Tag: pleas

Whether anyone has a fundamental right to marry? SC queries while hearing pleas for same-sex marriages

[ad_1]
New Delhi: While hearing a bath of pleas for same-sex marriages, Supreme Court on Tuesday queried whether anyone has a fundamental right to marry, or is there no fundamental right to marry at all and stressed that the Constitution itself is a tradition breaker.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud asked senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, “forget the issue of same sex, does anyone have a fundamental right to marry? Or, is there no fundamental right to marry at all? Because your submission is that no one has a fundamental right to marry”.
Dwivedi said that so far the marriage is between two heterosexual individuals.

The bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha, said it is not on heterosexual, “does any citizen of this country for whom this court, our society, our polity, has placed the individual at that highest pinnacle. And, we have gone ahead carved and discovered so many rights — to personhood, right of choice, right of left alone, privacy, dignity… with all this, the question is does a person or citizen have a right to marry”.
Justice Bhat asked: “Is it part of Article 21 or not part of it? We have to start with the premise that there is no unqualified right. Right to free speech is not unqualified right, right to association is not unqualified, personal liberty is not unqualified, right to life. Therefore, there is no absolute right, if we start with that premise. Does the right to life have the concomitant right to marry.”
The bench asked Dwivedi to not start the debate that same sex people do not have right to marry, rather start with is right to marry or is there a right to marry.
Dwivedi said heterosexual couples have the right to marry in accordance with their custom, personal law, and religion, and that is the foundation of their right.
The Chief Justice observed: “Therefore, you concede the fact that there is a right to marry under the Constitution, but it is only confined to only heterosexual persons according to you, or is it your argument that there is no right to marry at all as a fundamental right?”

Justice Bhat said: “Custom, culture, religion, rewind 50 years ago inter-caste marriages were not permitted. Even inter-faith marriages unheard of, therefore, the context of marriage has changed.”
Dwivedi said: “these changes have been brought about by legislation and legislature can alter the customs. The Constitution only gives a fundamental right to form relations, associations, which is in Article 19 (1) (c) which can be regulated. He added that marriage over the years has resulted in social institutions as a result of society’s evolution, and the right to marriage which was existing as a part of social institutions will be accommodated in the right to associate in a particular manner.
Justice Bhat said: “The Constitution has not granted anything. It only recognizes and guarantees, nothing is granted. We’re free citizens. We have taken this to ourselves. Right to speak, to associate, these are part of our inherent rights. The Constitution doesn’t grant it… Even legislation has only recognised the right to marry is inherent. If we say the right to marry is inherent then it is part of the Constitution. You may locate it in (Articles) 19 or 21a.”
Justice Bhat said “the moment you bring tradition, the Constitution itself is a tradition breaker. Because the first time you brought in (Articles) 14, you brought in 15, and 17, those traditions are broken”.
The bench queried, “if those traditions are broken, what is held hallowed in our society in terms of caste?”
“We made a conscious (decision)… and said we don’t want ita.outlawing untouchability in the Constitution. But at the same time let us be alive to the fact that the concept of marriage has evolved.”
Dwivedi submitted that the point is that all these reforms are made by the legislature for the interest of women and children and they do not alter the core aspect of the social institution of marriage, “namely that it’s an institution. Hindu marriage is regarded as a Sanskar”.
Dwivedi contended that the core aspect of marriage remains and pointed at alimony, maintenance, divorce, inter caste and added that ultimately the marriages remain heterosexual marriages.
The bench observed that to state at the extreme that there was no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution would be far-fetched.
“What are the core elements of marriage? If you look at each element, each is protected by constitutional values,” it said.
The Chief Justice said one, marriage itself postulates two individuals to cohabit; two, marriage accompanies with it the existence of family; three, marriage has procreation as a very important ingredient; four, marriage in a significant way is exclusionary to all others; and five, social acceptance of existence of marriage.
The top court will continue to hear arguments in the post -lunch session.
[ad_2]
#fundamental #marry #queries #hearing #pleas #samesex #marriages
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 9, 2023
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
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
Gujarat HC rejects pleas to reopen sealed meat shops

[ad_1]
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected applications filed by the owners of meat shops and slaughter houses closed by authorities, stating that the freedom to do business can not override the public health norms.
A division bench of Justices N V Anjaria and Niral Mehta rejected a batch of civil applications filed by the owners of meat and poultry shop and slaughter houses who had requested that they be permitted to operate, especially during the month of Ramadan.
“The freedom to trade or right to do business have to yield to the public health norms and restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be subserving to public health and food safety requirements,” the high court said.

