Tag: bench

  • Rijiju lauds order of CJI-led bench allowing disability candidates in judicial services exam

    Rijiju lauds order of CJI-led bench allowing disability candidates in judicial services exam

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday lauded an order of the Supreme Court allowing a judicial services aspirant suffering from writer’s cramp to get a scribe to write his preliminary examination for the recruitment of civil judges in Uttarakhand.

    The interim order was issued by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Saturday.

    Writer’s cramp is a task-specific movement disorder that manifests itself as abnormal postures and unwanted muscle spasms that interfere with motor performance while writing.

    MS Education Academy

    “This is such a heart-warming action by hon’ble Chief Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud. A great relief to a divyang (person with disability) candidate who sought a scribe for the Judicial Service exam in Uttarakhand,” Rijiju tweeted.

    Timely justice to a deserving person is “very satisfying”, he said, sharing a screenshot of a tweet posted by the lawyer of the candidate who had approached the top court.

    The candidate, Dhananjay Kumar, had moved the Supreme Court, saying his request to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) for a scribe was rejected on April 20, days ahead of the scheduled exam.

    He urged the court to allow him a scribe as he suffers from Chandrachudwriter’s cramp and submitted a certificate issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, dated September 25, 2017, about his condition.

    Taking note of the submission by advocate Namit Saxena, appearing for Kumar, the bench, also comprising Justice P S Narasimha, issued a notice to the UKPSC and the Uttarakhand government asking why his request for a scribe was rejected. It directed them to file a response by May 12.

    “We issue an ad interim direction to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, which is in-charge of conducting the examination, to ensure that a scribe is provided to the petitioner for the ensuing examination…” the bench said.

    (Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by Siasat staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

    [ad_2]
    #Rijiju #lauds #order #CJIled #bench #allowing #disability #candidates #judicial #services #exam

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Rijiju lauds order of CJI-led bench allowing disability candidates in judicial services exam

    Rijiju lauds order of CJI-led bench allowing disability candidates in judicial services exam

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday lauded an order of the Supreme Court allowing a judicial services aspirant suffering from writer’s cramp to get a scribe to write his preliminary examination for the recruitment of civil judges in Uttarakhand.

    The interim order was issued by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Saturday.

    Writer’s cramp is a task-specific movement disorder that manifests itself as abnormal postures and unwanted muscle spasms that interfere with motor performance while writing.

    MS Education Academy

    “This is such a heart-warming action by hon’ble Chief Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud. A great relief to a divyang (person with disability) candidate who sought a scribe for the Judicial Service exam in Uttarakhand,” Rijiju tweeted.

    Timely justice to a deserving person is “very satisfying”, he said, sharing a screenshot of a tweet posted by the lawyer of the candidate who had approached the top court.

    The candidate, Dhananjay Kumar, had moved the Supreme Court, saying his request to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) for a scribe was rejected on April 20, days ahead of the scheduled exam.

    He urged the court to allow him a scribe as he suffers from Chandrachudwriter’s cramp and submitted a certificate issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, dated September 25, 2017, about his condition.

    Taking note of the submission by advocate Namit Saxena, appearing for Kumar, the bench, also comprising Justice P S Narasimha, issued a notice to the UKPSC and the Uttarakhand government asking why his request for a scribe was rejected. It directed them to file a response by May 12.

    “We issue an ad interim direction to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, which is in-charge of conducting the examination, to ensure that a scribe is provided to the petitioner for the ensuing examination…” the bench said.

    (Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by Siasat staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

    [ad_2]
    #Rijiju #lauds #order #CJIled #bench #allowing #disability #candidates #judicial #services #exam

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • CJI-led five-judge bench to hear pleas for same-sex marriage on April 18

    CJI-led five-judge bench to hear pleas for same-sex marriage on April 18

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: A five-judge bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud, will hear a batch of petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage on April 18.

    On March 13, while referring the matter to a constitution bench, the top court noted that it is a very seminal issue.

    A bench headed by the CJI and comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha will hear the batch of petitions on April 18.

