Tag: hear

Supreme Court to hear on Monday pleas on Manipur violence

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will on Monday hear a batch of pleas on the Manipur situation including one by a ruling BJP MLA challenging the high court order on the issue of Scheduled Tribe status to the Meitei community and a PIL by a tribal outfit for an SIT probe into the violence that rocked the northeastern state last week.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narashima and JB Pardiwala is scheduled to hear the matter.
The clashes between Meiteis and tribals started in Churachandpur district last Wednesday. The tribals are opposing reservation to the Meiteis following the March 27 Manipur High Court order that asked the state government to send a recommendation to the Centre within four weeks on the demand for ST status by the Meitei community.

Dinganglung Gangmei, BJP MLA and chairman of the Hills Area Committee (HAC) of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, in his appeal contended that the “proceedings before the High Court were vitiated on account of not making the HAC a party” and the HC order created tension and led to violence between the two communities.
“Even if directions were to be given they could not have been given without notice to the HAC and hearing the HAC,” said the MLA who challenged various orders, including contempt notices, by the high court related to the issue.
He said that the HC order led to tension between both communities and violent clashes erupted across the state. “As a result of it so far 19 tribal people have been killed, various places in the states are blocked, the internet is completely shut and more people are at risk of losing their lives,” the appeal said.
Meiteis account for about 53 per cent of Manipur’s population and live mostly in the Imphal valley. Tribals — Nagas and Kukis — constitute another 40 per cent of the population and live mostly in the hill districts.
The PIL filed by an NGO ‘Manipur Tribal Forum’, through advocate Satya Mitra, said it has moved the top court under Article 32 of the Constitution on account of the extreme situation arising out of the attacks on the tribal community in Manipur by a “dominant group”.

It alleged that “these attacks have the full support of the party in power … which supports the dominant group” and sought directions to the Centre and Manipur to evacuate Manipuri tribals who have fled their villages.
The PIL by the tribal outfit alleged that the attacks began on May 3 and several churches and hospitals were also damaged when the mobs went on a rampage, burning houses and vehicles and business establishments belonging to tribals.
It claimed that 30 tribals were killed and 132 people were injured but “neither FIR was registered nor is there any investigation taking place”.
The PIL sought directions to the Centre and the state government to deploy central forces to protect all churches and places of worship of the tribal/Christians in Manipur with immediate effect.
It urged that a team of professionals be put together to conduct an inquiry into the villages destroyed and make an assessment of the damage. It also sought payment of compensation to the victims and reconstruction of buildings including churches.
“A prayer clause has been made for the appointment of former DGP Assam (Harekrishna Deka) as the head of an SIT to investigate and prosecute and with a mandate to put together a team of his choice of police personnel and other support secretarial staff so that final reports are made expeditiously,” it said.
The appeal filed by Gangmei against the March 27 order of the Manipur High Court said that three basic errors were made in the judgement which includes directing the State to make a recommendation to the Central government to include the Meitei community as a scheduled tribe in the Presidential list.
“The second mistake is the conclusion that the issue of inclusion of the Meiteis was pending for nearly 10 years and the third mistake is in concluding that the Meiteis are tribes”, the appeal said.
The appeal said that the Meitei community is not a tribe and has never been recognised as a tribe, and is very much an advanced community though some of them may come within SC/OBC.
The appeal said that the high court passed the order on a writ petition filed by some members of Meitei communities seeking a direction to the state government to recommend to the Centre to include their community of Manipur in the scheduled tribe list of the Indian constitution as a tribe of Manipur.
The plea by the BJP MLA said there is no recommendation of the state government for inclusion of the Meitei community in the scheduled tribe list and there is no recommendation for such inclusion pending before the central government.
“Merely because the state of Manipur may have received some representation by the Meiteis does not oblige the state to do anything unless the state is convinced first, that the Meeteis/Meiteis are tribes and second, that they deserve to be in scheduled tribes list.
“No one can force the state to send such a recommendation in the absence of the state concluding that the Meeteis/Meiteis are a tribe and they deserve to be in the Scheduled Tribes list”, it said.
One more appeal has been filed by the chairman of the Hill Area Committee challenging the order dated May 3 of the High Court in which notices were issued to them in a contempt petition filed by members of the Meitei community.
[ad_2]
#Supreme #Court #hear #Monday #pleas #Manipur #violence
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 7, 2023
SC declines to hear plea against automatic disqualification of convicted MPs, MLAs

