Sri Lankan Prime Minister and acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe
Colombo: Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe has said that his government would introduce new laws to establish the country as a green economy, according to a statement from the Presidential Media Division.
Addressing the Presidential Environment Awards 2021-2022 ceremony in Colombo on Friday, Wickremesinghe highlighted that it is not solely the responsibility of developing countries such as Sri Lanka to mitigate climate change, Xinhua news agency reported.
The President emphasised that developed countries should also contribute to the cause.
The President noted that Sri Lanka will take the lead in ensuring that the developing economies receive the resources to mitigate climate change. It intends to play a role in the global campaign for climate change mitigation.
The government is to ditch plans to scrap up to 4,000 EU laws by the end of the year after a private meeting with Brexiter MPs.
It now aims to remove 800 statutes and regulations, instead of 3,700 laws it had lined up for a “bonfire” of EU law in December, threatening everything from passenger rights and compensation for cancelled flights, to equality employment law and environmental standards and protections.
The plan emerged after the trade secretary, Kemi Badenoch, briefed Eurosceptic MPs in the European Research Group at a meeting on Monday.
Sources have confirmed the plan discussed at that meeting to slash the number of laws targeted by the bill, which is expected to return to the House of Lords on 15 May.
However, one of the bill’s staunchest critics, Stella Creasy, the Walthamstow MP and chair of the Labour party movement for Europe, said a smouldering bonfire did nothing to address the sweeping powers the bill was giving ministers to change laws without due scrutiny.
“All those wanting to defend parliamentary sovereignty should be wary of the government using the promise not to delete vital rights now as a Trojan horse to get this legislation through parliament and then use the powers in it to destroy legislation later,” she said.
“The retained EU law bill in its current form still seeks to use Brexit as an excuse for a ministerial power grab, which is why we will continue to work with colleagues across the house and campaigners in all quarters to protect the role MPs play in making laws from an overbearing and often unaccountable executive.”
Any climbdown on the legislation tabled by Jacob Rees-Mogg as a “Brexit freedoms” bill risked angering hardline Tory Brexiters but the depth of opposition to it from business, environmental groups, unions and Brussels has left ministers with no option but to consider a full-scale delay or a scaled-down version.
A government spokesperson said: “We remain committed to ensuring the retained EU law (REUL) bill receives royal assent and that the supremacy of EU law ends with unnecessary and burdensome EU laws removed by the end of this year.
“Once passed, the bill will enable the country to further seize the opportunities of Brexit by ensuring regulations fit the needs of the UK, helping to grow our economy and drive innovation.”
Among the 800 laws on the “to save list” are the working time directive, which protects working hours and environmental legislation.
Under the bill, laws that were not actively saved or updated would automatically face the axe on 31 December under a controversial deadline known as a “sunset clause”.
William Bain, the head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, urged the government to scrap the clause, given the BCC’s view that businesses are just starting to regain confidence after years of battering by the pandemic, energy prices and inflation. “Now is not the time to knock that with a hasty sunset clause across vast areas of UK regulation,” he said.
Badenoch’s plan reportedly went down “like a lead balloon” at the meeting with the ERG, but sources said she told the MPs that it was the practical solution to getting the controversial bill through this year.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Last month, the Observer revealed that the government had begun a full-scale retreat over the bill, which had been criticised not only for its attempt to sweep thousands of laws off the statute books but the “unprecedented” powers it gave ministers to update, reform or axe laws without the usual parliamentary scrutiny.
Legal experts labelled it “undemocratic” and an “invitation to litigation”, while environmental groups and trade unions launched high-profile campaigns to stop the bill, first tabled by Rees-Mogg as a Brexit freedom bill.
Efforts to kill off the bill were further fuelled when it emerged there was little capacity in the civil service to scrutinise each law and draft updates or recommendations by the deadline of December.
