Adani News

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Won’t implement decision to end 4% Muslim quota till Supreme Court hearing is over: Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai

    Won’t implement decision to end 4% Muslim quota till Supreme Court hearing is over: Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai

    By PTI
    DHARWAD:     Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Tuesday said the state government will not implement its decision to scrap four per cent reservation for Muslims in 2B category of the ‘Other Backward Castes’ till the hearing in the Supreme Court is completed.

    He emphasised that the reservation for 17 sub-castes of extremely backward Muslims who are placed in Category-1 and Category 2-A have not been touched.

    “We had decided that till the time the hearing is complete we will not take it forward. Court has not given any stay.

    We only have said that you (SC) hear the case; so long the case is heard, we will not implement it,” Bommai told reporters here.

    He was reacting to the Supreme Court’s direction to the Karnataka government not to implement its decision of scrapping four per cent reservation for Muslims till May 9 when the matter will be heard.

    At the fag end of its term, the BJP government decided to abolish the four per cent reservation for Muslims under 2-B category.

    The four per cent was later split into two equally and distributed among the two dominant communities of the state – Vokkaligas in 2-C category and Lingayats in 2-D category.

    “There are about 17 sub-castes within Muslims – Pinjar, Darzi, Chakarband. Those are still in the backward classes only under Category-1 and 2A. Those who are extremely poor are still in those two categories,” Bommai said.

    He also said that the Muslims have been placed in the Economically Weaker Section category which is entitled for 10 per cent reservation.

    “Those who were getting four per cent have been put in the 10 per cent category. This way, no injustice has happened,” Bommai explained.

    In her reaction, the Union Minister of State for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Shobha Karandlaje said the Constitution of India does not permit religion-based reservation.

    “The previous government had introduced it as part of its appeasement politics,” Karandlaje said.

  • Decision to scrap quota to Muslims will not be implemented till May 9

    Decision to scrap quota to Muslims will not be implemented till May 9

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that the Karnataka government’s decision to scrap four percent quota for Muslims will not be implemented till May 9 after the state sought time to file its reply.

    A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said the earlier regime of four percent quota to Muslims will continue to hold field till May 9, when the matter will be heard next, without any prejudice to the contentions to be raised by the state government.

    At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, said he will be filing the reply during the day.

    “I will be filing it today but the problem is I (solicitor general) am in personal difficulty as I am arguing before the constitution bench which is hearing pleas related to same-sex marriage. Kindly put the matter for some other day”, he told the bench.

    Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners, opposed the request for adjournment by Mehta, and said the hearing has already been deferred four times.

    Mehta said the interim order passed by the court is already in the petitioners’ favour.

    Dave requested the court to record the submission of Mehta that impugned orders, scrapping the quota for Muslims will not be implemented and the earlier order of March 30, 2002, granting the quota will hold the field till next date of hearing.

    The bench agreed with Dave and recorded the submission, while posting the matter for further hearing on May 9.

    On April 18, the top court had deferred till April 25 hearing on a batch of pleas challenging scrapping of the four per cent Muslim quota.

    It had recorded the assurance given by the state government on April 13 that no quota benefits in admission to educational institutions and appointment in government jobs will be given to Vokkaligas and Lingayats till the next date of hearing.

    On April 13, the Karnataka government’s decision to scrap four per cent Muslim quota ahead of the assembly polls came under the scanner of the Supreme Court, which questioned the government order and said prima facie it appeared to be on a “highly shaky ground” and “flawed”.

    Taking note of the observations, the Karnataka government had assured the top court that it will put on hold its March 24 orders by which it had given quotas in admission to educational institutions and appointment in government jobs to Vokkaligas and Lingayats, till the next date of hearing.

    The four per cent reservation for Muslims was to be equally split between the two communities.

    The top court said from the records tabled before it appears that the Karnataka government’s decision is based on “absolutely fallacious assumption”.

  • Karnataka government told the Supreme Court, action will not be taken on the decision to end Muslim quota

    Karnataka government told the Supreme Court, action will not be taken on the decision to end Muslim quota

    New Delhi (IANS) | The Karnataka government on Tuesday assured the Supreme Court that it would not act on its March 27 verdict scrapping the 4 per cent Muslim quota in the OBC category for jobs and education. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka government, said he would file a reply during the day. Justice K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagaratna’s bench will now hear the matter on May 9.

