Tag: law

  • Former law minister Shanti Bhushan dies aged 97

    Former law minister Shanti Bhushan dies aged 97

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Former Union law minister and eminent jurist Shanti Bhushan, who represented politician Raj Narain in the historic case that led to the annulment of then prime minister Indira Gandhi’s election in 1975, died here on Tuesday following a brief illness. He was 97.

    A source close to his family said Bhushan was not keeping well for some time and died at his home in Delhi.

    In the historic Raj Narain vs Indira Nehru Gandhi case, the Allahabad High Court in its verdict in June 1975 had disqualified Gandhi for a period of six years from contesting elections.

    The plea was filed by freedom fighter and politician Raj Narain, who had unsuccessfully contested the 1971 Lok Sabha elections from Raebareli in Uttar Pradesh against her, accusing her of corrupt electoral practices.

    Gandhi had moved the Supreme Court against the high court verdict. It triggered a series of events culminating into the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

    Bhushan, who was also a senior advocate, served as the law minister from 1977 to 1979 in the Morarji Desai cabinet.

    Bhushan, whose sons Jayant and Prashant Bhushan are leading lawyers, was active in the legal profession till recently and had argued on a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jets deal.

    Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said he was deeply pained by the news of Bhushan’s passing away. “My deepest condolences to the family members on his passing away. My prayers for the departed soul. Om Shanti,” he wrote on Twitter.

    Shanti Bhushan had also filed a plea in the apex court challenging the roster practice of allocation of cases by the Chief Justice of India.

    In its verdict on his plea, the top court had in July 2018 maintained that the Chief Justice of India is “the master of the roster” and has the prerogative and authority to allocate cases to different benches of the apex court.

    In November 2010, Shanti Bhushan had stuck to his sensational allegation that there was corruption in the judiciary and had refused to apologise to the Supreme Court asserting he was willing to be jailed for contempt.

    He had made the remarks when the apex court had asked whether he and his son Prashant were willing to tender an apology to avoid being hauled up for contempt.

    In his political career, he was a member of the Congress (O) and later of the Janata Party. He served as a Rajya Sabha member too. He also had a six-year stint with the BJP.

    He was vocal on the issue of corruption, and was among the founding members of the Aam Aadmi Party, which he later quit.

    [ad_2]
    #law #minister #Shanti #Bhushan #dies #aged

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Federal judge blocks more of New Jersey’s new gun carry law

    Federal judge blocks more of New Jersey’s new gun carry law

    [ad_1]

    The new law, which Gov. Phil Murphy signed in December, revamped the state’s gun carry application process and requirements, and established “sensitive places” where guns could not be carried. The law was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June which drastically expanded the scope of who could carry guns outside the home.

    A legal challenge was filed immediately after Murphy signed the measure into law.

    New York enacted a similar law prohibiting where guns can be carried, but that law is also the subject of ongoing litigation.

    Gun rights groups did not get everything they sought from Bumb. For example, the judge said the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the prohibition of guns being carried in zoos, medical facilities, airports and on movie sets. Gun rights groups also wanted her to block the prohibition of carrying guns on playgrounds. Bumb denied that request, declaring that playgrounds were analogous to schools — area courts have suggested guns cannot be carried.

    Challenges to those provisions of the law, however, are expected to resurface in later phases of the litigation.

    “This marks the beginning of the end for Governor Murphy’s blatantly unconstitutional new carry law, which is going down in flames,” Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said in a statement. “Murphy has clearly demonstrated that constitutional issues are indeed above his pay grade.”

    In her 46-page opinion, Bumb, sitting in Camden, wrote that the state failed to provide evidence that some “sensitive places” defined in the law were analogous to “a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the legal standard for bearing guns being carried somewhere.

    Democratic leaders have insisted the new law is consistent with the constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling. Senate President Nick Scutari and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, who played a key role in crafting the law, had their motion to intervene in the case to defend the law approved on Monday.

    “Our law pursues common sense boundaries that keep dangerous weapons out of places of learning and recreation where there are children, families, and folks going about their lives in peace,” Coughlin said in a statement. “I am disappointed, but we have joined the lawsuit to ensure our voice is heard in the legal process and look forward to the full law taking effect to keep our communities safe.”

    In separate statements, spokespeople for Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin also said they were “disappointed” by Bumb’s ruling.

    “We are disappointed that the court invalidated common-sense restrictions on the right to carry firearms in public, which are fully consistent with the Second Amendment,” Murphy spokesperson Tyler Jones said. “We look forward to being able to appeal the ruling and are confident that it will be reversed.”

