Justice Varma issue only the final straw, Dhankhar had strained relations with Speaker, Govt on many issues
Former lawyer Dhankhar's apparent grouse against judges of the higher judiciary were clearly visible in his utterances as chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This had not gone down well with the Modi government, which has been at pains to have good equations with the Supreme Court. Dhankhar had gone out of his way to assert the supremacy of Parliament in legislative matters and often questioned the principle of checks and balances in a democracy and the Supreme Court's right to judicial review of laws.
Dhankhar had used strong words to castigate the apex court on issues like appointment of judges, interpreting laws- where he insisted Parliament is the sole institution and final authority, and conduct of judges. On the SC decision that the President of India should take a call on a pending Bill in a time-bound manner, Dhankhar said the apex court is working as a 'super Parliament'. While the government had begun the process of bringing the motion for removal of Justice Varma in the Lok Sabha first, Dhankhar's attempt to admit if first in the Rajya Sabha and with all the 63 signatures only of Opposition members- which would give the impression that the government is not initiating the process- took the Treasury Benches by surprise.The constant contest for one-upmanship with the Lok Sabha Speaker may also have played a role in Dhankhar taking this step. His antagonism towards the higher judiciary also egged him to play a more proactive- though eminently avoidable- role.The Vice President cited rules to justify this move while declaring in the Rajya Sabha that he had received this notice under Article 217, 1B, read with Article 218 and Article 124, sub-Article 4 of the Constitution to constitute a statutory committee.'…If the motion is presented in both the Houses on the same day, then the provisions are different. If the motion is presented only in one House, then the Presiding Officer of that House has the competence to consider the motion and either admit or reject it. But if a motion is presented on the same day in both the Houses, then the provisions are different,' Dhankhar said.Citing rules, he said, 'But coming to a motion that has been presented in both the Houses on the same day, it says, provided that where notice of a motion referred to in subsection 1 are given on the same day in both the Houses of Parliament, then no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both the Houses, and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman.'Dhankhar's remarks created a situation where the government would have to involve him, along with the Speaker, in the selection of the three-member committee. This committee will now be formed jointly by Deputy Chairperson Harivansh and the Speaker, sources said. The committee will have a Supreme Court judge, a high court judge and an eminent jurist.The committee would look into the charges against Justice Varma. As per the rules, the Speaker and Chairman would 'after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit, and after considering such material or materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same'.
Since the government has been treading a cautious path while dealing with higher judiciary, it would perhaps have preferred not to go the whole hog in the Justice Varma case. A repeat of the precedent of Justice Soumitra Sen's impeachment motion where he had resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed it and before the Lok Sabha could take up the issue would have suited the government. The Modi government's outreach to higher judiciary has been visible in the recent past. He had visited the then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's residence to take part in Ganpati Puja celebrations. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi was made a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha. Dhankhar had spoken against post-retirement jobs for judges on July 7, insisting this is seriously impairing the judiciary.Apart from the government's discomfort over the regular aggressive remarks of Dhankhar against the higher judiciary, there were issues between him and the Lok Sabha Speaker. While his predecessor M Venkaiah Naidu and Om Birla had a good working relationship as both had functioned together in the BJP, Dhankhar often asserted that he is higher in rank and protocol.Since Dhankhar and Birla both hail from Rajasthan, the differences between them came to the fore in the state as well with the former speaking against the latter at some gatherings.Dhankhar had given directions that since he is second only to the President of India, he should get more air-time on Sansad TV than any other office-bearer, including the Speaker and the union ministers. The Sansad TV staff had been at the receiving end of his ire and faced insults on several occasions.Dhankhar regularly highlighted his farmer background and Jat credentials. He slammed Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on the farmers' protest continuing for consecutive years and said the government needs to solve the grievances.Speculations are on about Dhankhar's future plans. Will he spew venom like former governor Satyapal Malik and former union minister Yashwant Sinha did or walk into the sunset. Quite a restless soul, Dhankhar is not likely to sit quiet. Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Can victims of Jane Street scam be compensated by investor protection funds?
Did the likes of TCS, Infosys, Wipro let India down in AI race?
How India's oil arbitrage has hit the European sanctions wall
Apple has a new Indian-American COO. What it needs might be a new CEO.
Stock Radar: Tata Chemicals breaks out from 1-month consolidation; time to buy the dip?