    The apex court ordered that the earlier arrangement would continue till the next date of hearing as Tushar Mehta sought an adjournment in the matter.

    The Solicitor General has demanded the court to hear the matter some other day.

    The bench said that as per the assurance of the Solicitor General no appointment would be made and there would be no prejudice to any dispute.

    Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioners, opposed Mehta’s request for adjournment of the matter, saying the hearing has already been postponed four times.

    Dave said that they would do it again and the petitioners would be affected by it. Mehta said that the interim order passed by the court is already with the petitioners.

    Mehta had said on April 18 that the Karnataka government needed more time to file its affidavit.

    The apex court adjourned the hearing till April 25.

    The state government had assured on April 13 that it would neither grant admissions to educational institutions nor make job appointments as per its March 27 order.

    The Supreme Court had made some strong observations against the way the Karnataka government scrapped the 4 per cent OBC quota for Muslims and placed them under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. It said that the foundation of the decision-making process is highly unstable and flawed.

    The top court had told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka government, that it appears from the order passed by you that the foundation of the decision-making process is highly untenable and flawed. It is on an interim report, the state could have waited for a final report, what is the hurry?

    The petitioners have challenged the Karnataka government’s decision to abolish the Muslim quota in the apex court.

    –IANS

  • Atiq Ahmed-Ashraf Murder: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Independent Probe On April 28

    Atiq Ahmed-Ashraf Murder: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Seeking Independent Probe On April 28

    Uttar Pradesh: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on April 28 a plea seeking an independent probe into the killing of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad and his brother Ashraf in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj.

    Atiq Ahmad (60) and Ashraf were shot dead at point-blank range by three men posing as journalists in the middle of a media interaction on April 15 night while police personnel were escorting them to a medical college in Prayagraj for a checkup. The plea, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, has also sought an inquiry into the 183 encounters that have taken place in Uttar Pradesh since 2017.

    Tiwari mentioned the matter for urgent listing on Monday before a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha. He told the bench that his plea was slated to come up for hearing on Monday but it has not been listed.

    “Since five judges are not available, some cases in which dates were given have not been listed. We will try to list this on Friday (April 28),” the CJI said, adding, some apex court judges are down with COVID-19 while some others are indisposed due to other reasons.

    The Uttar Pradesh Police had recently said that it has gunned down 183 alleged criminals in encounters in the six years of the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath-led government and this included Ahmad’s son Asad and his accomplice. The plea filed in the apex court has sought the setting up of an independent expert committee to probe the killing of Atiq and Ashraf.

    “Issue guidelines/directions to safeguard the rule of law by constituting an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of a former Supreme Court justice to inquire into the 183 encounters which had occurred since 2017 as stated by Uttar Pradesh Special Director General of Police (Law and Order) and also to inquire into the police custody murder of Atiq and Ashraf,” it said.

    Referring to Atiq’s killing, the plea said “such actions by police are a severe threat to democracy and rule of law and lead to a police state”. “In a democratic society, the police cannot be allowed to become a mode of delivering final justice or to become a punishing authority. The power of punishment is only vested in the judiciary,” the plea submitted.

    It said extra-judicial killings or fake police encounters have no place in the law. When the police turn “daredevils then the entire rule of law collapses and generates fear in the mind of people against the police which is very dangerous for democracy and this also results in more crimes,” the plea stated.

  • SC stays Telangana HC order on YSRCP MP

    SC stays Telangana HC order on YSRCP MP

    The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Telangana High Court order granting protection from arrest till April 25 to YSR Congress Party Lok Sabha member Y S Avinash Reddy in a case pertaining to the murder of former Andhra Pradesh Minister Y S Vivekananda Reddy.

    Observing that an “atrocious and unacceptable” order was passed by the high court, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha stayed proceedings before the high court and issued notice on the plea challenging protection to Reddy.

    “Issue notice.There shall be a stay of the impugned directions contained in paragraph 18 of the impugned order of the High Court. However, till Monday the CBI shall not arrest him,” the bench said while posting the matter for hearing on April 24.

    The Telangana High Court on April 18 directed the YSRCP MP to appear before the CBI everyday for examination in the case pertaining to the murder of Y S Vivekananda Reddy, and granted him protection from arrest till April 25.

    In an interim order on the anticipatory bail plea of Avinash Reddy, the court asked him to cooperate with the Central agency and appear before it daily till April 25.