    “We are disappointed that the court has undermined important and longstanding protections against firearms violence in our public parks and in casinos,” Platkin said. “Today’s order is bad for public safety and inconsistent with the Second Amendment. But these orders remain temporary, and we look forward to pressing our case, including ultimately on appeal.”

    [ad_2]
    #Federal #judge #blocks #Jerseys #gun #carry #law
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Fali Nariman slams Law Minister’s remarks against collegium system

    Fali Nariman slams Law Minister’s remarks against collegium system

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Amid the ongoing row between the Centre and the judiciary over judges appointment, former Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman, speaking at a public event, slammed Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for his “diatribe” against the collegium system for appointment of judges.

    On Centre sitting on candidates recommended by the collegium for judgeship, Justice Nariman termed it “deadly for democracy”.

    “This sitting on names is a very deadly thing which is against the democracy of this country. Because what you are merely doing is you are waiting for a particular collegium and hoping that the next collegium changes its mind.”

    Nariman was part of the Supreme Court collegium till he retired in August 2021.

    He also suggested a 30-day deadline for the government to respond to the recommendations made by the collegium.

    Nariman also called for the formation of a special five-judge bench, and a judgment should be passed that when collegium sends a name to the government, and if there is nothing comes the government within a period of 30 days, then it will be taken as it has nothing to say.

    Nariman was speaking on Friday at the Mumbai University while delivering the seventh Chief Justice M.C. Chagla Memorial Lecture.

    He said if the last bastion of independent judiciary falls, the country would enter the “abyss of a new dark age”, and added that what is the independence of the judiciary if judges, who are fearless and independent, are not appointed.

    Nariman said, “If you don’t have fearless and independent judges, say goodbye… There is nothing left. As a matter of fact, according to me, if finally this last bastion falls or is to fall, we would enter the abyss of a new dark age.

    “In which, R.K. Laxman’s Common Man will ask himself only one question: If the salt has lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?”

    The Law Minister had termed the collegium system alien to the Constitution, and had also said that it is “opaque and not transparent”.

    Nariman said, “We have heard a diatribe by the Union Law Minister of the day against this process (judges’ appointment). Let me assure the Law Minister that there are very basic constitutional fundamentals he must know. Unlike the United States, a minimum of five unelected judges are trusted with the interpretation of the Constitution.”

    He pointed out that judicial appointments in the United States do not involve any decision-making process from the judiciary at all, but India adopted a different approach.

    The former apex court judge, on a basic doctrine structure issue, said that in the past over 40 years ago, it was sought to be undone twice and since then not a word has been said against it, except very recently.

    “So let us be clear that this is something that has come to stay, and thank god it has come to stay,” Nariman said.

    [ad_2]
    #Fali #Nariman #slams #Law #Ministers #remarks #collegium #system

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Red states are winning big from Dems’ climate law

    Red states are winning big from Dems’ climate law

    [ad_1]

    ap22354670191648

    The dynamic has prompted a tricky balancing act for the GOP: Tout the jobs and economic benefits coming to their states and districts, but not the bill that helped create them. The results are also potentially awkward for Democrats who expended political capital and more than a year of wrangling to enact the bill, only to see Republican lawmakers and governors sharing in the jobs and positive headlines it’s creating — although Democrats say they also see longer-term benefits for the nation in building GOP support for alternatives to fossil fuels.

    Republicans insist their positions on the bill and the jobs are not in conflict.

    “Just because you vote against a bill doesn’t mean the entire bill is a bad bill,” said Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who was the top GOP member of Democrats’ Select Climate Crisis Committee in the last Congress. “I go out there and advocate for our district to try and get transportation funds, to try and get energy funds. That’s my job. I am not embarrassed about it. I don’t think it’s inconsistent with my vote.”

    To Democrats, the slate of new investments stand as proof that they were correct that the Inflation Reduction Act, H.R. 5376 (117), would expand the reach of clean power to rural and conservative areas — a promise that failed to sway a single Republican vote to support the bill.

    “It’s hard not to point out the hypocrisy for people who fought tooth and nail against the bill, those very incentives that are now creating opportunities in their [Republican] districts they are now leading,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.). “We just have to point out, thanks for your kind words, but this didn’t just happen. It happened despite your best efforts.”

    Smith attended an October ribbon-cutting in her state for Canadian solar panel maker Heliene’s expansion of its manufacturing facility — an effort that was started prior to the Inflation Reduction Act’s passage and that has drawn praise from Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), whose district is home to the plant that will be one of the largest panel makers in the country.