    MS Education Academy

    On March 13, a bench headed by CJI Chandrachud said, “It is a very seminal issue” while scheduling the matter for consideration before a five-judge bench. The proceedings will be live-streamed. The bench said that it will invoke Article 145 (3) of the Constitution and have this matter decided by a constitution bench, comprising five judges.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had contended before the court that the right to love or right to express one’s love irrespective of the gender of the other person is completely different from what the court would find the mechanism to give recognition or to give a sanctity by way of an institution called marriage.

    Mehta had stressed that freedom of choice has already been recognised by the apex court and no one was interfering with those rights, but conferring the right of marriage fell in the exclusive domain of the legislature.

    Mehta had further contended that if marriage is recognised between the same sex, the question will be of adoption, as the child would see either two men or two women as parents, and not be reared by a father and a mother.

    He added that the Parliament will then have to debate and take a call, in view of societal ethos and several other factors, on whether same-sex marriage needs to be recognised.

    At this juncture, the Chief Justice had told Mehta, “The adopted child of a lesbian couple or a gay couple does not have to be necessarily a lesbian or a gay. It depends on the child, may or may not…”

    The Centre, in an affidavit, contended that legal validation of same-sex marriage will cause “complete havoc” with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country and in accepted societal values.

    The Centre stressed that legislative policy recognises marriage as a bond only between a biological man and a biological woman.

    The Central government said that living together as partners and having a sexual relationship with same-sex individuals, which is decriminalised now, is not comparable to the Indian family unit – a husband, a wife, and children born out of the union – while opposing pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage.

    It stressed that same-sex marriage is not in conformity with societal morality or Indian ethos.

    In the affidavit, the Centre said the notion of marriage itself necessarily and inevitably presupposes a union between two persons of the opposite sex. This definition is socially, culturally, and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation, it said.

    The Centre’s response came on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws as unconstitutional on the ground that they deny same-sex couples the right to marry or alternatively to read these provisions broadly so as to include same-sex marriage.

    [ad_2]
    #CJIled #fivejudge #bench #hear #pleas #samesex #marriage #April

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Full bench of Kerala Lokayukta to look into case of CMDRF funds ‘misuse’ by CM

    Full bench of Kerala Lokayukta to look into case of CMDRF funds ‘misuse’ by CM

    [ad_1]

    Thiruvananthapuram: After facing flak on the decision by its two-member bench to refer the verdict in a case of alleged misuse of Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to a larger bench, there were indications on Monday that the full bench (three members) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta will start proceedings from April 12.

    The Congress and the BJP on Friday questioned the credibility of the Kerala Lokayukta, which referred the case to a larger bench.

    It was after an year that the two-member bench of the Lokayukta, that had completed all its hearings in the case, gave its verdict on last Friday and this long delay came under fire.

    MS Education Academy

    It was also noted that had the petitioner not approached the Kerala High Court seeking its intervention, maybe the verdict could have been even more delayed.

    Now all eyes are on April 12 and according to sources in the know of things, the full bench is likely to hear the case from the start and will also look into the issue if the Lokayukta is competent enough to take up the case involving a decision of the state cabinet.

    Leader of Opposition V.D. Satheesan has already pointed out that the decision to refer to the full bench is nothing but questioning the credibility of the Lokayukta institution as the Lokayukta in 2019 had made it clear that the petition is valid and now again it is going to be sent to a full bench. “It is strange,” he said.

    Public activist R.S. Sasikumar had filed the case in 2018, alleging misuse of the funds in the CMDRF.

    He had alleged that the money was given to those who were not eligible for the relief, including the family of a deceased CPI-M legislator, the family of a top leader from a Left ally who passed away, and also to a Kerala Police officer who died when his vehicle met with an accident while accompanying then top CPI-M leader Kodiyeri Balakrishnan.

    The plea to the anti-corruption ombudsman was filed by Sasikumar in September 2018 and the hearing ended on March 18, 2022. Since then till last Friday, the verdict was kept pending.

    All this comes at a time when Governor Arif Mohammed Khan continues to sit on the Bill that tweaked the powers of the Kerala Lokayukta.