Badenoch reportedly told MPs that civil servants had told her that the timeframe was unviable, with the majority of the EU law transferred over to domestic statute books in environment and agriculture sectors, where the government faced high-profile concerted campaigns against their plan.
The list of laws targeted by the government includes bans on animal testing for cosmetics, passenger compensation rights for those whose flights are delayed, equal pay for men and women, and pension rights for widows of same-sex marriages.
It recently emerged that 25 groups concerned about safety standards, including the TUC and the British Safety Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, had said the government’s timetable created dangerous uncertainty.
The government approach was further undermined when it emerged that it did not have a handle on the number of laws that would be affected by the bill.
Its “dashboard” initially listed 2,000 laws, but in the past month it had added another 1,700 after research at the National Archive, fuelling fears that some critical legislation could fall through the cracks and be deleted from the statute books.
[ad_2]
#Bonfire #laws #watered #meeting #Brexiter #MPs
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Laws must be judged on the basis of results. The consequences of existing lax gun laws in the US are there for all to see. According to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (2018), with less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States has 46% of the world’s civilian ownership of guns.
It works out to 120.5 guns per hundred people for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 34.7, UK 4.6 and Japan 0.3. As for the gun-related homicides per 100,000 persons, it is 4.12 for the United States, while in the case of Canada, it is 0.5, UK 0.04, and Japan 0.02.
The total number of deaths from guns in the US, both homicide and suicide, in 2021 was about 48,000 which is 25% more than the deaths from car accidents.
The correlation between the scale of ownership of guns and gun deaths is glaringly obvious.
Moreover, because of the ease with which one can get any kind of gun, including rapid-firing automatic rifles, mass shootings are uniquely endemic in the US. Already there have been more than 100 mass shootings this year or more than one per day. Nearly 160 people have died in mass shootings, including 11 in Monterey Park California. Particularly tragic is the frequent mass shooting of schoolchildren and teachers. Only a few days ago three 9-year-old children and three adults were killed in a school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee.
To understand constitutional issues, one must start by studying and analyzing the text of the relevant articles. Here is how the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment was not something new in the U.S. Constitution. More than 20 years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified and the Union formed, at least three states – North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia – had similar provisions in their constitutions.
The relevant clause in Pennsylvania’s Constitution (1776) reads as follows: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to the liberty, they ought not to be kept up….”
North Carolina and Virginia had almost identical provisions in their constitutions.
A careful analytical reading of the Second Amendment clearly shows that the right to gun ownership was in the context of the need of the state to have “a well-regulated militia,” for their security. No other purpose or basis for owning guns, such as sports, clay pigeon shooting, hunting, or recreation has been mentioned.
Calamity Jane, notable pioneer frontierswoman and scout, at age 43. Photo by H.R. Locke.
An important point must be made here. For individuals in a democracy, a specific constitutional provision for ownership of guns is not necessary. For example, Canada does not have any article in its Constitution for individual ownership of a gun, and yet private ownership of guns in that country is the second highest after the United States. Indeed, it is interesting that there is hardly any democratic country in Western Europe that has a constitutional provision for the right of gun ownership, and yet people have guns. On the other hand, countries that like the US constitutionally guarantee the right to keep and bear arms include the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Ukraine, Mexico, and the Philippines, not the best examples of democracy and freedom.
In a democracy, specific sanction for each right in the Constitution is not necessary. As the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes clear: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Obviously, people have all rights flowing from their unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” as so eloquently put in the 1976 Declaration of Independence. For example, an individual has the right to own cars, planes, drones, and motorboats even though there is no specific provision in the Constitution for their possession. Indeed, like so many other things they simply did not then exist. The Constitution provides general guidance, but not all the specific details. The latter is achieved by tens of thousands of laws enacted and many more rules framed in pursuit of the goals laid down in the Constitution.
An individual can own and do anything in pursuit of his right to “life liberty and pursuit of happiness” so long as he does not adversely impact the similar rights of others.
How to interpret and implement the Second Amendment in today’s circumstances?