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea challenging the validity of the provision mandating “blanket and automatic” disqualification of legislators upon conviction and sentence.
Counsel for petitioner Aabha Muralidharan, contended before Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that the provision restrains a lawmaker from freely discharging the duties cast upon him/her by the voters of the constituency.
The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, told counsel that the court is not inclined to entertain the petition and “let the aggrieved party come before us”.

The bench asked the counsel, “How are you as an individual affected? When you are disqualified due to the provision, then we can look into it” and asked the lawyer to either withdraw your petition or it will dismiss it.
The plea prayed that automatic disqualification under Section 8A(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, should be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution, for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of fundamental right to equality.
The petitioner, a social worker from Kerala’s Malappuram, sought a direction that automatic disqualification did not exist under Section 8A(3) of the Act, while citing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as an MP by the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The plea said: “The grounds for disqualification ought to be specific with the nature of offences as specified under the Code for Criminal Procedure and not in a blanket form, as is currently in force under Section 8(3) of the RP Act”.
The plea contended that interpretation provided by the apex court in Lily Thomas case (2013) requires re-examination, to the effect of adjudicating the provisions of disqualification under Chapter III of the Act. “The operations of Lily Thomas case are being blatantly misused for wreaking personal vengeance against the political parties,” said the plea.

“If the offence under SectionA499 and 500 of the IPC, which just technically has a maximum punishment of 2 years is not removed singularly from the sweeping effect of the judgement in Lily Thomas, it will have a chilling effect on the right of representation of the citizens.”
[ad_2]
#declines #hear #plea #automatic #disqualification #convicted #MPs #MLAs
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 5, 2023
PIL in Kerala HC against ‘The Kerala Story’ film; court to hear it on May 5

[ad_1]
Kochi: A public interest litigation (PIL) was moved in the Kerala High Court on Tuesday against certain statements in the teaser and trailer of controversial Hindi film, ‘The Kerala Story’, and seeking that the court set aside the certificate for public display given to the movie by the censor board.
The high court, after hearing brief arguments, listed the matter for hearing on May 5, the day the film is scheduled to be released.
A bench of Justices N Nagaresh and C P Mohammed Nias also gave time to Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Manu S, appearing for the Centre and the censor board, to obtain the CBFC’s stand on the PIL before the next date of hearing.

The plea was moved by a lawyer, Anoop V R, who contended that the movie “falsely portrayed” certain facts which had resulted in “insulting” the people of Kerala, and sought a stay on the movie’s impending release.
“‘The Kerala Story’ claims to be inspired from true events. However, the statements in the teaser and trailer of the movie are far distant from the truth,” the petition said.
It contended that it was necessary to stay the release of the movie in its present form and remove “all the incorrect and unverified statements or scenes derogatory to the Muslim community and the state of Kerala”.
The petitioner, in the PIL, urged the court to direct the movie’s director Sudipto Sen, its producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah and the production company Sunshine Pictures to redact or remove, prior to the film’s release, certain statements, particularly the ones that say that the film was inspired by true stories and that 32,000 women from Kerala were converted to Islam and joined the Islamic State (IS).
It also urged the court to prohibit screening of the film without expunging the portions which allegedly have characteristics of hate speech and to set aside the ‘A’ certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

The petition was opposed by the Centre and CBFC, with DSGI Manu S arguing that the Supreme Court has held in many cases that once the certification was granted by the censor board, the same could not be interfered with by courts.
The DSGI contended that according to the SC verdict regarding the movie ‘Padmavati’, even the fear of a possible deterioration of law-and-order was not a relevant consideration once the CBFC had cleared a movie.
The film’s distributor too opposed the PIL saying that filing it at the last moment was “ill motivated”.
‘The Kerala Story’, starring Adah Sharma, is set to be released in cinemas on May 5 and is portrayed as “unearthing” the events behind “approximately 32,000 women” allegedly going missing from Kerala.
According to the CPI(M) and the Congress in Kerala, the film falsely claims that 32,000 women got converted and radicalised and were deployed in terror missions in India and the world.
[ad_2]
#PIL #Kerala #Kerala #Story #film #court #hear
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 2, 2023
SC to hear on Apr 28 plea seeking independent probe into Atiq killing