    [ad_2]
    #Full #bench #Kerala #Lokayukta #case #CMDRF #funds #misuse

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Bilkis Bano case: SC constitutes new bench to hear plea against remission to convicts

    Bilkis Bano case: SC constitutes new bench to hear plea against remission to convicts

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on March 27 a batch of pleas challenging the remission of sentence of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case that also involves the killing of seven members of her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

    A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna will hear the pleas filed by several political and civil rights activists, and a writ petition filed by Bano.

    On March 22, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud directed the matter for urgent listing and agreed to constitute a new bench to hear the batch of pleas.

    On January 4, a bench comprising justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi took up the petition filed by Bano and the other pleas. However, Justice Trivedi recused from hearing the case without citing any reason.

    Bano had moved the apex court on November 30 last year challenging the “premature” release of 11 lifers by the state government, saying it has “shaken the conscience of society”.

    Besides the plea challenging the release of the convicts, the gang-rape survivor had also filed a separate petition seeking a review of the apex court’s May 13, 2022, order on a plea by a convict. The review plea was later dismissed in December last year.

    All 11 convicts were granted remission by the Gujarat government and released on August 15 last year.

    The victim, in her pending writ petition, has said the state government passed a “mechanical order” completely ignoring the requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court.

    “The en-masse premature release of the convicts in the much talked about case of Bilkis Bano has shaken the conscience of the society and resulted in a number of agitations across the country,” she has said.

    Referring to past verdicts, the plea said en-masse remissions are not permissible and, moreover, such a relief cannot be sought or granted as a matter of right without examining the case of each convict individually based on their peculiar facts and role played by them in the crime.

    “The present writ petition challenging the decision of the state/central government granting remission to all the 11 convicts and releasing them prematurely in one of the most gruesome crimes of extreme inhuman violence and brutality,” it said.

    The plea, which gave minute details of the crime, said Bano and her grown-up daughters were “shell-shocked with this sudden development”.

    “When the nation was celebrating its 76th Independence Day, all the convicts were released prematurely and were garlanded and felicitated in full public glare and sweets were circulated,” it said.

    The top court is seized of PILs filed by CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, Revati Laul, an independent journalist, Roop Rekha Verma, who is a former vice chancellor of the Lucknow University, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra against the release of the convicts.

    Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the riots that broke out after the Godhra train burning incident. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.

    The investigation in the case was handed over to the CBI and the trial was transferred to a Maharashtra court by the Supreme Court.

    A special CBI court in Mumbai had on January 21, 2008 sentenced the 11 to life imprisonment on charges of gang-rape of Bano and murder of seven members of her family.

    Their conviction was later upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

    The 11 men convicted in the case walked out of the Godhra sub-jail on August 15, last year, after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. They had completed more than 15 years in jail.

    [ad_2]
    #Bilkis #Bano #case #constitutes #bench #hear #plea #remission #convicts

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Democrats have a diverse bench waiting in the wings. They just need to pitch it to donors.

    Democrats have a diverse bench waiting in the wings. They just need to pitch it to donors.

    [ad_1]

    pennsylvania governor inauguration 45058

    For years, party insiders have stressed that the donor class is too focused on federal races, and the highest profile ones at that. The lack of attention paid to state contests has not only led to more conservative policy outcomes in the states, they warn, but less Democratic talent moving through the ranks.

    The DLGA’s pitch to donors and other party leaders is a bench-building one: Today’s lieutenant governors are tomorrow’s senators and governors. They also note that Democratic lieutenant governors best represent a party that increasingly relies on the support of non-white and women voters. Of the 25 Democratic second-in-commands, which includes states where the secretary of state fills that role, 14 are women and 12 are people of color.

    “It is the most diverse organization of elected officials in the country,” said Austin Davis, who was recently elected as Pennsylvania’s first Black lieutenant governor. “If you look at the number of lieutenant governors that elevate — whether to the U.S. Senate, whether it’s governor, whether it’s Congress — this is clearly a bench of folks who are going to be leading our party into the future.”

    The DLGA is looking to fashion itself as a training ground for up-and-coming Democrats, connecting them with donors and helping them build policy chops as they consider their political futures beyond their current role.

    “For a long time, I think the role of lieutenant governor was sort of in the background,” Peggy Flanagan, the Minnesota lieutenant governor who serves on the organization’s executive committee, said in an interview during a meeting of the organization in Washington this week.