ATF inspector at a federally licensed gun dealer
At the time when the Second Amendment was adopted, there was no organized, standing professional army in the US for external defense. In fact, because of their oppressive experience of the British colonial soldiers, there was a deep distrust of the regular Army as the clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution shows. The war of American independence was fought and won by an assortment of hastily assembled state militias’ not a regular and professional standing army. Today for its defense the United States has the world’s most powerful army with an annual budget of $750 billion. The US Army is under full civilian control and there is no question of its oppressing the people.
So, from the point of view of external defense, the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
A Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and ammunition set against an American flag.
Similarly, at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, there was no organized and elaborate National Guard, police force, FBI, or intelligence agencies for the internal security of the state, society, and the individual. Hence the emphasis on private ownership of guns for personal defense as well as the defense of the state as and when necessary.
Over the years many legal protections have been provided to the citizens against state high-handedness. Besides the right of habeas corpus, a citizen is protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the duty on the part of the arresting authority to inform the accused of his ‘right to remain silent’ and the ‘right to an attorney’, (popularly known as the Miranda rights), the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, strict laws about the admissibility of evidence, etc. These protections are quite effective in safeguarding the individual’s rights.
Today, for internal security as well as personal safety and protection against state oppression, private ownership of guns is not only unnecessary but a problem. All around security will be enhanced by strengthening institutions, better training of state security personnel, improving accountability, not their distrust, and unchecked and unregulated proliferation of private ownership of guns. Though much is left to be desired, security is far better today than in the past. Attempts at constant improvements going on. In today’s urban life with large assemblies of people everywhere, offering easy targets for mass shootings, guns in everybody’s hands will make problems unmanageable.
The argument that personal safety is enhanced by the ownership of guns and carrying it everywhere is not consistent with logic or supported by facts. When people know that the others are carrying a gun the temptation is to pull out the gun and shoot the other person before he shoots you somewhat like what happens in a Wild West movie. With widespread gun ownership, instead of fistfights and injury, there is shooting and death.
This is borne out by the example of the British police. They do not carry weapons when on duty. Consequently, the criminal also does not carry a gun and shoot the policeman to avoid arrest and thus becomes guilty of homicide. He tries to run away often unsuccessfully but there is no exchange of gunfire and deaths.
So, from the point of view of internal security and personal safety also the Second Amendment is an anachronism.
It is common sense that to be effective laws must take into account the prevailing circumstances. These are quite different today from what they were more than 230 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.
At that time the total number of guns in the US could probably be counted in thousands not millions. The assembly-line mass production techniques for anything had not yet been developed. Today in US the total number of guns in private hands is over 350 million.
Even more significant is the change in the lethality and firepower of the guns. At the time of Second Amendment, the guns were muzzle-loading. It would take some minutes to load a gun and fire it. So, to fire 10 shots in quick succession you would have to first load and keep ready 10 guns which would take perhaps 20 minutes or more. This completely ruled out mass shootings by an individual.
The first breach in loading guns using cartridges was invented around 1850. The first automatic pistol was invented in 1892 by Joseph Laumann. And then came the automatic pistol with a separate magazine in the grip and today we have an R – 15 which can file dozens of shots in a minute and mow down dozens of people in seconds.
There is simply no comparison between the muzzle-loading guns of 1791 firing one shot per two minutes or so and automatic rifles like AR-15 or AK-47 firing dozens of rounds per minute. One wonders what those who made the Constitution in the time of muzzle-loading guns would have to say about the freedom to own AR-15.
Laws about gun ownership and carrying it on the person must take into account this change in the firepower of weapons. No law, not even the Constitution is a law unto itself, unchanging and unchangeable. Constitution and laws have as their purpose the welfare of the people, and their right to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” They can be amended or even abrogated if, required for the good of the people. Considering the number of gun deaths especially mass shootings and deaths of innocent school children it is time to amend or reinterpret the implementation of the Second Amendment.