State authorities closed a large number of shops after the court directed compliance of licensing and regulatory norms, food and safety standards and pollution control requirements among other things.
The affected owners submitted before the court that the closure was illegal and violated their right of free trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Rejecting the applications, the court observed that they could hardly be permitted to be reopened unless they become fully compliant with norms and regulations.
“Intervention is not called for by the court when it comes to abiding by the food safety etc. norms. It would be an overriding principle that the public concerns of hygiene and food safety will have to prevail,” it said.
On the request of owners of poultry shops to be given relief because poultry birds should not be treated as ‘animals,’ the court said that the term ‘animal’ under section 2(a) of the Food Safety Act includes any living creature.

“Learned senior advocates for the applicants submitted that an exception may be made for them, as they are small livelihood earners. The submission could not be countenanced since it is not for the court to rewrite the legislative definition and give effect to it accordingly,” the court said.
Authorities had taken action following the court’s direction on a Public Interest Litigation seeking implementation of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding illegal slaughterhouses.
[ad_2]
#Gujarat #rejects #pleas #reopen #sealed #meat #shops
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 11, 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
Godhra train burning case: SC to hear pleas of Gujarat govt, convicts on Monday

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday bail pleas of several convicts serving life imprisonment in the 2002 Godhra train burning case.
A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala is scheduled to hear along with the bail applications a batch of pleas of the convicts challenging their convictions.
On March 24, the top court had said it will dispose of the bail applications of the convicts on the next date of hearing of the matter.

It had taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, that he has to verify certain factual details with regard to some convicts.
The top court had, however, extended the bail granted to one of the convicts on the ground that his wife was suffering from cancer. Mehta had supported the extension of bail on medical grounds.
Earlier on March 17, the top court had said it will hear on March 24 the appeal of the Gujarat government and the bail pleas of several accused in the case.
On February 20, the state government had told the top court that it will be seeking death penalty to 11 convicts whose sentences in the 2002 Godhra train burning case were commuted to life imprisonment by the Gujarat High Court.
“We will be seriously pressing for award of death penalty to the convicts whose death penalties were commuted into life imprisonment (by the Gujarat High Court). This is the rarest of rare cases where 59 people, including women and children, were burnt alive,” the solicitor general had said.

“It is consistent everywhere that the bogie (coach) was locked from outside. Fifty-nine died, including ladies and children,” he had added.
Giving details on the court case, the law officer had said 11 convicts were sentenced to death by a trial court and 20 others granted life term in the case.
The high court upheld total 31 convictions in the case and commuted the death penalties of the 11 convicts to life term, Mehta had said.
On February 27, 2002, 59 people were killed when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Gujarat’s Godhra, triggering riots in the state.
The state government has come in appeal against the commutation of death penalty into life term for 11 convicts, Mehta had said. Several accused, he added, have filed pleas against the high court upholding their convictions in the case.
The top court has granted bail to two convicts in the case so far. Seven other bail pleas are pending adjudication in the matter.
The bench noted that a large number of bail applications have been filed before it in the case and said, “It has been agreed that the AORs (advocates-on-record) on behalf of applicants along with advocate Swati Ghildiyal, standing counsel for Gujarat, shall prepare a comprehensive chart with all relevant details. List after three weeks.”
The Supreme Court had on January 30 sought the Gujarat government’s response on the bail pleas of some of the convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in the case.
The court issued notice to the state government on the bail pleas of Abdul Raheman Dhantia alias Kankatto and Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Gaddi Asla, among others.
The state government, on the other hand, said it was not “merely a stone pelting” case as the convicts had bolted a coach of the Sabarmati Express, leading to the death of several passengers on the train.
On December 15, last year, the top court granted bail to one Faruk, who was serving life sentence in the case and noted that he had been in jail for 17 years.
Faruk, along with several others, was convicted for pelting stones at a coach of the train.
[ad_2]
#Godhra #train #burning #case #hear #pleas #Gujarat #govt #convicts #Monday
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 9, 2023
SC rejects pleas seeking direction to Centre to enact gender, religion-neutral laws