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on April 28 a plea seeking an independent probe into the killing of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad and his brother Ashraf in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj.
Atiq Ahmad (60) and Ashraf were shot dead at point-blank range by three men posing as journalists in the middle of a media interaction on April 15 night while police personnel were escorting them to a medical college in Prayagraj for a checkup.
The plea, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, has also sought an inquiry into the 183 encounters that have taken place in Uttar Pradesh since 2017.

Tiwari mentioned the matter for urgent listing on Monday before a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha.
He told the bench that his plea was slated to come up for hearing on Monday but it has not been listed.
“Since five judges are not available, some cases in which dates were given have not been listed. We will try to list this on Friday (April 28),” the CJI said, adding, some apex court judges are down with COVID-19 while some others are indisposed due to other reasons.
The Uttar Pradesh Police had recently said that it has gunned down 183 alleged criminals in encounters in the six years of the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath-led government and this included Ahmad’s son Asad and his accomplice.
The plea filed in the apex court has sought the setting up of an independent expert committee to probe the killing of Atiq and Ashraf.

“Issue guidelines/directions to safeguard the rule of law by constituting an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of a former Supreme Court justice to inquire into the 183 encounters which had occurred since 2017 as stated by Uttar Pradesh Special Director General of Police (Law and Order) and also to inquire into the police custody murder of Atiq and Ashraf,” it said.
Referring to Atiq’s killing, the plea said “such actions by police are a severe threat to democracy and rule of law and lead to a police state”.
“In a democratic society, the police cannot be allowed to become a mode of delivering final justice or to become a punishing authority. The power of punishment is only vested in the judiciary,” the plea submitted.
It said extra-judicial killings or fake police encounters have no place in the law.
When the police turn “daredevils then the entire rule of law collapses and generates fear in the mind of people against the police which is very dangerous for democracy and this also results in more crimes,” the plea stated.
[ad_2]
#hear #Apr #plea #seeking #independent #probe #Atiq #killing
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 24, 2023
Uniform compensation to hate crime victims: SC agrees to hear plea

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a petition seeking uniformity in grant of compensation to the victims of hate crime and mob lynching, and sought the response of the Centre, states and union territories.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna also asked the Centre, states and UTs to inform it within four weeks by way of affidavits about the steps taken for formulating a scheme for providing relief to the families of victims of mob lynching, as directed by it in the 2018 verdict in the Tehseen Poonawala case.
It posted the matter for further hearing after eight weeks.

Advocate Javed Sheikh, appearing for petitioner ‘Indian Muslim for Progress and Reforms’ (IMPAR), said some states have framed schemes pursuant to the 2018 verdict of the apex court but there was no uniformity, while many states still do not have any such scheme.
He gave the example of Rajasthan where, in the event of an earning member getting lynched by a mob, the family gets Rs 5 lakh compensation which is reduced to Rs 2.5 lakh in case of a non-earning member.
Sheikh sought a direction to the states for formulating a uniform compensation scheme.
The plea, filed through advocate Rizwan Ahmad, said the petitioner is praying for an order or direction to bring in uniformity in the grant of compensation to the victims of hate crimes/lynching/mob lynching as the present practice of granting ex-gratia amounts by various state governments is discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It said that IMPAR also prays for an order directing the State Governments and Union Territories to provide just, fair and reasonable compensation to the victims of hate crime and mob lynching pursuant to the scheme framed by them in compliance with the direction of this court in 2018.