Regulating a right is not “infringing” it. Almost all rights of an individual including those under the First Amendment and can be regulated. No right is or can be absolute. The basic principle governing the exercise of rights is that an individual cannot pursue a right to the point where it infringes the similar right of another person. The way the right to gun ownership is being pursued is harming the Right to Life of many people as the frequent random deaths especially of innocent children testify.
An individual has the right to own and drive a car, but this right is regulated to ensure that the right of others to life and the pursuit of happiness is not endangered. The car must be registered and have an identification number plate. There must be third-party insurance coverage. The driver must achieve driving proficiency, pass a test, and have at all times a valid driving license. The car must have minimum safety standards. It must have seatbelts, and a collapsible steering column. It must meet emission standards, have good brakes and tires, and annual roadworthiness certificate. One cannot drive a car under the influence of liquor. The prescribed speed limit must be observed. One can be fined, have his license suspended, or even be imprisoned for not complying with rules.
Similarly, there are elaborate regulations about the ownership of planes, powerboats, etc.
An individual has the right to own a home; but again, there are codes and safety standards that must be followed.
One has a right to drink at the party but not drive back home under the influence of alcohol.
Such regulations are mainly for the protection of the rights of others. We live in a society with others and must respect other people’s rights.
Sick of daily mass shootings, a vast majority of Americans want to regulate gun ownership to check gun deaths. They must translate their vague sentiments into concrete action. Vote out those who oppose common sense gun possession regulations. It is time to discuss and develop a consensus on step-by-step measures to check gun violence. Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, people have a right to own guns but only with regulations to ensure everybody’s safety. It has been achieved by other free and democratic societies. There is no basis for gun exceptionalism in the US. We should stop making gun ownership a fetish. The gun culture in the US is a creation of Hollywood Westerns rather than a need or reality. There is nothing glamorous or macho about gun ownership. Nobody’s safety least of all that of the individual himself is enhanced. Rationally considered everybody’s safety including that of the gun owner is diminished. An arms race in gun ownership endangers everyone’s life in society the same way that the global arms race threatens the security of every nation.
The power to change in a democracy rests with the people. Gun freedom lobbies may have money but the people who believe in common sense gun regulations have the vote. They should go to the polling station at the next election and exercise it.
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the cow slaughter Act, saying the evidence cited is shoddy.
Passing the order recently, a bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan observed that the case was a glaring example of misuse of the penal law as neither the prohibited animal nor its flesh had been recovered from the possession of the accused or from the spot, and only a rope and some amount of cow dung had been collected by the investigating officer.
In its order, the bench also added, “The duty of the State is to ensure fair investigation which in the considered opinion of this court has not been done in the instant case.”
Hence, the bench said that the order be placed before the DGP for taking necessary action in order to remind the investigating officers of their duty to ensure fair investigation in all criminal cases in general and in the cases pertaining to cow slaughter in particular.
The bench passed the order allowing the anticipatory bail plea of Jadagi alias Najimuddin. His lawyer had pleaded that the applicant was falsely implicated by Sitapur police in the case.
“No prohibited animal or any meat of progeny of cow has been recovered and the investigating officer has only collected the cow dung found on the spot and has sent the same for forensic investigation and during the course of investigation, a report has also been submitted by the Forensic Lab, Mahanagar, Lucknow that cow dung could not be examined,” argued the petitioner’s counsel Narendra Gupta.
In its order, the bench also clarified that that all the observations contained in the order were only for disposal of the instant anticipatory bail application and would not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.
“We can all be proud that the 2022 election ran very smoothly across the state, but it is critical that we continue to safeguard against abuse, seek input from a variety of stakeholders, and make process improvements where we can,” said State Sen. Danny Burgess (R-Zephyrhills) in a statement about the legislation. “These efforts ensure we continue to maintain the integrity of our free and fair elections — a cornerstone of our nation’s democracy.”