    Two of Senate Democrats’ highest profile midterm recruits were lieutenant governors: Mandela Barnes, who narrowly lost in Wisconsin to incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson, and now-Sen. John Fetterman, who won a close contest in Pennsylvania against Trump recruit Mehmet Oz. And overall in 2022, four now-former lieutenant governors won election as their states’ chief executives, either winning a term outright or winning a full term of their own after previously assuming the governorship following a resignation.

    DLGA leadership says that it is eager to foster members’ future ambitions. Kevin Holst, who was recently named the committee’s executive director, noted that would-be donors can “form relationships early” with a “future rockstar in the party.”

    Holst said that, beyond putting LGs forth as key fundraisers, one particular area of focus would be turning the committee into a centralized services hub for current and aspiring lieutenant governors.

    “It’s a unique committee in which we are focused on electing more LGs, but we recognize that LG isn’t likely the endpoint for a lot of these elected officials,” he said. “Can we provide the fundraising support? … Can we help with press support? Can we help with profile building in their states?”

    Republicans also have a party committee focused on lieutenant governors, which is an arm of the Republican State Leadership Committee. The GOP version focuses on all down ballot races in states, including state legislator and secretary of state contests. The RSLC lieutenant governors’ website notes that “these experiences often prepare our lieutenant governors for higher office,” and that over a third of the country’s Republican governors were previously lieutenant governors.

    Two tests in the upcoming years for the DLGA will be North Carolina in 2024 and Virginia in 2025, states where the lieutenant governor is elected independently of the governor.

    The officeholders in both states are currently Republicans — and both are considered potential gubernatorial candidates in the upcoming cycle.

    Part of the impulse behind getting involved in these races is because Democrats lost an ultimately consequential race in North Carolina in 2020, a race the committee says it spent $1 million on. Now Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, a controversial and bombastic Republican in the state, is a likely candidate as Republicans look to flip the governorship next year.

    “LG was a race that many people didn’t pay attention to in 2020, and now it is biting us in the ass,” Holst said.

    [ad_2]
    #Democrats #diverse #bench #waiting #wings #pitch #donors
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Division Bench Affirms Life Imprisonment Of Militant

    [ad_1]

    SRINAGAR: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s Division Bench, consisting of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohan Lal, has affirmed the life imprisonment sentence given by Additional Sessions Judge Handwara to militant Mushtaq Ahmad Malla.

    As per the prosecution’s version of events, on 22.12.2005, the Handwara Police Station received information that two militants, one of whom was identified as Mushtaq Ahmad Malla, the son of Ghulam Ahmad Malla from Shotgund, had shot and killed Tariq Ahmad Malik, the son of Abdul Qayoom Malik from Guloora, indiscriminately at Adoura, leaving his corpse at the scene.

    Upon receiving this information, First Information Report (FIR) No. 337/2005 was filed for the alleged offenses under Sections 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 7/27 of the Arms Act. Following the conclusion of the investigation, the accused was presented with a challan and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment on December 31, 2021. After hearing arguments from both parties, the Division Bench (DB) noted that the trial court had considered and addressed all of the accused-appellant’s concerns following the law, citing various judgments from the Apex Court.

    “The trial court, though it convicted the appellant for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 7/27 of the Arms Act, rightly did not sentence him for the punishment prescribed under Sub Section 3 of Section 27 of the Arms Act because the Apex Court has declared the Sub Section 3 of Section 27 of Arms Act as unconstitutional,” the DB stated. Furthermore, the DB noted, “the trial court has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life after holding him guilty of the offense punishable under Section 302 of the RPC, and we do not find that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate to the offense committed by him, particularly when Section 302 RPC provides punishment of either death penalty or imprisonment for life.”

    “We also find that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the commission of the offense under Section 201 of the RPC, particularly when there was direct evidence regarding the killing of the deceased by the appellant by gun and subsequently running away from the appellant from the place of occurrence with a gun,” the DB added. The DB concluded by stating, “we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2021 passed by the trial court.”