Power sector companies: Will they be able to outperform? 5 power stocks with an upside potential ranging from 6 to 29%
For risk-takers with long-term perspective: 7 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of over 26%
Multibagger or IBC - Part 16: Regulatory tailwind turns compliance into cash. This auto ancillary could be a winner
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
POCSO and age of consent debate in India: Debunking the misconceptions
The recent debates around the alleged reduction of the age of consent have gripped civil society and social media. Some concerns were raised in an article by Flavia Agnes and Audrey Dmello ('The faultlines of consent', IE, August 9). The purpose of this article is to clear some misconceptions and to clarify what has been argued before the Supreme Court (this writer is assisting Indira Jaising, the amicus curiae, before the SC on the matter). While propriety demands that the case be argued before the Court, and not in the court of public opinion, I feel it necessary to clarify some of the arguments so that sensationalism can be avoided. The case before the Supreme Court is about the age of consent. It has been pegged at 18 years by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18, since it is against the order of puberty at which point sexual awareness is attained. The case which has been pleaded here is not a blanket reduction of the age of consent, but to decriminalise consensual intercourse between children aged 16-18 by introducing a close-in-age exception. In recent times, there have been several cases of non-exploitative, non-abusive consensual relationships being criminalised. A significant proportion of cases being registered under the POCSO Act pertain to situations where girls leave their homes with their romantic partners, and cases of consensual sexual activity between teenagers. These cases — usually with a missing persons complaint or an FIR for rape — are usually initiated by the parents of these girls. After the teenage boy has been put through the rigmarole of the criminal process, branded as a criminal, the case usually falls on its face, with the girl turning hostile. The case is subsequently quashed, or the accused is released on bail. Such criminalisation is also much more common in cases of inter-caste and inter-faith relationships, where members of disadvantaged communities and religious minorities often find themselves at the wrong side of the law. Sometimes, while the Supreme Court has refused to quash the cases, they have stopped the execution of sentences by using its powers under Article 142. Under common law, minors are now understood to have evolving capacities to make decisions, including decisions about their life and death. In India, the age of majority is understood as outlined in the Abduction Acts of England. However, in England, this understanding has changed. Post R v D [1984] 2 All ER 449, the current law, even in England, for medical decisions, recognises that the minor has sufficient understanding and intelligence to make a decision and that is not to be determined by reference to any judicially fixed age limit. From 1940 to 2012, the age of consent was 16 years. It was raised to 18, post the December 2012 gangrape case. No reasons were provided for this change, either by the Verma Committee or on the floor of either House when POCSO was brought in or during the 2013 Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act. Agnes and D'mello argue that 16 is an arbitrary age. But so is 18. Sixteen years, as the age of consent, was the law for over eight decades, and it recognised that teenagers are sexually active. This criminalisation of consensual relationships, read along with the mandatory reporting provision, has also deterred teenagers from accessing sexual and reproductive health services and put their lives at risk. The National Health and Family Survey-5 noted that 45 per cent of teenage girls in the age group of 15-19 have had sexual intercourse. How can one protect the health interests of teenagers while also ensuring that abusive relationships are not decriminalised? The answer to this is simply allowing for a close-in-age exception to POCSO and IPC, in cases where relationships are non-abusive and non-exploitative. Agnes and Dmello seem to read this as a defense of abusive incestuous relationships, or relationships where the abuser is in a position of care or authority over the child. Such abuse is not defensible, and the arguments attack a fabricated imagination of the arguments advanced in Court. On a fundamental principle of criminal law, there cannot be mens rea when the relationship is non-exploitative and non-abusive, and thus, trying to criminalise such a relationship serves no legitimate purpose. This is a case of balancing competing interests. Different people may come to different conclusions as to how such interests can be balanced. It is equally true that child sexual abuse is a serious problem, and POCSO addresses the issue of child sexual abuse. I say this as someone who was sexually abused as a child. However, to be so rigid in the application of law, and to use the law in a manner so as to curtail the fundamental right to access to healthcare, and personal autonomy of children between the ages of 16 to 18, who are otherwise capable of giving consent and are involved in consensual sexual relationships, is a fool's errand. The writer is a bioethicist and a lawyer at the Supreme Court
India.com
29 minutes ago
- India.com
If not Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID then what? Here's how you can prove your citizenship; documents like...
File/Representational New Delhi: In a significant development amid the nation-wide discussions on the Special Intensive Revisions (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Supreme Court has remarked that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is correct in asserting that an Aadhaar card does not constitute conclusive proof of citizenship. In the recent development, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has stated that the inclusion or exclusion of citizens and non-citizens from the electoral rolls lies within the mandate of the poll body. With the supreme court observation, a buzz regarding the criteria or documents required to prove citizenship are also gaining significance. Why Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship? 'The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified,' it remarked. During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the SIR process could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of vulnerable citizens, especially those unable to submit the required forms. Sibal argued that most of the enlisted documents are not available to people in Bihar. Earlier, the Bombay High Court also made it clear that Aadhar card, PAN card or Voter ID card are only identity cards or documents to avail the benefits of services and one does not become a citizen of India with the availability of these cards. How can anyone prove citizenship? Citizenship is a special legal status granted by a country, giving people rights like legal protection, employment, and contesting elections. Notably, Citizenship in India, governed by the Citizenship Act 1955, cannot be proved with Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID or Ration Card. What to do if you don't have Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID? If you don't have Aadhaar-PAN or Voter ID, documents like a birth certificate or domicile certificate serve as proof as a proof of citizenship. If you don't have a birth certificate, you can be obtain it from the Gram Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, and if unavailable, a 'non-availability' certificate must be issued first. Also, a domicile certificate, issued by the state government after three years of residence, can also prove citizenship. (With inputs from agencies)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC to hear on Aug 14 plea for restoring Jammu & Kashmir statehood
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court would on Thursday hear a plea for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran is likely to hear the matter, according to the December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370, even as it ordered that assembly elections be held in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024 and its statehood be restored "at the earliest".Last year, a plea was filed in the top court seeking directions to the Centre for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within two application was filed by Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, an academician, and Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, a socio-political activist."It is submitted that the delay in the restoration of statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir, causing a grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India," the application assembly elections and the Lok Sabha polls were conducted peacefully in Jammu and Kashmir without any incident of violence, disturbance or any security concerns being reported, it said."Therefore, there is no impediment of security concerns, violence or any other disturbances which would hinder or prevent the grant/restoration of the status of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as had been assured by the Union of India in the present proceedings," the plea non-restoration of the status of statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, the plea said, would result in a lesser form of elected democratic government to the state, particularly given legislative assembly results were declared on October 8, the apex court's directions for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir "at the earliest and as soon as possible", no steps have been taken by the Centre to provide any timeline for the implementation of such directions, it claimed."Jammu and Kashmir is being operated as a Union Territory for a period of almost five years now, which has caused many impediments and grave losses to the development of Jammu and Kashmir and has affected the democratic rights of its citizens," the plea its December 2023 verdict, the apex court held that Article 370, which was incorporated in the Indian Constitution in 1949 to grant special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was a temporary provision. The President of India was empowered to revoke the measure in the absence of the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state whose term expired in 1957, the court said.