The legislation does not address the state’s resign-to-run law, even though GOP legislative leaders said they were willing to tweak the law to make sure that DeSantis does not have to give up his office should he become the Republican nominee for president.
But Democrats still reacted sharply to the proposed bill, which was released about one day before it is scheduled for its first vote in the state Senate. The House has yet to release a similar bill, but House Speaker Paul Renner has already said he expects his chamber to push through elections-related legislation.
“It is absolutely absurd to drop a 98-page elections bill with just a 24 hour notice for its first hearing,” said Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando). “Not only is it absurd, but it’s undemocratic and clearly designed to avoid public scrutiny. We should be introducing election reforms that make it simpler for people to vote and get registered to vote; not policies that make it harder.”
The DeSantis administration last year highlighted the arrest of nearly two-dozen people for voting illegally because they had prior convictions for murder or sex offenses. But some of those arrested said they thought they were eligible because they had been issued a voter ID card. Under the process it is usually up to the state to figure out if someone is eligible.
The proposed bill (S.B. 7050) would now require a disclaimer to be placed on the card that says it is “not legal verification of the eligibility to vote.”
Desmond Meade, executive director and president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, called the proposal “a rush job” and a “legislative cover up to fix a flaw.”
Meade led the push for a 2018 constitutional amendment that restored voting rights for many convicted felons. Many people registered to vote after its passage, but there is not one central database available that can tell potential voters if they meet the new criteria.
“If a returning citizen can’t rely on the state to figure out if they are eligible, who can they rely on?” Meade said.
Since the 2020 election — where mail-in voting was repeatedly criticized by former President Donald Trump — GOP legislators in the Sunshine State have pushed through several changes to mail-in voting, many of them at the insistence of DeSantis. Democrats and voting rights groups widely criticized a 2021 law that place a two-ballot limit on how many mail-in ballots someone could gather for elderly or sick voters.
Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd had recommended several additional changes to voting laws this year including blocking voters from being able to request a mail-in-ballot by telephone. That change, however, was not included in the proposal released on Monday.
But some of the notable provisions in the bill would increase fines and penalties against outside groups that conduct voter registration drives. The proposed measure would require these organizations to give someone a receipt after they register.
The legislation would also make it a felony for anyone to intimidate or threaten election workers, a move that comes after local election officials have reported coming under repeated pressure the last few years after Trump falsely asserted there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
The measure would also tweak campaign finance laws by reducing the frequency that candidates and political committees have to file reports except for a five-month period during election years. It would also alter vote-by-mail request deadlines and require first-time voters to vote in person if they do not have a social security number or Florida driver’s license or state issued identification.
[ad_2]
#Florida #Republicans #poised #election #laws
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
New Delhi: Opposing petitions seeking validation of same-sex marriages, Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has moved the Supreme Court saying they are an attack on the family system and in complete contravention of all personal laws.
Seeking intervention in the batch of petitions pending before the top court, the organisation also cited the Hindu traditions, saying the aim of marriage among Hindus is not merely physical pleasure or procreation but spiritual advancement.
It is one of the sixteen ‘sanskars’ in Hindus, the Jamiat said. “This concept of same-sex marriage goes to attack the family system rather than making a family through this process,” Jamiat said.
The top court on March 13 had referred the pleas seeking legal validation of same-sex marriages to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication, saying it is a “very seminal issue”.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said the submissions on the issue involve an interplay between constitutional rights on the one hand and special legislative enactments, including the Special Marriage Act, on the other.
In its petition, Jamiat said, “The nature of prayers in the present petition is in complete contravention of the established understanding of the concept of marriage in all personal laws between a biological man and a biological woman and thus intends to rake up the very core, i.e., the structure of a family unit prevailing in the personal laws system.”
“The concept of marriage between two opposite sexes is like a basic feature of the concept of marriage itself which leads to the creation of a bundle of rights (maintenance, inheritance, guardianship, custody).