    [ad_2]
    #Division #Bench #Affirms #Life #Imprisonment #Militant

    ( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

  • SC refers issue of excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra community to nine-judge bench

    SC refers issue of excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra community to nine-judge bench

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the issue of the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community to a larger nine-judge bench which is seized of various aspects including the scope and extent of judicial review with regard to a religious practice.

    The nine-judge bench is slated to consider seven issues which were framed in February 2020 in the matter pertaining to review of the apex court’s 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple.

    A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S K Kaul, which dealt with the issue concerning the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, said the plea deserves to be tagged with the review petition filed in the Sabarimala temple matter.

    The bench, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari, directed the apex court registry to seek appropriate directions in this behalf from the Chief Justice.

    It said a 1962 verdict delivered by a five-judge constitution bench in the Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs The State of Bombay case which had ruled that the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 violated Article 26 (b) (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution, requires reconsideration.

    “We have held that decision of the constitution bench (of 1962) requires reconsideration. We have recorded two grounds on which it requires reconsideration,” the bench said while pronouncing the order.

    On October 11 last year, the bench had reserved its order on whether to refer the plea on the issue to a larger bench for adjudication.

    It was considering if the Shiite Muslim community of a little over 10 lakh people spread across several countries has the right to excommunicate its dissenting members.

    While pronouncing the order on Friday, the bench said one of the issues is regarding balancing the rights under Article 26 (b) with that of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

    It said issue involved in the matter is substantially covered by two of the questions which were framed for consideration by a nine-judge bench.

    “Whether the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution of India are subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India apart from public order, morality and health?” reads one of the issues framed in February 2020 for consideration by a nine-judge bench.

    “What is the scope and extent of the word ‘morality’ under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and whether it is meant to include Constitutional morality?” reads another issue framed in 2020 for consideration by the larger bench.

    A nine-judge bench in 2020 had made clear it was not hearing pleas seeking review of the 2018 judgement and would rather deal with larger issues, including the extent to which courts can intervene in “particular religious practices”.

    It had said it would only deal with the issues referred to it by a five-judge bench in the matter.

    Before that, in September 2018, the apex court in a 4:1 majority verdict lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala and held that the centuries old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

    While dealing with the issue of the Dawoodi Bohra community, the apex court was earlier told that The Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act, 1949 has been repealed and The Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2016 has come into force.

    Section 3 of the 2016 Act refers to 16 types of social boycott of a member of the community and section 4 says social boycott is prohibited and its commission shall be an offence. The 16 types of social boycott includes expulsion of a member of a community.

    According to the 2016 Act, a person convicted of the offence would be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh or with both.

    In 1986, a petition was filed in the top court seeking reconsideration and overruling of the judgement delivered in 1962.

    [ad_2]
    #refers #issue #excommunication #Dawoodi #Bohra #community #ninejudge #bench

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Put conversion matter before five-judge bench, says fresh application in SC

    Put conversion matter before five-judge bench, says fresh application in SC

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: A fresh application has been moved before the Supreme Court urging that the matters related to alleged forcible religious conversions be taken up by a larger bench of five judges as they involve the interpretation of the Constitution.

    A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is scheduled to hear the batch of pleas on Monday against anti-conversion laws of several states regulating religious conversion due to interfaith marriages and on matters related to alleged forcible conversions.

    The fresh application is filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who is among the petitioners. He has asked the court to refer the petitions to a larger bench saying there are several questions of laws involved which require the interpretation of the Constitution.

    He raised questions like whether the previous judgments of this Court interpreting Article 25(1) of the Constitution are grossly erroneous in so far as they upheld the word “propagate” would include entitlement to convert.

    “Whether the word “propagate” needs to be construed in a manner which is not detrimental to fraternity, unity, dignity and national integration…,” Upadhyay’s fresh plea said.

    It should also not lead to communal conflagration on account of religious communities trying to convert the weaker section of other religious communities and “attempting to make demographic changes as witnessed in the nine states/UTs (Ladakh, Lakshadweep, Kashmir, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh) and around 200 districts of India”, the application said.

    In another application, Upadhyay has sought modification of the order dated January 9 in which the apex court had directed that the matter be listed under the title of “In Re: The issue of Religious conversion” to the original title.

