing into on the ground that it was a policy matter to be decided by the government and the legislature. It said these are not merely a policy matter but relate to protection of fundamental rights of Muslim women guaranteed by the Constitution. Referring to an earlier apex court verdict, the bench said practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be banned just like the practice of sati was banned.
“It was pointed out that in spite of Constitutional guarantee, Muslim women are subjected to discrimination.There is no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and second marriage by her husband during currency of the first marriage, resulting in denial of dignity and security to her,“ the bench said.
“In Javed vs State of Ha ryana, a Bench of three judges observed that practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be superseded by the state just as practice of `sati'. It was further observed that conduct rules providing for monogamy irrespective of religion are valid and could not be struck down on the ground of violation of personal law of Muslims,“ the bench said.
The court passed the order while adjudicating a woman's plea seeking share in ancestral property of her father under the Hindu Succession Act.During the hearing of the case, the lawyers pointed out the discrimination faced by Muslim women in matrimonial disputes.
Taking suo motu cognisance of alleged discrimination faced by women under Muslim Personal Law, the court ordered that matter be treated as PIL and asked the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to look into the issue of gender discrimination under Muslim Personal Law.
“It is pointed out that the matter needs consideration by this court as the issue relates not merely to a policy matter but to fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and international conventions and covenants,“ it said.
The bench said that a Constitution bench earlier did not address the issue of discrimination under Personal Law but it held that Article 21 included right to live with dignity which supports the plea that a Muslim woman could invoke fundamental rights in such matters.
The SC bench issued notice to attorney general and National Legal Services Authority seeking their response on the issue.
Govt yet to decide on uniform civil code
The Union law ministry is yet to firm up its stand on the uniform civil code. Any decision is unlikely before the conclusion of campaigning of the final phase of Bihar assembly elections. The government is facing a deadline to respond to a Supreme Court poser on its stand on a common code. Though the NDA government is in favour of a uniform civil code, it is not in a hurry to articulate its stand. A senior official said the government will initiate a wider consultation with all stakeholders, including all major political parties and personal law boards. As for its affidavit to the SC, law minister Sadananda Gowda is likely to hold a consultation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other senior Cabinet colleagues in the first week of November before finalising the Centre's stand. For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com