The petition flagged “whimsical, discriminatory and arbitrary approach” adopted by states in grant of ex-gratia to the victims of hate crime and mob lynching and the “meagre” compensation provided to them.
The plea said the compensation awarded by states in most cases depended on extraneous factors like “media coverage, political imperatives and the victim’s religious identity”.
“It is seen that the trend of awarding compensation to the victims of hate crime/mob lynching is decided based on the religious affiliation of the victims. In some cases, where the victims belong to other religious denominations, huge compensation is awarded for their losses, while in other cases where the victim belongs to a minority community, the compensation is woefully inadequate,” it claimed.
The petition said such acts were not only in violation of Article 14 (equality before law) but also a breach of Article 15 which mandates non-discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
On June 29, 2022, it said, a man named Kanhaiya lal of Udaipur, Rajasthan was murdered in an alleged hate crime and the next day the chief minister, while visiting the victim’s family, handed over a cheque for Rs 51 Lakh. The two sons of the victim were also given government jobs, he said.
The plea said on February 17, 2023, the bodies of two people from the minority community were found in a burnt car. They were killed in a most brutal and cruel manner which shook the community to the core. On March 3, 2023, the Rajasthan chief minister, while visiting the victim’s family announced Rs 5 Lakh as compensation.
The plea referred to similar instances in Karnataka.
[ad_2]
#Uniform #compensation #hate #crime #victims #agrees #hear #plea
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 21, 2023
SC agrees to hear on April 28 plea against caste survey in Bihar

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on April 28 a fresh plea against the Bihar government’s decision to conduct a caste-based survey in the state.
A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha took note of the submission of an advocate seeking an urgent hearing of the matter.
The lawyer told the bench that the caste survey began on April 15 and is scheduled to end on May 15.

The bench said it would post the matter for hearing on April 28.
The apex court on January 20 had refused to entertain a batch of pleas challenging the Bihar government’s decision to conduct a caste survey in the state.
It had said there is no merit in the petitions and dismissed them with liberty to the petitioners to approach the high court concerned.
Subscribe us on

[ad_2]
#agrees #hear #April #plea #caste #survey #Bihar
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 21, 2023
Gujarat HC to hear PIL seeking ban on mosque loudspeakers

[ad_1]
Ahmedabad: A plea seeking a ban on the use of loudspeakers at mosques in Gujarat will be taken up by a division bench of the Gujarat High Court on June 19, an official said on Wednesday.
The plea has been filed by a doctor, Dharmendra Prajapati.
The Gujarat government has not responded to a high court notice issued over a year ago regarding the public interest litigation (PIL).

The court directed the advocate-general on Wednesday to file the government’s reply by June 12.
Prajapati, who resides in Sector 5C in Gandhinagar, claimed that Muslim individuals come to pray at different times and use loudspeakers, causing disturbance to the nearby residents.
He claims that the use of loudspeakers during Muslims’ prayer times infringes on his fundamental rights.
He has cited an Allahabad High Court judgment that rejected a request to allow the Muslim call for prayer to be sounded with amplifying devices in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur district.
Prajapati also submitted a written complaint to the Gandhinagar ‘mamlatdar’ in June 2020, which was forwarded to the Sector 7 police station.

However, no action was taken in response.
The petitioner also claimed that the use of loudspeakers during prayer times violates noise pollution rules, which prescribe a permissible noise level of 80 decibels.
He has sought direction from the appropriate authority to ban the use of loudspeakers in mosques across the state.
[ad_2]
#Gujarat #hear #PIL #seeking #ban #mosque #loudspeakers
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 19, 2023
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.

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 )

April 15, 2023
Varanasi: SC to hear plea for ‘Wuzu’ at Gyanvapi mosque on April 14

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine on April 14, a plea for alternative arrangement for ‘wuzu’ for worshippers at Gyanvapi mosque, Varanasi. The plea said that due to Ramazan, the number of worshippers have increased.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi mentioned the matter on behalf of Muslim side before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.
The bench told Ahmadi that this is a procedural issue. The counsel requested the court to hear the matter on Monday and said “the water for wuzu is being used for a drum. There are more worshippers due to Ramazan.”