    On January 16, the top court asked the parties challenging the anti-conversion laws of several states to file a common petition seeking the transfer of cases on the issue from various high courts to the apex court.

    It had asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the parties, to file a common petition seeking the transfer of all the pleas from high courts to the top court.

    The top court had taken note of the submission of senior advocate Dushyant Dave that one of the petitions, filed by Upadhyay, casts aspersions on Christians and Muslims and asked senior lawyer Arvind Datar, appearing for Upadhyay, to file a formal plea for deletion of the “objectionable portions”.

    Datar, however, said he was not pressing the alleged contents.

    The plea by Upadhyay against alleged “forceful religious conversions” was earlier being heard by another bench led by Justice MR Shah before it was transferred to the bench headed by the CJI recently.

    Attorney General R Venkataramani, who is assisting the bench in one of the matters, had said the high courts should be permitted to continue with the hearing of petitions challenging the local laws.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had challenged the locus of NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace’ of activist Teesta Setalwad, who is one of the petitioners.

    Mehta, however, did not elaborate on the reasons for questioning the locus of the NGO.

    The top court had noted that there were at least five such pleas “before the Allahabad High Court, seven before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, two each before the Gujarat and Jharkhand High Courts, three before the Himachal Pradesh, and one each before Karnataka and Uttarakhand High Courts” and said a common petition for their transfer can be filed.

    Besides those, two separate petitions have been filed by Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh challenging the interim orders of the respective high courts staying certain provisions of their law on conversion.

    Earlier, a bench headed by Justice M R Shah had said religious conversion was a serious issue that should not be given a political colour.

    It had sought the assistance of the attorney general on the plea filed by Upadhyay.

    Another bench headed by the CJI had on January 2 sought to know the status of cases pending before different high courts challenging controversial state laws regulating religious conversion due to interfaith marriages, and said if all cases are similar in nature it may transfer them all to itself.

    It had asked NGO ‘Citizens for Justice and Peace’ and the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh to apprise it about the status of cases challenging the state laws on conversion through marriage.

    The apex court had on January 6, 2021 agreed to examine certain controversial new laws of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand regulating religious conversions due to such marriages.

    The controversial UP law relates to not only interfaith marriages but all religious conversions and lays down elaborate procedures for any person who wishes to convert to another religion.

    The Uttarakhand law entails a two-year jail term for those found guilty of religious conversion through “force or allurement”. The allurement can be in cash, employment, or material benefit.

    The plea filed by the NGO alleged the legislations violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as they empower the state to suppress an individual’s personal liberty and the freedom to practise the religion of one’s choice.

    Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has also moved the Supreme Court challenging the anti-conversion laws of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, saying they have been enacted to “harass” interfaith couples and implicate them in criminal cases.

    The Muslim body, in its PIL filed through advocate Ejaz Maqbool, said the provisions of all the local laws of the five states force a person to disclose their faith and, consequently, invade their privacy.

    [ad_2]
    #Put #conversion #matter #fivejudge #bench #fresh #application

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • No Democratic Bench? Josh Shapiro and Wes Moore Are Ready To Step Up

    No Democratic Bench? Josh Shapiro and Wes Moore Are Ready To Step Up

    [ad_1]

    maryland governor inauguration 61349

    However, the more revealing presence on stage may have been that of somebody few recognized, Lt. Col. Jamie Martinez (Ret.). Martinez took the microphone to remind an audience that included Eric Holder, Chris Tucker and Cal Ripken that the 44-year-old Moore isn’t just a political phenom: he was also a fellow soldier from the 82nd Airborne who led troops in Afghanistan.

    Both new governors reached deep into their states’ past to evoke America’s promise and trumpet their own. Shapiro recalled William Penn’s credo of religious tolerance and Moore reminded his audience that while they stood just up the hill from docks where slaves were brought the inauguration was no indictment of the past” but rather “a celebration of our collective future.”

    If it all felt like a highly-choreographed preview of future ambitions, campaigns and perhaps swearing-ins, well, I wasn’t the only one with the same premonition.

    “This won’t be the only inauguration with him we go to,” Holder told me as we waited for the festivities to get under way in Annapolis, saying of Moore that “he’s got that thing.”