[ad_1]
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.
[ad_2]
#rejects #pleas #seeking #direction #Centre #enact #gender #religionneutral #laws
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 29, 2023
Bilkis Bano case: SC to hear pleas against premature release of 11 convicts today

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear a batch of pleas on Monday challenging the release of 11 convicts who had gang-raped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots.
The Gujarat government had granted remission to 11 convicts on August 10 last year following which they walked free on August 15, 2022.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna will hear the case on March 27.
On March 22, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that he will constitute a bench to hear pleas. “I will have a bench constituted. Need to break two benches for it. Will look at it this evening,” he said after advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bano, mentioned the plea for an early listing of the case.
Earlier also advocate Gupta mentioned the matter for urgent hearing and said that a new bench needs to be constituted by the CJI as Justice Bela M Trivedi recused from hearing the plea.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi earlier had ordered that matter be listed before the bench, in which Justice Trivedi is not a part of as she had recused herself from hearing the case.
Besides filing a petition against the pre-mature release of convicts, Bano had also filed a review petition seeking a review of its earlier order by which it had asked the Gujarat government to consider the plea for the remission of one of the convicts.
The review petition was dismissed.

Some PILs were filed seeking directions to revoke the remission granted to 11 convicts.
The pleas were filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, whose General Secretary is Annie Raja, Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, social activist and professor Roop Rekha Verma and TMC MP Mahua Moitra.
Gujarat government in its affidavit had defended remission granted to convicts saying they completed 14 years of sentence in prison and their “behaviour was found to be good”.
The State government said it has considered the cases of all 11 convicts as per the policy of 1992 and remission was granted on August 10, 2022, and the Central government also approved the pre-mature release of convicts.
It is pertinent to note that the remission was not granted under the circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of the celebration of “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav”, it had said.
The affidavit stated, “State government considered all the opinions and decided to release 11 prisoners since they have completed 14 years and above in prisons and their behaviour was found to be good.”
The government had also questioned the locus standi of petitioners who filed the PIL challenging the decision saying they are outsiders to the case.
The pleas said they have challenged the order of competent authority of the government of Gujarat by way of which 11 persons who were accused in a set of heinous offences committed in Gujarat were allowed to walk free on August 15, 2022, pursuant to remission being extended to them.
The remission in this heinous case would be entirely against public interest and would shock the collective public conscience, as also be entirely against the interests of the victim (whose family has publicly made statements worrying for her safety), pleas stated.
The Gujarat government released the 11 convicts, who were sentenced to life imprisonment, on August 15. All the 11 life-term convicts in the case were released as per the remission policy prevalent in Gujarat at the time of their conviction in 2008.
In March 2002 during the post-Godhra riots, Bano was gang-raped and left to die with 14 members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter. She was five months pregnant when rioters attacked her family in Vadodara.
[ad_2]
#Bilkis #Bano #case #hear #pleas #premature #release #convicts #today
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 27, 2023
Godhra train case: SC to hear pleas of Gujarat govt, convicts on Apr 10

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it will dispose of the bail pleas of several convicts serving life imprisonment in the 2002 Godhra train burning case on April 10.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, that he has to verify certain factual details with regard to some convicts.
The bench, also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, considered the submissions of the law officer and adjourned the hearing to April 10, and said it will “dispose of” the pending bail pleas of the convicts on that day.
The bench, meanwhile, extended the bail granted to one of the convicts earlier on the ground that his wife was suffering from cancer.
“His wife is suffering from cancer. My consent may be recorded,” said the law officer while supporting the extension of bail.
Earlier on March 17, the top court had said it will hear on March 24 the appeal of the Gujarat government and the bail pleas of several accused in the case.
On February 20, the state government had told the top court that it will be seeking award of death penalty to 11 convicts whose sentences in the 2002 Godhra train burning case were commuted to life imprisonment by the Gujarat High Court.
“We will be seriously pressing for award of death penalty to the convicts whose death penalties were commuted into life imprisonment (by the Gujarat High Court). This is the rarest of rare cases where 59 people, including women and children, were burnt alive,” the solicitor general had said.

“It is consistent everywhere that the bogei (coach) was locked from outside. Fifty-nine died, including ladies and children,” he had added.
Giving details, the law officer had said 11 convicts were sentenced to death by a trial court and 20 others granted life term in the case.
The high court upheld total 31 convictions in the case and commuted the death penalties of the 11 convicts to life term, Mehta had said.
On February 27, 2002, 59 people were killed when the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Gujarat’s Godhra, triggering riots in the state.
The state government has come in appeal against the commutation of death penalty into life term for 11 convicts, Mehta said. Several accused, he added, have filed pleas against the high court upholding their convictions in the case.
The top court has granted bail to two convicts in the case so far. Seven other bail pleas are pending adjudication in the matter.
The bench noted that a large number of bail applications have been filed before it in the case and said, “It has been agreed that the AORs (advocates-on-record) on behalf of applicants along with advocate Swati Ghildiyal, standing counsel for Gujarat, shall prepare a comprehensive chart with all relevant details. List after three weeks.” The Supreme Court had on January 30 sought the Gujarat government’s response on the bail pleas of some of the convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in the case.
The court issued notice to the state government on the bail pleas of Abdul Raheman Dhantia alias Kankatto and Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Gaddi Asla, among others.
The state government, on the other hand, said it was not “merely a stone pelting” case as the convicts had bolted a coach of the Sabarmati Express, leading to the death of several passengers on the train.
“Some are saying their role was just stone pelting. But when you lock a bogei from outside, light it on fire and then pelt stones, it is not just stone pelting,” the solicitor general had said.
On December 15, last year, the top court granted bail to Faruk, who was serving a life sentence in the case and noted that he had been in jail for 17 years.
Faruk, along with several others, was convicted for pelting stones at a coach of the train.
[ad_2]
#Godhra #train #case #hear #pleas #Gujarat #govt #convicts #Apr
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 24, 2023
Over 120 pleas against Waqf Act pending before HCs: Centre to Delhi HC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court was informed by the Centre on Wednesday that there are at least 120 petitions challenging the Waqf Act, 1995’s provisions pending in various high courts across the country.
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Kirtiman Singh moved an application seeking more time to file a response to the petitions against the Waqf Act.
The government counsel was asked by a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Datta to initiate action and seek instructions for the consolidation and transfer of all cases to the Supreme Court.
One of the petitions is by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay.
The government claimed in its application that it must adopt a careful and uniform stance because there are numerous cases pending nationwide that challenge one or more Waqf Act provisions.
“Keeping in view the multiple petitions challenging various sections of the Waqf Act, 1995, it is essential for the Respondents/Applicants (Central government) to ensure that a clear and consistent view is taken. This involves thorough examination of petitions, consultation/vetting by the government counsels and discussions with other stakeholders, such as state governments,” the government submitted.
The court listed the case for the next hearing on July 26.
In his plea, Upadhyay contended that while the Waqf Act was created for the management of waqf properties, there are no comparable rules for followers of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Bahaism.

Hence, it is “against the secularism, unity and integrity of the nation,” the plea contended.
It stated that the Waqf Board has Muslim MLA, MP, IAS Officer, town planner, advocate and scholars, as its members who are paid from the public exchequer despite the fact the Centre doesn’t collect any money from mosques or dargahs.
“On the other hand, states collect around Rs one lakh crore from four lakh temples but there are no similar provisions for Hindus. Thus, the Act offends Article 27,” Upadhyay contended.
The plea further claimed that the Waqf properties were given priority over other charitable religious organisations and that the Waqf Act had granted the Waqf boards unbridled power.
[ad_2]
#pleas #Waqf #Act #pending #HCs #Centre #Delhi
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 22, 2023