He further added that he is insisting because of Ramzan. However, the Chief Justice said it would be difficult for Justice Surya Kant, who was part of the earlier bench, to join for hearing. After hearing brief submissions, the bench said it will hear the matter on April 14.
In November last year, the apex court had extended the protection of the area inside Gyanvapi mosque, where a ‘Shivling’ was found, till further orders.
The top court had said the interim order passed in May 2022, in connection with the protection of the area inside Gyanvapi mosque where a ‘Shivling’ was found, during a survey, will remain in operation till further orders.
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi, in its plea, contended the ablution area of the mosque where the “said object” has been found which, the petitioner maintains, is in fact a part of an old fountain. The plea further added that it was sealed by the district authorities and remains sealed till date, and the washroom alongside the same also remains sealed.
The plea contended that it has created inconvenience for the worshippers where they are deprived of the wuzukhana needed for offering namaz as well as the washroom. It pointed that the door to access the washroom was through the ablution area and the same remains sealed.

[ad_2]
#Varanasi #hear #plea #Wuzu #Gyanvapi #mosque #April
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 10, 2023
SC to hear on Monday batch of pleas on identification of minorities at state level

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a batch of pleas seeking the identification of minorities at the state level.
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah will take up for hearing the petitions raising various issues related to the identification of minorities, including challenging the constitutional validity of the National Minority Commission Act, 1992 and the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutes Act, 2004.
The pleas include the one filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay who has sought directions for framing guidelines for the identification of minorities at the state level, contending that Hindus are in minority in 10 states.

On January 17, the top court had expressed displeasure over six states and Union Territories (UTs), including Jammu and Kashmir, not submitting their comments to the Centre on the issue of identification of minorities at the state level.
“We fail to appreciate why these states should not respond. We give the last opportunity to the central government to obtain their responses failing which we will presume that they have nothing to say,” the top court had said.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, had referred to the status report filed by the Ministry of Minority Affairs which said that 24 states and six UTs have so far furnished their comments on the issue.
The status report, filed in the apex court on January 11, 2023, said that comments from six states and UTs – Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Lakshadweep, Rajasthan and Telangana – are still awaited.
On November 22 last year, the Centre told the top court that it has held consultative meetings with all state governments, UTs and other stakeholders on the issue of identification of minorities at the state level and 14 states have furnished their views so far.

In its status report, the ministry has said that the “last reminder” was sent on December 21 to these six states and UTs which have so far not given their comments.
It said in one of the petitions, “the petitioner has prayed to put restrain on the Government of India from placing reliance/acting upon and implementing the Sachar Committee report, submitted on November 17, 2006, for running/initiating any scheme/s in favour of Muslim community or for any other purpose”.
The status report said that a petition with the same subject matter is pending adjudication before the apex court.
The ministry has said that apart from state governments and UTs, it held consultative meetings with other stakeholders including the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Education, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) and the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI).
“All the ministries/departments have sent their views/comments,” said the status report which also annexed the copy of replies received from these ministries or departments.
The ministry said 24 state governments including Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Odisha, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Nagaland and Himachal Pradesh have furnished their views.
Others are Haryana, Gujarat, Goa, West Bengal, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and six Union Territories namely Ladakh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Chandigarh, NCT of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar islands and Puducherry.
During the earlier hearing, Upadhyay had told the bench that he has challenged the validity of section 2(f) of the National Commission for Minority Education Institution Act, 2004.
Terming section 2(f) of the Act, which empowers the Centre to identify and notify minority communities in India, as “manifestly arbitrary, irrational, and offending”, his plea has alleged that it gives unbridled power to the Centre.
Upadhyay had earlier referred to a 2007 judgement of the Allahabad High Court on a plea seeking the quashing of the May 2004 order passed by Uttar Pradesh recognising 67 madrassas for grant-in-aid.
He had said the high court verdict of 2007 has not been challenged.
“Can minority status be decided district-wise? How can that be done,” the bench had earlier observed during the hearing.
On May 10 last year, the apex court expressed displeasure over the Centre’s shifting stand on the issue of identification of minorities, including Hindus, at the state level and directed it to hold consultations with the states within three months.
In supersession of its earlier stand, the Centre had told the apex court that the power to notify minorities is vested with the Union government and any decision about the issue will be taken after discussion with states and other stakeholders.
[ad_2]
#hear #Monday #batch #pleas #identification #minorities #state #level
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 9, 2023