    As Democrats bemoan their political bench there’s a frequent glass-is-half-empty refrain about the most-often mentioned prospects waiting behind the 80-year-old in the White House: Kamala Harris can’t win a general election, Pete Buttigieg can’t win a primary and there’s no way Michelle Obama will run, will she?

    I find it mystifying. And especially after the midterms.

    Senators Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), an actual astronaut and the actual pastor of Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, paired their sterling bios with a demonstration of their electoral chops, winning in a pair of formerly red states that just now happen to pivotal presidential battlegrounds. In another show of strength, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer won re-election in Michigan, ever the Electoral College prize, by over 10 points.

    And then there are the new three Democratic governors from the northeast, Shapiro, Moore and Maura Healey of Massachusetts, who all thrashed MAGA’fied Republicans, were all born after 1970 and all have law enforcement or military credentials.

    Which of them would be willing to run, or viable if they did, should President Biden change course and not seek reelection is another story. But there’s no lack of traffic at the foot of that bridge the president promised he’d be to the next generation of Democrats.

    Just beginning their governorships now, it may be too soon for Shapiro and Moore to run next year, and allies of both suggested to me they would be unlikely to run for president so soon.

    Yet as I made my way around Harrisburg and Annapolis last week, I was struck by the air of expectations, or really the operating assumption, that both new governors would run for president.

    “That was quite a speech,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) told me after Shapiro’s inauguration, failing to suppress her knowing smile as she said her longtime friend from the Philadelphia suburbs “has a good vision for the whole country.”

    It all feels a bit familiar.

    An aging Democratic leadership in Washington, a cadre of up-and-coming governors and the question is only when and who among this next generation seeks the presidency: in the 1980s, it was a group of Southerners, not northeasterners, that included Chuck Robb of Virginia, Jim Hunt of North Carolina, Richard Riley of South Carolina and then Louisiana’s Buddy Roemer, Mississippi’s Ray Mabus and, first in his class, Arkansas’s Bill Clinton.

    Just as many of these governors benefited from the Reagan defense build-up, with federal dollars flowing to their states, the new crop of Democratic chief executives find themselves taking office with every governor’s favorite two words: budget surplus.

    Between the spending on Covid relief, the infrastructure bill, the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS legislation, to say nothing of the $1.7 trillion government funding bill Congress passed in December, states are seeing a flood of money come from Washington.

    Thanks in part to the aid, Moore and Shapiro will craft their first budgets with the chance to play Santa rather than the Grinch. Notably, though, what animates each of them is less any sort of spending wish list than a pair of non-ideological initiatives that just happen to be broadly appealing to general election voters.

    For Shapiro, it was an executive order making it easier for Pennsylvanians without college degrees to work for the state and for Moore it’s his vow to offer young Marylanders a service year option after high school. Both know what sort of message these proposals send about their party, and themselves, at a moment Democrats are fending off charges of elitism.

    The two are eager to reclaim patriotism, faith and family, which were all on display at their inaugurations, mostly vividly through the presence and participation of their children.

    Shapiro, especially, can’t understand how Democrats get tripped up on these topics.

    When I spoke to him at the Democratic Governors Association meeting shortly after his 15-point win, he said there should be a focus on what binds all Americans — “we cherish our democracy, we love our freedom and we embrace this country.”

    Before I could even get to the education wars, he continued.

    “And we should be teaching our kids about that,” said Shapiro. “We should be teaching them about the good and the bad. And we should be teaching them in a way that doesn’t pit one of them against each other but rather teaches them to love this nation, love one another even more.”

    If you thought that was an echo of Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton, deftly decrying the false choices of our political culture, well, Moore had more of the same in his inaugural address.

    “I know what it feels like to have handcuffs on my wrists,” he said, recalling a police encounter when he was only 11. “I also know what it’s like to stand with families and mourn the victims of violent crime. We do not have to choose between being a safe state and a just one. Maryland can and will be both.”

    Such language, of course, prompts questions about the politics of the two men, how they’ll govern and position themselves for the future.