“By these petitions, petitioners are seeking to dilute the concept of marriage, a stable institution, by introducing a free-floating system by introducing the concept of same-sex marriage,” the plea said.
The Jamiat said that in Muslims, marriage is a socio-religious institution between a biological man and a biological woman and any different interpretation given to the marriage shall lead to the persons claiming to be married under this category as non-adherents.
In a historic judgement on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court decriminalised consensual gay sex between adults after years of activism.
In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the government has opposed the petitions and submitted that despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country.
At the same time, it submitted that though the Centre limits its recognition to heterosexual relationships, there may be other forms of marriages or unions or personal understandings of relationships between individuals in a society and these “are not unlawful”.
It said western decisions sans any basis in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence cannot be imported in this context, while asserting that granting recognition to human relations is a legislative function and can never be a subject of judicial adjudication.
Chennai: Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Saturday said the Central government does not have any hesitation in frequently approaching the Parliament to amend corporate laws as it was to fine-tune them and to make these laws more robust, adding the process aims at making the laws cater to the challenges as well as the ever-changing requirements of the industry.
Sitharaman said this while speaking here after inaugurating the renovated premises of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
She said that Opposition members used to question the rationale behind approaching the Parliament frequently but “the government was able to convince them about the need for such frequent amendments to corporate laws”.
The Finance Minister also said that the government had taken serious note of the resentment among certain quarters about filling up vacancies in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and added that a lot of appointments were taking place now.
She said that the goal was to make the country more transparent in its commercial activities and to gain investors’ confidence in full. The minister said that the government was unwavering in its commitment towards achieving this.
NCLAT Chairman Ashok Bhushan said that India was now 62 in the world as far as ease of doing business was concerned and this growth was from the 142 position it had in 2015.
He said that the timely and effective disposal of commercial cases by the tribunals had helped all the stakeholders.
The NCLAT chairman also requested the minister to appoint one more judicial and technical member to the Chennai bench of the Appellate body.
NCLAT judicial member M. Venugopal said that the Chennai bench of the NCLAT had disposed of 562 of the 1,480 appeals that were filed since its inception on January 25, 2021.
New Delhi: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday thwarted an attempt to get a direction to the Centre to frame uniform religion and gender-neutral laws governing subjects such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and alimony by refusing to entertain a batch of petitions, saying it cannot direct Parliament to legislate.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the issue falls under the domain of the legislature and hence, the pleas cannot be entertained.
Disposing of a total of 16 petitions, including those filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shazia Ilmi and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, the top court said, “After taking a considered view of the pleadings and submissions, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions under Article 32. The grant of relief in these proceedings necessitates a direction for enactment of laws — gender-neutral and religion-neutral legislation as the petitioner has described it.
“This lies exclusively within the domain of the legislature. It is an established position that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact laws,” it said.
The bench also refused to direct the Law Commission to prepare a report on such laws as sought in the petitions. “As far as a direction to the Law Commission to prepare a report is concerned, we see no reason to entertain the request. Ultimately, the issue of making a law will fall under the legislative domain…. The petitions are disposed of,” it ordered.
The bench, however, allowed Upadhayay, the lead petitioner, to take the recourse available to him to seek the framing of such laws.
It, however, kept a petition moved by a Muslim woman, having individual grievances, alive.
The bench was hearing petitions seeking a direction to the government for enacting uniform religion and gender-neutral laws on a wide variety of issues.
Upadhyay had filed five separate petitions seeking directions to the Centre to frame such laws on divorce, adoption, guardianship, succession, inheritance, maintenance, marriageable age and alimony.
Earlier, the top court had asked whether it could hear a range of pleas, including PILs, seeking a direction to the Centre to frame uniform religion and gender-neutral laws governing issues such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and alimony.
“The question is to what extent the court can intervene in these matters as the issues fall under the legislative domain,” it had said.
Upadhyay, in August 2020, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) matter seeking “uniform grounds for divorce” for all citizens, in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and international conventions.