    Democrats’ climate law includes billions of dollars to spur green energy technologies and cut greenhouse gas emissions, including a new tax credit for manufacturing the components crucial for solar, wind and electric vehicles, as well as additional incentives for using domestic content in projects.

    Republicans, though, have moved to slash funding of the Internal Revenue Service, the central agency charged with implementing the climate law’s incentives, over concerns that Democrats have expanded its mandate. And Friday, former President Donald Trump urged GOP lawmakers to target “billions being spent on climate extremism” in their fight over the debt limit.

    Supporters of the Inflation Reduction Act say its success is due in part to the way it provides long-term certainty for companies looking to place a footprint in the U.S.

    The bill is a “fundamental element” of the recent spate of manufacturing announcements, said Abigail Ross Hopper, the president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “There certainly were a number of plans being evaluated and discussed [prior to the bill]. But I think the vast majority were contingent upon the passage of the IRA.”

    In the three months after Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in August, companies announced more than $40 billion of new clean energy investments, according to a December report from the American Clean Power Association, an industry trade group. POLITICO’s analysis of the law’s early results includes those projects as well as separate news reports and company announcements of manufacturing expansions and plans, and additional announcements on electric vehicle plants.

    Out of 33 projects examined, 21 are expected to be located in Republican-held congressional districts, compared with 12 in Democratic districts. POLITICO’s analysis did not reflect every announcement made and does not include facilities where a specific congressional district could not be found.

    Just this month, South Korean solar company Hanwha Q Cells announced it would invest $2.5 billion in Georgia to expand its solar panel manufacturing plant and construct another facility in the state.

    That expansion is occurring partially in the district of conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — who has described climate change as “actually healthy for us” and has blasted Democrats’ bill. Greene, however, recently told POLITICO that she’s “excited to have jobs” in her district that will come from the Q Cells announcement, though she gave credit to Georgia’s GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, who has courted clean energy and electric vehicle manufacturing investments through state-level subsidies and tax incentives.

    Federal and state incentives alike are playing a role in the companies’ decisions, said J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia.

    “They are coming to Georgia for one reason — we are paying them to come here with subsidies,” Bradbury said in an interview, referring to the combination of federal and state tax credits. “These projects are being pitched as economic development projects 100 percent.”

    But while manufacturing proponents point to factors including geography, economic development plans and states’ anti-union laws as factors drawing investment to deep-red districts, they also say the announcements are directly tied to the federal subsidies provided under Democrats’ bill.

    “It’s not random,” said Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, which includes labor unions and environmental organizations. “It’s because specific policies have been put in place and passed by the U.S. Congress to actually incentivize exactly the kind of activity that we’re seeing.”

    And the investments are only expected to grow. Solar manufacturer and Bill Gates-backed CubicPV, for one, is planning a 10-gigawatt facility in the United States, but has not yet chosen a location, while Enel North America, a unit of an Italian energy company, is evaluating sites to build a new solar panel and cell manufacturing plant. Battery manufacturing facilities are also expected to come online in the years ahead across several states, including Michigan, Tennessee, Arizona and Georgia.

    Companies aren’t necessarily looking at which lawmaker represents the district when they invest, said Scott Paul, president of Alliance for American Manufacturing. They’re looking instead at where the supply chains exist and where they can leverage the tax benefits and capital provided by lawmakers.

    “Red state-blue state [is] not really a factor,” Paul said, adding, “This isn’t one of those things that looks like an electoral map at all.”

    Republicans express no regret about opposing the IRA despite previously supporting individual pieces of the bill, such as tax incentives for carbon capture, nuclear and hydrogen projects. GOP members argued that the bill would pump too much money into the economy and worsen inflation, and they’ve criticized Democrats for using the partisan reconciliation process that allowed them to pass it with a simple majority in the Senate.

    “The overall process, the overall bill, particularly the spending, really frustrates Republicans — not necessarily every specific in the bill,” said Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah).

    But the GOP is likely to find itself in an uncomfortable position as funding from the Inflation Reduction Act plays a growing role in Republicans home states and districts.

    Former Virginia Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello, who lost his reelection bid in 2010 after voting for the Affordable Care Act, said those dynamics put Republicans in a tricky spot once voters see the jobs stemming from Democrats’ agenda.