    That will in part be shaped by the differences in their states. If a handful of special elections turn out as expected next month, Shapiro will find a one-seat Democratic House majority and a six-seat GOP Senate majority. Moore, on the other hand, enjoys Democratic supermajorities in both chambers of Maryland’s legislature.

    Shapiro will have to negotiate to find consensus with Republicans while Moore must navigate his party’s factional disputes, between center-left and progressives.

    Shapiro’s task will be easy enough when it comes to bolstering spending on vocational and technical education or hiring more police officers. Where he’ll be tested — and offer an insight into his long-term thinking — is on the question of whether Pennsylvania will remain in the northeast’s greenhouse gas compact, which caps CO2 emissions.

    Shapiro dodged the question during the campaign, not wanting to alienate his party’s environmentalists or workers in the state’s energy industry.

    “How he chooses to move forward or not I think will set a very, very significant tone for the outset of his administration,” the state’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman told me about Shapiro’s decision.

    Dispensing with any subtlety, Pittman said of the governor, “It’s no secret that his dream is to be President of the United States” and energy policy presents a crossroads for Shapiro: “govern in a purple state or whether he moves more toward the progressive base of his party.”

    What was striking about my conversations with Pittman and Republican state Sen. Kim Ward, the Senate President Pro Tempore – besides their matter of fact assumptions about Shapiro’s ambitions – was how optimistic they were about being able to work together with a Democratic governor.

    That’s partly because they see a fellow political animal – Shapiro was a congressional staffer before rising in elected office – and somebody who knows from deal-making.

    It’s also because he’s reached out to them privately and put together a bipartisan cabinet, including Al Schmidt, the former Philadelphia elections official who became famous for defending his city’s ballot integrity after the 2020 presidential race.

    “He doesn’t sound like he is going to govern from the far left,” Ward told me shortly after Shapiro’s inaugural speech.

    When I asked the then-governor-elect at the DGA event what he sees as his legacy, he all but said as much, pointing to the GOP votes he won in the election.

    “If I can show those Republicans that it wasn’t just a vote in an election but actually what they created was a new dynamic for governing, where I can actually get big things done with Republicans and Democrats together, that would be probably be the most important thing I can accomplish,” said Shapiro.

    It may not sound like a recipe for winning a Democratic primary, but, then, 2020 demonstrated the party’s voters can be more practical-minded than ideologically driven.

    While Shapiro is a known commodity to the Harrisburg crowd, Moore is a blank slate to much of Annapolis.

    Last year’s election was his first bid for office and he has spent much of his professional life in New York City, as an investment banker at Citigroup and then as head of Robin Hood, the anti-poverty organization.

    These connections were made clear by the presence at the inauguration of two well-known New Yorkers, former Mayor Bill de Blasio (who was in the audience) and Chelsea Clinton (who was in the second row on stage).

    Yet just as in Pennsylvania, the Maryland Republicans in attendance made no attempt at arguing Moore was a left-winger pretending to be a centrist.

    “I think he really, really is more of a moderate,” William Folden, a GOP state senator from Frederick County told me after Moore’s speech, pointing to the “grounding” impact of the governor’s military service.

    While Shapiro is faced with a decision on the climate compact, Moore will quickly be confronted with whether, or how much, to constrain a Democratic legislature eager to pursue an expansive agenda after eight years of being held back by a Republican governor, Larry Hogan.

    Though I’m not sure it’s wrangling with the mandarins of the Maryland General Assembly that Winfrey had in mind when she excitedly said “there’s so much more to come” for Moore because “he’s just getting started.”

    It makes Tom McMillen wince.

    McMillen is the former University of Maryland basketball great who, like Moore, went on to become a Rhodes Scholar. He later served in Congress from Maryland.

    He’s fond of Moore, but as McMillen walked toward the inauguration last week he suggested the new governor should be more focused on the crabs of the Chesapeake more than the Clyburns of Carolina.

    “He’s got to be a good governor,” said the old power forward, looking down from his 6’11” frame to offer a stern lesson from the past. “That’s how Clinton got defeated after his first term in Arkansas, Wes has got to stay very focused.”

    [ad_2]
    #Democratic #Bench #Josh #Shapiro #Wes #Moore #Ready #Step
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )