Indian nurse on death row in Yemen: Supreme Court told negotiations going on, no immediate threat
The counsel for petitioner organisation Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, which is extending legal support to Priya, requested a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta to adjourn the matter.
The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to use diplomatic channels to save the 38-year-old nurse from Palakkad in Kerala who was convicted of murdering her Yemeni business partner in 2017.
'Negotiations are going on. As of now there is no immediate threat. Kindly adjourn it by four weeks. Hopefully, everything will be over by that time,' the counsel said.
"Let this matter be listed after eight weeks," the Bench then said.
The petitioner's counsel said they would mention the matter before the top court if there was any urgency.
The top court was apprised last month that Priya's execution, which was scheduled for July 16, had been stayed.
On July 18, the Centre informed the top court that efforts were on and the government was trying everything possible to ensure Priya came out safely.
The petitioner organisation sought a Centre-appointed delegation to go to Yemen to meet the murder victim's family for negotiations.
The Bench said the petitioner could make a representation to the government.
The petitioner's counsel had earlier said Priya's mother was in Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family and she has gone there as the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to give her permission to travel.
Priya was convicted in 2017, sentenced to death in 2020 and her final appeal rejected in 2023.
She is imprisoned in a jail in the Yemen capital Sana'a.
The petitioner's counsel had earlier told the apex court that payment of blood money to the family of the deceased permissible under the Sharia law could be explored. He said the victim's family might pardon Priya if blood money was paid.
On July 17, India said it was in touch with Yemeni authorities as well as certain friendly nations as part of efforts to reach a "mutually agreeable solution" in the case.
According to Yemeni court documents, Priya allegedly drugged and murdered Talal Abdo Mahdi in July 2017.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Regulate stray dog population, shelters not the solution: RSS chief
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (File photo) NEW DELHI: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said the stray dog issue in Delhi-NCR should be addressed through measures to regulate their population, rather than confining them to shelters - an approach that echoes the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules mandated under law. Bhagwat's comments come amid renewed debate over the Supreme Court's Aug 11 order directing Delhi-NCR authorities to permanently relocate all strays to shelters. "All animals have the right to live. The problem can be solved only by regulating the population of street dogs, but it cannot be resolved by putting them in shelters," said Bhagwat, a veterinary science graduate, while addressing a religious congregation at Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Cuttack Thursday. He added, "Sheltering all street dogs is not a practical solution. The only effective way is to implement sterilisation and vaccination, as already prescribed in law. " He referred to a cultural practice involving cattle rearing, saying that while milking a cow, some milk is taken for human use and the rest is left for the calf. "This is the art of striking a balance between man and nature. Nature should be conserved by maintaining a balance between development and the environment," he said. SC's Aug 11 order has been criticised by politicians, animal rights groups and scientists, who argue it contradicts the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023. On Wednesday, CJI B R Gavai withdrew the suo motu case from the earlier bench, and a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath heard the matter afresh on Thursday.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Deadline for guvs, Prez will tilt power balance: Centre
The Union government has cautioned the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on state bills, as mandated by the court in an April ruling, would amount to one organ of government assuming powers not vested in it, upsetting the delicate separation of powers and leading to a 'constitutional disorder'. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) In detailed written submissions filed in a presidential reference under Article 143, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the apex court cannot, even under its extraordinary powers in Article 142, amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of its framers by creating procedural mandates where none exist in the constitutional text. According to SG Mehta, while there may be 'limited issues in the operationalisation' of the assent procedure, these cannot justify 'relegating the high position of the gubernatorial office to a subservient one'. The positions of the governor and the president, he argued, are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses, he said, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and 'not necessarily judicial' interventions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, has set aside nine days of hearings, starting from August 19 and spreading into September, to decide 14 constitutional questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. These questions stem from the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment that, for the first time, imposed binding timelines on governors and the president in relation to state bills, and held that prolonged inaction could result in 'deemed assent' under Article 142. The April verdict, delivered by justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government alleging that its governor had indefinitely delayed action on 10 important bills. It directed governors to act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills, and to decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The ruling described the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and a constitutional subversion, prompting a fierce debate on the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. Challenging the foundations of that decision, Mehta has told the court that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governor's and the president's options upon receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' he said. Articles 200 and 201, Mehta emphasised, employ four different verbs -- 'assent', 'withhold', 'reserve' and 'return' -- each carrying distinct meaning and discretionary scope. This flexibility, he said, was 'carefully crafted' by the framers to meet exigencies that cannot always be anticipated. Any attempt to fix rigid timelines 'renders the intention of the framers nugatory' and hampers the ability of these high functionaries to safeguard constitutional compliance, democratic principles and the national interest. The submissions further contend that certain 'high-plenary' constitutional functions are inherently non-justiciable because they are textually committed to the political branches, and there are no judicially manageable standards for reviewing them. 'The assent of the governor or the president is integrally connected with the legislative process of a state legislature and attracts the constitutional bars on judicial inquiry under Articles 122 and 212,' Mehta said. Such acts, he added, fall within the category of proceedings that cannot be called into question in a court of law. The SG also cited Article 361, which grants immunity to the president and governors from court proceedings for acts done in the exercise of their official duties. The phrase 'done or purported to be done' in discharge of constitutional responsibility, Mehta said, is of 'wide import' and bars any relief that would require these functionaries to explain their decisions or act in a particular fashion. The Centre has argued that Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to do 'complete justice', is curative and procedural in nature, and cannot be used to override constitutional provisions or reallocate powers vested in other organs. 'The very width of the power brings with it a high threshold of duty to not exercise the same in such a manner that amends the text of the Constitution itself and fundamental constitutional and legal principles,' the submissions stated. Article 142, Mehta insisted, is 'not a supervening judicial power' that can run contrary to the constitutional scheme. The presidential reference, the first of its kind in several years, poses far-reaching questions: whether 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid; whether timelines for governors and the president can be imposed through judicial orders; whether the exercise of their discretion under Articles 200 and 201 is justiciable; whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review; and whether disputes of this nature can be decided through the court's writ jurisdiction or only under Article 131, which governs disputes between the Union and states. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have already challenged the maintainability of the reference, calling it an attempt to re-litigate settled law and a disguised appeal against the April ruling. The bench will hear their preliminary objections for an hour on August 19 before moving to the merits of the Union's case. Since Independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law and public importance. While not binding on the president, such opinions have historically influenced constitutional interpretation in significant ways.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Simpler GST structureas govt pushes reform
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday announced a major overhaul of the goods and services tax regime, hinting at lower rates on most items by Diwali, with people aware of the plans adding that most of the goods currently taxed at 12% could drop to 5% and most of those in the 28% bracket could shift to 18% under a proposed structure that will also have a 40% rate for what are considered sin or luxury goods. Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the nation from the ramparts of Red Fort on 79th Independence Day, in New Delhi on Friday. (ANI) Speaking from the Red Fort ramparts on the 79th Independence Day, Modi said his government would implement 'next-generation GST reforms' that would substantially reduce the tax burden across the country, particularly benefiting farmers, the middle class and small businesses. Since GST is a consumption tax, the ultimate beneficiary will be the consumer. 'This Diwali, I am going to make it a double Diwali for you. This Diwali, you fellow countrymen are going to get a very big gift,' Modi said, adding that after eight years of GST operations, 'the need of the hour is that we should review it once.' People aware of the matter in the government later detailed the proposal: a simplified two-slab structure replacing the current four-tier system that has operated since GST's launch on July 1, 2017 is being considered. The reforms, according to these people, will make everyday essentials significantly more affordable — from groceries and medicines to televisions and washing machines. Agricultural equipment, bicycles, and even insurance and education services are set to become cheaper, delivering direct relief to households and farmers while boosting consumption across the economy. Under the proposed framework, most goods and services would be taxed under two categories — 5% and 18% rates — with a 40% 'demerit' levy on items that currently attract the compensation cess. This will effectively whittle down the existing structure that includes of 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% brackets, along with a compensation cess for luxury and sin goods. As per law, the compensation cess will cease to exist after March 31, 2026. The new 40% levy is being considered for the goods in the last category. The people cited above added that '99% of items' currently in the 12% slab will move to the lower 5% bracket, and 90% of goods in the 28% category will shift to 18%. The Centre has forwarded its proposals to the Group of Ministers examining rate rationalisation, which will place recommendations before the GST Council — the apex federal body on indirect taxation comprising finance ministers from all states and chaired by Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The council is empowered to accept the proposal, with or without modification, or reject it. 'We have discussed with states and we are bringing next-generation GST reforms that will reduce the tax burden across the country,' Modi said. 'Tax on items the common man uses will be reduced substantially. Our MSMEs will benefit hugely. Daily use items will become cheaper, which will also strengthen our economy.' One of the people cited above added that, 'there is a near consensus to rationalise the GST rates. Some opposition parties are even keen to reduce the number of slabs to just one, which is difficult in the Indian situation because tax rates for items used by the common people, and luxury items used by the rich cannot be the same.' This person added that the council is expected to meet by October with a final decision, as indicated by Modi, expected prior to Diwali in the latter half of the month. The restructuring would make essential items such as food products, daily-use goods, agricultural equipment, televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, medicines, education and insurance significantly cheaper. 'The common man, particularly the middle class would be the biggest beneficiary,' the person mentioned above said, citing examples: Items currently taxed at 12% — including condensed milk, dried fruits, frozen vegetables, sausages, pasta, jams, namkeens including bhujiya, tooth powder, feeding bottles, carpets, umbrellas, bicycles, utensils, furniture, pencils, handbags made of jute or cotton, and footwear under ₹1,000 — could see rates drop to 5%. Similarly, goods in the 28% bracket such as cement, air-conditioning machines, dishwashers, monitors, projectors, set-top boxes and television sets including LCD and LED models could become cheaper at 18%. However, around half-a-dozen 'demerit' items, such as cigarettes and online gaming, would face a new 40% tax rate, replacing the current compensation cess structure. Special rates would remain unchanged, with diamonds continuing to attract 0.25% and gold and silver maintaining 3% taxation, which are mainly for exports after value addition. Petroleum products would stay outside the GST framework. 'We started the review by setting up a high-power committee and also held discussions with the states,' Modi explained during his address. With most states governed by the BJP and its allies, the proposals are expected to gain approval with some ease. Beyond rate rationalisation, the GST Council would also consider proposals for further ease of compliance using technology and faster refunds to exporters, officials said. Tax experts hailed the proposed changes as transformative for India's economic landscape. 'Moving to a two-rate GST structure will put India at par with advanced economies which have a low rate for essentials and another rate for everything else,' said MS Mani, partner at Deloitte India. 'Classification issues and disputes will significantly reduce if we get a two-rate structure.' However, Mani cautioned that 'the absence of anti-profiteering provisions now would make it incumbent for businesses to self-regulate and pass on the reductions to the consumers.' Saurabh Agarwal, partner at EY India, described the reforms as 'essential structural changes' designed to build economic resilience. 'The Prime Minister's vision for GST 2.0 is a timely and strategic move to build a resilient Indian economy,' he said. 'By addressing the inverted duty structure, we are unlocking crucial working capital and making our exports more competitive on the global stage,' Agarwal added. 'Simultaneously, rationalising rates will boost domestic consumption, creating a powerful buffer against external shocks.' He said simplifying compliances for MSMEs would help bring down costs and make their products competitive in the market. 'These reforms will strengthen India's manufacturing capabilities and make our economy more self-reliant and agile in a volatile global landscape.' The government expects to offset revenue losses through an expanded tax base and improved compliance, with officials confident that the broader economic benefits would quickly compensate for any initial revenue shortfall. The announcement marks the most significant reform to India's indirect tax structure since GST's introduction eight years ago, which at the time merged a web of local and federal levies into a simpler system.