    Vivekananda Reddy, one of the brothers of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, was found murdered at his residence in Pulivendula in Kadapa district, on the night of March 15, 2019, weeks before the Assembly elections in the State.

    The case was initially probed by a special investigation team (SIT) of the state crime investigation department, but was handed over to the CBI in July 2020.

    The CBI filed a charge sheet in the murder case on October 26, 2021 and followed it up with a supplementary charge sheet on January 31, 2022.

  • Same-sex marriages can have stability: Supreme Court

    Same-sex marriages can have stability: Supreme Court

    New Delhi (IANS) | The Supreme Court on Thursday said that looking at India constitutionally and socially, we have already reached that intermediate stage where homosexuality has been decriminalized, one can think that same sex Let people be stable in a stable relationship like a stable marriage. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that in the last 69 years, the law has really evolved.

    When you decriminalize homosexuality, you also realize that it is not a one-time relationship, it is a stable relationship as well, the Chief Justice said. By decriminalizing homosexuality, we have not only recognized relationships between consenting adults of the same sex, we have indirectly recognized them as well. Hence, the fact that people who are of the same sex will be in stable relationships.,

    A division bench of Justices SK Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha noted that the purpose of the law in 1954 (Special Marriage Act) was to include persons who would be governed by a matrimonial relationship. Apart from their personal laws. The bench told senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing some of the petitioners seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages, that the law is certainly comprehensive, according to you stable same-sex relationships can also be taken into account. Is.

    Singhvi said, I put it very clearly. When you made the law, in the debate in the Parliament, the idea of homosexuals could not be in your mind. You would not have believed them. The CJI replied, it doesn’t matter.

    Your theory is that when the law was enacted in 1954, the purpose of the law was to provide a form of marriage for those who are not going back to their personal laws, the bench said.

    The Chief Justice said that from the point of view of institutional competence, we have to ask ourselves whether we are doing something which is fundamentally contrary to the scheme of the law, or rewriting the entirety of the law, the court will make the policy choice , which is for the legislature to make.

    Justice Chandrachud said, until we touch that line dividing policy from judicial process, you are in its ambit.

    The Chief Justice said that looking at India constitutionally as well as socially, we have already reached an intermediate stage. In the intermediate stage it is assumed that homosexuality is decriminalised, the act of decriminalizing homosexuality contemplates that the relationship between such people would be like a stable marriage. He said, the moment we said that it is no longer an offense under section 377, so we essentially take the view that you can have a stable marriage-like relationship between two persons.

    The bench said that it is not only a physical relationship but something more stable emotional relationship, which is now a phenomenon of constitutional interpretation. ,

    The bench continued hearing the matter.

    –IANS

  • After SC’s direction, Lalit Modi tenders apology for his remarks

    After SC’s direction, Lalit Modi tenders apology for his remarks

    After Supreme Court’s direction, former Indian Premier League (IPL) chairman Lalit Modi on Tuesday tendered his apology for his remarks against the judiciary on social media.

    In his statement, Lalit Modi said, “I hereby tender this unconditional public apology for my social media post, dated January 13, 2023, and my tweet dated March 30, 2023. I reiterate that I have the highest regard for the Indian Judicial System and the majesty of the Courts, and I will not do anything which is inconsistent with the majesty or dignity of the Courts or the Indian Judiciary, in any manner.”

    “I reiterate that I do not, and did not, have the remotest intention of denigrating or lowering the Indian Judiciary’s image or public estimation, which I hold in the highest regard and esteem,” he added.
    The Supreme Court last week directed former Indian Premier League (IPL) chairman Lalit Modi to tender an unconditional apology on social media platforms and national newspapers for his remarks against the judiciary.

    A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar slammed Modi for his remarks and warned him that any repeat of such conduct will be viewed “very seriously”.

    The bench observed that Modi is not above the law and the institution and also directed him to file an affidavit before it tenders an apology.

    The affidavit has to state that no such posts on social media will be made in future which would be tantamount, even remotely, to tarnishing the image of the Indian judiciary, the apex court said.

  • Same-sex marriage: SC cites Navtej Johar case verdict

    Same-sex marriage: SC cites Navtej Johar case verdict

    New Delhi (IANS) | The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that while the Navtej Johar judgment had decriminalized consensual same-sex sex, so far same-sex relationships have been accepted and are playing a conversational role. The role of Parliament is really relevant here. Chief Justice D.Y. A five-judge bench headed by Chandrachud clarified that it has been limited to the Special Marriage Act by giving it a gender-neutral interpretation and evolving a civil union concept.

    The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha – Noted: Ever since the Navtej Johar judgment, same-sex relationships have been accepted in universities. It further said that in this emerging consensus the court is playing an interactive role and we are aware of our limitations.

    Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing some of the petitioners, said that law cannot remain static and should change with time. Stating that if rights were to be equal, his clients should seek recognition of their union in the same way that two other heterosexuals did.

    He said that since it is based on the implementation of my fundamental rights, I can come to the court and the court need not wait for the legislature. He emphasized that once the state respects it, the stigma will go away.

    Rohatgi was assisted by Senior Advocate Saurabh Kripal, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju and a team of Advocates from Karanjawala & Co.

    The apex court said that since laws are evolving, it has to exercise its interpretive power in an incremental manner and asked the counsel for the petitioners to confine themselves to the incremental scope and then allow Parliament to respond to social developments. Said.

    “We cannot deny the fact that Parliament is indeed relevant here,” the bench said.

    The counsel opposing same-sex petitions cited difficulties for the Hindu Marriage Act and personal laws of various religious groups if the top court were to recognize same-sex marriages as valid. The bench said it can keep personal law out of the equation and lawyers can address the court on the Special Marriage Act.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that the socio-legal status of marriage cannot be rendered through judicial decisions and also cannot be done by the legislature, while asserting that acceptance is within the society. have to come from

    He said that Hindu and Muslim and other communities would be affected and urged the court to hear the state governments in the matter. To this the bench said, we are not going into personal law. How can you ask us to fix it? We cannot be forced to listen to everything.

    Mehta replied that it would be a ‘short circuit’ and the Center was in no mood to listen to all this.

    The bench said that it is adopting a middle path and we do not need to decide everything to decide something. It clarified that some of the petitioners wanted the matter to be dealt with on a broader aspect, but not going into individual laws etc.

    Referring to the court’s decision not to go into personal law, Mehta said earlier judgments opened this window and it will open another window in future.

    The apex court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.

    –IANS

  • Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage: Arguments end for today, will continue tomorrow

    Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage: Arguments end for today, will continue tomorrow

    Same-Sex Marriage in India, Supreme Court Hearing Live Updates: The Supreme Court today heard arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the test of popular acceptance is not enough to deny one community’s fundamental rights. “What about the stigma going on? That can only be removed by a constitutional declaration.” He added, “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self worth of an individual.”

    Earlier, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud stated that the mandatory 30-day notice of a couple’s intention to marry under the Special Marriage Act is “unconstitutional”. “Even in a heterosexual marriage, that you have to give notice and have people object to whether there should be a marriage or not is unconstitutional,” he said.

    In separate remarks, the CJI also noted that the notion of a biological woman or man isn’t “absolute” and “it’s not just a question of what your genitals are.” He was responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Government, who stated, “Societal acceptance of any relationship is never dependent on either the legislation or judgement. The legislative intent of the legislature throughout has been a relationship between a biological man and a biological female.” Mehta has also argued whether the judiciary is the right forum to create new socio-legal rights through marriage.

  • SC approves hearing petition to probe Atiq Ahmed killing

    SC approves hearing petition to probe Atiq Ahmed killing

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a plea seeking a probe into the killings of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf.

    The plea sought a direction for setting up of an expert committee headed by a former apex court judge to investigate the killings. The case will be listed for hearing on April 24.

    Advocate Vishal Tiwari moved the apex court seeking an independent expert committee and also sought an inquiry into the 183 encounters that have taken place in Uttar Pradesh since 2017.

    Ahmad and his brother were shot dead by three assailants, posing as journalists, while they were being escorted by police personnel to a medical college in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj for a check up on Saturday night.

    The plea sought guidelines to safeguard the rule of law by constituting an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of a former Supreme Court judge and also to inquire into the 183 encounters which had occurred since 2017 as stated by Uttar Pradesh Special Director General of Police (Law and Order).

    The petitioner also sought a probe into the murder of Ahmad and his brother under police custody and stressed that “such actions by police are a severe threat to democracy and rule of law and lead to police state”.

    The plea said extra judicial killings or fake police encounters do not have a place under the law and further argued that in a democratic society the police cannot be allowed to become a mode of delivering final justice, as the power of punishment is only vested in the judiciary.