    “Biden has driven his agenda right down Main Street with a big ‘Made in America’ banner on the back of an electric truck, and people’s only choices are to get on board with the parade or seem to be against making things in America again,” he said. “I think of those two choices, Republican hypocrisy makes a lot more sense than standing in the way of jobs and American competitiveness.”

    He called it “squirrely” for lawmakers to argue to voters that they like certain parts of the bill, but not others.

    “That’s just not how legislating works. That’s not how things pass,” he said.

    House Republicans have promised robust oversight of the climate law, pledging to seek out wasteful spending in search of would-be scandals such as the failed Solyndra loan guarantee of the Obama administration — even if the overall program is a success.

    “I don’t think it complicates the oversight,” a House GOP leadership aide told POLITICO, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “Oversight is an important function. There could be 20 great projects [supported by IRA], but if one is bad, it’s our job to understand why.”

    Republicans also criticized the Biden administration’s rush to embrace greener energy while the country still relies on China for technology components, and they’ve been critical of government support that has helped companies with manufacturing in China.

    Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, said he rejected Ford Motors’ efforts to consider locating a battery plant in his state over concerns about China and national security.

    Democrats, though, hope the trend of clean energy boosting the economic prospects of red states helps shift the rhetoric of Republicans and enables more bipartisan cooperation on narrow interests benefiting the climate.

    “Over time, I anticipate their [Republican] talking points will change as their neighbors become a part of the clean energy economy,” said former House climate committee Chair Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).

    [ad_2]
    #Red #states #winning #big #Dems #climate #law
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Judges don’t face elections or public scrutiny: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju

    Judges don’t face elections or public scrutiny: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: In the latest, amid the ongoing row between Centre and judiciary over appointment of judges, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday said judges do not contest elections or face public scrutiny.

    Addressing an event of the Delhi Bar Association, Rijiju, in Hindi, said: “Every citizen asks questions to the government and questions should be asked. If the public would not ask questions to the elected government, then who would they ask questions to… we do not step away from questions, we face it because we are elected representatives.”

    Rijiju said he had participated in many events which include Supreme Court Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges and high courts, even there he had emphasised that today he is working as Law Minister but tomorrow if people do not elect his government, then they would sit in the Opposition, and they will question the ruling government.

    “But, when a judge becomes a judge, he does not have to face an election. There is also no public scrutiny for judges. That is why I say, people do not elect judges and this is why the public cannot change judges. But people are watching you. Your judgment and the working of judges and the way judges dispense justice, people are watching it and assess… They form opinions. In the age of social media, nothing can be hidden,” he said to loud applause.

    He further added that the Chief Justice had sought his help in connection with the abuse judges face on social media. “How to control that? Now, judges cannot respond to it on social media. The government was requested to take a firm step… I have taken note of it,” he added.

    Rijiju has been vocal in the criticism of the collegium system for appointment of judges, and even termed it alien to the Constitution. The Central government is seeking to have a larger role in the appointment of judges.

    The Law Minister on Sunday cited comments by a retired high court judge, saying the Supreme Court “hijacked” the Constitution by deciding to appoint judges itself – and said he considered the former judge’s view “sane”. The Law Minister said the majority of the people have similar sane views.A

    Sharing the interview of justice R S Sodhi (retd), a former judge of the Delhi High Court, Rijiju tweeted: “Voice of a judge…Real beauty of Indian Democracy is- it’s success. People rule themselves through their representatives. Elected representatives represent the interests of the people & make laws. Our Judiciary is independent and our Constitution is Supreme”.

    In an interview, Justice Sodhi (retd) said the right to frame laws lies with the Parliament and added that the Supreme Court cannot frame laws as it does not have the right to do so. Sodhi, speaking in Hindi, said: “Whether you can amend the Constitution? Only Parliament will amend the Constitution. But here I feel the Supreme Court for the first time ‘hijacked’ the Constitution.”

    He further added that after the ‘hijacking’, they (the apex court) said that we will appoint (judges) ourselves and the government will have no role in it. Sodhi said high courts are not subservient to the Supreme Court but high court judges start looking at the Supreme Court and become subservient.

    [ad_2]
    #Judges #dont #face #elections #public #scrutiny #Law #Minister #Kiren #Rijiju

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • ‘SC hijacked Constitution’: Law min shares ‘sane views’ of ‘majority’

    ‘SC hijacked Constitution’: Law min shares ‘sane views’ of ‘majority’

    [ad_1]

    Rijiju jan13

    New Delhi: Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday sought to support the views of a retired high court judge, who said the Supreme Court “hijacked” the Constitution by deciding to appoint judges itself.