He filed another PIL through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey seeking uniform “gender and religion-neutral” grounds for maintenance and alimony for all citizens.
In another PIL, he sought the removal of anomalies in the laws governing adoption and guardianship and to make them uniform for all citizens.
He also filed a petition seeking the removal of anomalies in the succession and inheritance laws and making them uniform for all.
Soon after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sacked defence minister Yoav Gallant for opposing the former’s controversial reforms that overhaul the judicial system, Israel’s embassy in India called for a protest against their PM.
In a statement released on Monday evening, the embassy said, “The Histadrut, Israel’s largest labour union, instructed all government employees to go on strike, including Israel’s diplomatic missions around the world. The embassy of Israel will be closed today until further notice and no consular services will be provided.”
All officials of the Israeli embassy in India and around the world will participate in the protest.
Earlier, Israeli president Isaac Herzog appealed to PM Netanyahu to put an end to this, warning that the move has put the country’s security, economy and society under threat.
He also called on the government to put aside political considerations for the sake of the nation.
Netanyahu’s new ultra-religious and ultra-nationalist government voted in favour of a bill that would allow the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) to cancel Supreme Court rulings with a simple majority vote.
The country has witnessed massive protests for over two months. They accused PM Netanyahu of his far-right extremist views, including racism and trying to establish a dictatorship.
Why are Israelis protesting against judicial reforms?
Netanyahu was elected in November 2022 as the Prime Minister for the sixth time. His cabinet is considered the most extreme, nationalistic, and exclusionary government in Israel’s history.
From the beginning, the Israeli government sought to make significant changes to the Supreme Court that would remove its independence and power to control the Parliament.
Several proposed plans would limit the court’s ability to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional, allowing a simple majority of the Knesset to overturn its decisions. It also gives state lawmakers and appointees effective power over the nine-person committee that appoints judges and removes key officials from the attorney general. These and other changes undermine the power of an independent judiciary in an otherwise unchecked parliamentary system.
The issue has created significant rifts in Israeli society prompting even reservists, the backbone of the Israeli army, to threaten to withdraw from service.
Riyadh: In a major shift in policy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has announced that it will be granting its citizenship to selected foreign nationals by the order of the Prime Minister and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
This decision has been based on a proposal from the minister of interior in January 2023.
The new amendments were announced on the official Twitter account of the Makkah region and published in the official newspaper “Um Al Qura” on Friday, March 17.
The decision will be enforced from the date of its publication in the official newspaper and it will be communicated to whoever is required to adopt it and act accordingly.
“After reviewing Royal Decree No (M / 88) dated 6/11/1444 AH, Article Eight of the Saudi Nationality Law will be amended to ‘Saudi nationality may be granted by order of the Prime Minister based on a proposal from the Minister of Interior’,” Makkah region tweeted.
This represents a major change compared to the previous regulations, because Article 28 of the Executive Regulations of the Saudi Citizenship Law, which required the minister of interior to issue the necessary decisions for granting citizenship in accordance with Article 8 of this system, was deleted.
On January 11, 2023, a change to the Saudi Nationality Law was approved through a royal decree that allows the Prime Minister to grant citizenship by amending Article Eight.
After the amendment to Article 8 of the Saudi Arabian Nationality System, a person born to a Saudi mother and a foreign father can apply for citizenship upon satisfying the following conditions
Their age must be more than 18 years.
They need to be fluent in the Arabic language.
They must have good conduct and sound character.
They should not have been imprisoned for a period of more than six months.
In November 2021, Saudi Arabia approved the granting of citizenship to foreign nationals with specialized skills in a number of professions.
This came in light of the royal order to open the door to the naturalization of legal, medical, scientific, cultural, athletic and technical competencies in a way that contributes to promoting the wheel of development and benefits the nation in various fields.
This is in line with Vision 2030 aimed at enhancing an attractive environment through which human competencies can be invested and attract distinguished and creative people.
