Decades of separatism crumble as Jammu & Kashmir leaders join national mainstream
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all states to ascertain if any convict was languishing in prisons beyond the fixed term of sentence as it underlined that such prisoners would be entitled to release without seeking any further order for remission. Release prisoners after they complete jail sentence: SC The order came in a petition filed by Sukhdev Yadav, a convict in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case, whose life term was converted to a fixed term sentence of 20 years, without any remission, by the top court in October 2016. After the sentence period ended on March 9, Yadav's application for remission was rejected by the Delhi government. He then approached the apex court, which first granted furlough on June 26 and ordered his release on July 29. In a detailed judgment giving reasons for releasing Yadav, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan said, 'On completion of 20 years of sentence, it was wholly unnecessary to seek remission as during the period of 20 years, he was not entitled to any remission.' 'From March 9, 2025 (when he completed the 20-year sentence), he cannot be kept in jail. His continuous incarceration after March 9 till June 25 (when he was released on furlough) was illegal,' the bench held. Earlier, the Delhi government had objected to Yadav's plea for release, stating that the 20-year sentence was stipulated within the life term as a period within which he was not entitled to remission. After he had undergone this period, the Sentence Review Board (SRB), which considers remission of prisoners, refused him 'premature release' on March 28 on the ground that he has 'potential to commit crime'. The top court noticed the facts of the case and felt concerned whether such a legal interpretation was coming in the way of release of other similarly situated convicts. 'This court has held that prisoners are languishing behind bars even after being acquitted or on completion of sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence and if so, to issue directions for their release, if not wanted in any other case,' the bench ordered. Underlining the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees life and liberty to all citizens, the bench added: 'We hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case.' It further directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to communicate the list of such prisoners to the state and district legal services authority for implementation of the judgment. The bench further clarified that when a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment with an accompanying condition that such a convict shall not be entitled to remission for a 20-year period, they ought to be released on completion of the said term. However, this will be subject to the condition that other punishments for the accompanying offences run concurrently and the convict is not wanted in any other case. In such a scenario, the court held that the convict will not be required to apply for remission as the life sentence has been replaced with a sentence of 20 years without remission. Senior advocate Siddharth Mridul, arguing for the petitioner, submitted that with the October 2016 ruling by the top court, Yadav cannot be allowed to remain in jail beyond completion of the fixed-term sentence. While releasing Yadav on July 29, the court had said: 'Once the court has quantified a sentence without remission for 20 years, there is no sentence beyond 20 years.' The bench even took exception to the Delhi government's order of March 28 denying remission, and observed: 'How can SRB sit over the judgment of this court. Once a convict has completed a sentence, he is entitled to this is the attitude of the government, then every convict will die in jail even if he has completed the sentence.' The complainant in the case Nilam Katara, the mother of Nitish Katara, had also argued and opposed Yadav's release claiming that the witnesses have been living in fear and threat to their life. Besides Sukhdev Yadav, others convicted in the 2002 murder case are Vikas Yadav, son of former parliamentarian DP Yadav, and his cousin Vishal. Katara was killed by the trio over his relationship with Vikash's sister Bharti Yadav. Both Vikas and Vishal were directed to undergo 25 years of sentence without remission.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Court says Aadhaar not conclusive citizenship proof, flags ‘trust deficit'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said there appeared to be a 'trust deficiency' surrounding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, even as it backed the poll body's stand that possession of an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. The court was hearing multiple petitions challenging ECI's June 24 directive ordering an SIR ahead of the upcoming Bihar assembly polls (HT File) A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the first question to be settled was whether ECI had the legal authority to carry out the exercise. 'If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there cannot be a problem. You will have to then tell us about the process,' observed the bench, adding that the court would not hesitate to strike down the entire process if it found that ECI lacked such authority or if 'gross illegality' was detected even after the final rolls were published. The court was hearing multiple petitions challenging ECI's June 24 directive ordering an SIR ahead of the upcoming Bihar assembly polls. Petitioners , which include non-governmental organisations, political leaders and activists, have alleged that the process, if left unchecked, could disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters and undermine free and fair elections. During the hearing, the court remarked: 'This is largely a case of trust deficiency, nothing else.' The bench asked ECI to be prepared with detailed facts and figures, including the number of voters before SIR, the tally of voters declared dead earlier and now, and data on inclusions and exclusions. ECI defended its decision, citing demographic changes, urban migration, and the need to remove inaccuracies from rolls that have not undergone intensive revision for nearly two decades. It maintained that it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to carry out SIR. In its latest affidavit filed on August 9, the Commission stressed that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 do not require it to prepare or publish a separate list of the nearly 6.5 million persons not included in the draft rolls, or to state the reasons for each non-inclusion. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal parliamentarian Manoj Jha, alleged that even voters who had participated in multiple past elections were missing from the draft rolls, with some alive voters recorded as dead. He argued that the requirement to re-submit forms, even for those in the 2003 rolls with no change in address, could lead to unjustified exclusions. Appearing for Trinamool Congress lawmaker Mahua Moitra and some others, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there is a presumption of citizenship and highlighted the short time period within which the entire process is taking place just ahead of the elections. He further submitted that millions of people cannot be declared invalid on the basis of presumption. Activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav called SIR 'the largest exercise of disenfranchisement in history,' claiming the exclusions could cross one crore and disproportionately affect women -- 3.1 million women versus 2.5 million men, according to his figures. He said the process had resulted in 'zero additions' to the rolls, turning it into 'an exercise in intensive deletion.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), questioned why the draft roll, searchable online until August 4, was later made non-searchable. He also alleged that Block Level Officers had rejected 10-12% of applications without recorded reasons. During the hearing, the bench did not agree with the assertion that most people in Bihar lacked the documents required for verification, pointing to the availability of family registers, pension cards and other papers. On Aadhaar, the court observed: 'ECI is correct in saying Aadhaar can't be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship; it has to be verified. See Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act.' This provision states that Aadhaar is only proof of identity, and not of citizenship. While acknowledging that errors were inevitable in such a large-scale exercise, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing ECI, said these could be corrected before the final roll is published on September 30. He noted that around 65 million people did not need to submit documents because they or their parents were in the 2003 rolls. The court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday. The petitions by ADR and others challenge ECI's June 24 notification initiating SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners argue that the ECI's demand for only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, passport, domicile certificate, etc, as proof of citizenship lacks statutory basis. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement could disenfranchise a large number of legitimate voters, especially those from marginalised communities. SIR has become a major political flashpoint ahead of the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for later this year. Opposition parties in the INDIA bloc staged protests in Parliament and wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking a special discussion. The government has dismissed the protests and said that infiltrators cannot have the right to vote. On July 28, the top court had refused to stay the publication of the draft rolls but reminded ECI that the SIR must promote inclusion, not mass exclusion.
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
School Jobs ‘scam': PIL seeks criminal charge, seizure of assets of officials
In the wake of the Supreme Court's order declaring the entire selection process of the West Bengal School Service Commission recruitment null and void, concerned citizens, parents, and education activists are calling for personal accountability and criminal action against all department and government officials involved in the scam. The apex court found gross violations of law and blatant irregularities in direct contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, leading to the cancellation of all illegal appointments. In response, social activist Devdutta Maji's team is preparing a fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to be filed before the appropriate court, seeking immediate seizure of movable and immovable assets of all government officials involved in the tainted recruitment process, criminal prosecution of those responsible, and urgent interim arrangements to appoint qualified teachers so that students' learning is not interrupted. 'This is not just a corruption case , but an attack on the future of our children and the integrity of our education system. We demand swift justice and uncompromising action,' he said.