    The government and the judiciary have been at loggerheads over the process of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary,

    Rijiju shared the video of an interview of Justice R S Sodhi (retd), a former judge of the Delhi Court, saying it is “voice of a judge” and that majority of people have similar “sane views”.

    Justice Sodhi said the right to frame laws lies with Parliament.

    The law minister also said that “actually majority of the people have similar sane views. It’s only those people who disregard the provisions of the Constitution and mandate of the people think that they are above the Constitution of India.”

    Also Read

    ‘Collegium system perfectly balanced’: Ex-CJI Lalit counters Union law min

    “Real beauty of Indian Democracy is its success. People rule themselves through their representatives.Elected representatives represent the interests of the People & make laws. Our Judiciary is independent and our Constitution is Supreme,” the minister tweeted.

    In the interview, Justice Sodhi also said the apex court cannot frame laws as it does not have the right to do so. The right to frame laws belongs to Parliament, he said.

    “… Whether you can amend the Constitution? Only Parliament will amend Constitution. But here I feel the Supreme Court for the first time ‘hijacked’ the Constitution. After ‘hijacking’ they (SC) said that we will appoint (judges) ourselves and the government will have no role in it,” Justice Sodhi said in Hindi.

    The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts has become a major flashpoint between the Executive and the Judiciary.

    While Rijiju has described the collegium system to appoint judges as something “alien” to the Indian Constitution, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has questioned the top court for striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (NJAC)and a related constitution amendment.

    Also the chairman of Rajya Sabha, Dhankar had said a law passed by Parliament, which reflects the will of the people, was “undone” by the Supreme Court and “the world does not know of any such instance”.

    By bringing the NJAC law, the government had sought to overturn the collegium system which came into being in 1992.

    The apex court has questioned the government for delay in clearing the appointments of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

    Last week, the Supreme Court collegium had for the second time reiterated the names of two advocates for appointment as judges of the Calcutta High Court “expeditiously”, saying it was not open for the government to repeatedly send back the same proposal.


    Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.

    [ad_2]
    #hijacked #Constitution #Law #min #shares #sane #views #majority

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Family of Toronto man allegedly killed by teen girls criticizes law keeping identities secret

    Family of Toronto man allegedly killed by teen girls criticizes law keeping identities secret

    [ad_1]

    The family of the Toronto man allegedly killed by teen girls in a “swarming” attack have denounced “flaws” in the criminal justice system, criticizing the opacity surrounding youth cases involving serious crimes.

    Eight teenage girls have been charged with murder over the death of Ken Lee, who was repeatedly stabbed at a plaza near the main rail station in Canada’s largest city in the early hours of 18 December. Three of the girls are 13, three are 14 and two are 16.

    Because of their age, none of the suspects can be identified under Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act and few details can be printed by media outlets because of publication bans.

    “How is the Act protecting the public if we don’t know who these perpetrators are and why they are released on bail?” Lee’s family said in a statement.

    One of the suspects was granted bail in late December and is permitted to return to school. The teen cannot contact her co-accused, possess any weapons or use a mobile phone. She must also remain within the province of Ontario. The remaining suspects are pleading their cases for bail this week and next week.

    Toronto police have also linked the group of teens to a series of assaults at downtown subways stations that same evening.

    “For serious crimes, these perpetrators should not have any privacy rights or bail,” the family said. “The public should be aware of who these individuals are to protect themselves. The perpetrators must be named in order to bring forth more victims, witness(es) and evidence.”

    The family also criticized the court’s decision to permit at least one of the accused to return to school.

    “As a parent, my question to the lawmakers who wrote the Youth Criminal Justice Act is how are you protecting my child if the perpetrator cannot be named and she could be in my child’s school or class?”

    Following the murder of a police officer last month, Canada’s bail system has come under scrutiny, with political leaders and police chiefs calling for tighter conditions, especially on firearms offences, despite evidence that a majority of those out on bail – who are legally innocent – rarely commit new crimes.

    Lee, who had spent years in the city’s shelter system, is believed to have been attacked after he tried to stop the group of teens from stealing a bottle of alcohol from a friend.

    “Just note that Ken was a kind soul with a heart of gold … He was not in the system due to alcohol or drug abuse,” his family said. “He was a man with pride who had fallen and wanted to learn to stand up on his own knowing that he always had his family behind him.”

    [ad_2]
    #Family #Toronto #man #allegedly #killed #teen #girls #criticizes #law #keeping #identities #secret
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )