Registrar of Societies can't act as postman to forward enquiry report as received: Karnataka HC
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
A case for judicial introspection
At least a few from the ruling dispensation have asked why the Opposition is not formally taking up the electoral roll issue before the Supreme Court. However, the reluctance shown by the major Opposition parties is quite reasonable and even justifiable. The Modi regime promulgated the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act in 2023 with a view to nullify the Constitution Bench judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). The Act excluded the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and included a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister in his place, as part of the Selection Committee for choosing the Election Commission of India (ECI). This statute was legally challenged in several writ petitions which are yet to be finally heard. Significantly, the petitioners also sought a stay of the enactment. A Bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna (as he then was), heard the application for a stay and rejected it on March 22, 2024, by a detailed order in Dr. Jaya Thakur and others v. Union of India (2024). Had the statute been stayed, the country could have had a different umpire for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the subsequent Assembly elections. In all probability, a more independent ECI could have had the potential to conduct the elections more fairly and impartially. That this did not happen shows the Supreme Court's failure to act at a time when it was supposed to. Also read: What are the challenges confronting the EC? | Explained The present type of ECI In Anoop Baranwal, the Constitution Bench analysed Article 324 of the Constitution dealing with the appointment of Election Commissioners. It spoke of the need to take the appointment 'out of the exclusive hands of the executive'. It said that 'a pliable ECI, an unfair and biased overseer of the foundational exercise of adult franchise, which lies at the heart of democracy, who obliges the powers that be, perhaps offers the surest gateway to acquisition and retention of power'. The Court was assertive when it said that 'the outpouring of demands for an impartial mode of appointment of the members require, at the least, the banishing of the impression that the ECI is appointed by less than fair means'. This shows the rationale behind prescribing the CJI as a member of the Selection Committee for the ECI. Yet, a few months later, the Centre ensured that only 'persons under the thumb of the executive', as feared by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, dominate the Selection Committee. When this was shown to the Supreme Court, it took a very conservative and dangerous stand, saying it won't interfere with a statute for it carries a 'presumption of validity'. This is how the present type of ECI was allowed to function. At a time when majoritarianism often rests on electoral frauds, courts across the world face newer challenges, both jurisprudential and political. In a paper titled 'Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy' (2020), David Landau and Rosalind Dixon have conducted an extensive global survey on the topic. According to them, 'courts have upheld and thus legitimated regime actions that helped actors consolidate power, undermine the Opposition, and tilt the electoral playing field heavily in their favour'. They explain that sometimes '(the) clever authoritarians often do their manipulation well before elections have actually been held, by consolidating power, stacking key institutions such as courts and electoral commissions, and harassing Opposition parties and leaders'. The paper says courts in countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia aided and facilitated electoral frauds which ensured continuation of autocracies. On the other hand, there are few instances where the courts could prevent electoral manipulation and the consequent subversion of democracy. The judgment in Baranwal exemplifies such judicial vigilance. Fourth branch institutions Article 324 failed to prescribe a body free from the ruling executive for installing the ECI. Modern Constitutions have reorganised the need to evolve fourth Branch institutions (in addition to the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary) which are autonomous and independent of the ruling dispensation. The Constitution of South Africa envisages a cluster of state institutions for 'supporting constitutional democracy'. The Chapter Nine institutions, as they are called, include the Electoral Commission of South Africa. The silence of the Indian Constitution prompted the Court in Baranwal to prescribe a fairer body for choosing the ECI. It was an instance of imaginative interpretation of the relevant constitutional provision. However, Parliament failed the Court and the people when it enacted the 2023 Act. The Court's refusal to stay the enactment practically nullified its own hard labour and intelligence in redefining the ECI as an independent fourth branch establishment. In India, electoral manipulation, as alleged by the Opposition, would call for a deeper and comprehensive analysis by a fair agency. The Court, on its own, will not be able to carry out this exercise. The only way to rescue our democracy would be to restore the position laid down in the Baranwal verdict and to nullify the 2023 enactment. A Selection Committee with the CJI in it will have to induct another ECI by way of a fresh selection process. Such an ECI will have to act as a Truth Commission to investigate the alleged instances of electoral scam. The courtesy expected from the present dispensation would be to facilitate such a course by removing the present ECI.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Denial of admission to private unaided school not a violation of right to education: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that denial of admission to a private unaided school will not violate the right to education under the Constitution. Article 21A of the Constitution, introduced by the 86th Amendment in 2002, guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years. In this case, the petitioner approached the high court seeking an order to admit his son to St Paul's High School in Belagavi as a lower kindergarten student. He said they had received a communication stating that his son had been selected for admission as a student, and they would have to come to meet the principal on February 28. The website then changed the status to 'verification pending'. The school later informed the petitioner that the confirmation of admission had been erroneously sent to him along with 61 other students owing to a software issue and that the sanctioned number of students, 150, had already been admitted. The petitioner argued that the child ought to be admitted owing to the initial communication. The school's counsel argued that the petition could not be maintained since it was a private, unaided institution. The petitioner's counsel, on the other hand, relied on a prior Delhi High Court judgment to argue that, since education is a matter with public scope, the court's jurisdiction did extend to it. The order, passed on August 5 by a bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, stated that in the case of fundamental rights being affected, the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be applied even if the school was a private entity. However, the court did not agree that said rights had actually been violated in this case. The court noted, 'There is no specific allegation in the petition regarding any discrimination or the like which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor is any such allegation made as regards the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, though a reference is made that non-grant of admission would deprive the petitioners of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 (the student) in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21.' The court pointed out that there were many other schools where the child could be admitted. Having made these observations, the court dismissed the petition.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
BJP MLC slams cow vigilantes, says anti-slaughter Act is against farmers
Days after Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar held a meeting with top police officials on the growing menace of gaurakshaks (self-styled cow vigilantes), ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLC and farmer leader Sadabhau Khot on Sunday said that the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2015, that prevents the slaughter of cow, bulls and bullocks is against farmers. Speaking to The Indian Express, Khot said, 'Let's be very clear. No farmer would part ways with productive cows. Dairy is a supplementary business of lakhs of farmers in the state. The earning from this is now being spent on taking care of unproductive animals as transfer of these animals is not only banned but under threat from these so-called gaurakshaks. The Act (against cow slaughter) is actually turning against farmers…' About cow vigilantism in the state, he said, 'These gaurakshaks resort to extortion from genuine farmers and traders, bringing the transport of animals to a complete standstill.' Khot, a farmer leader from western Maharashtra's Sangli district, said that as a farmer leader he feels that if the present act (to prevent cow slaughter) threatens the livelihood of farmers, then it should be 'torn apart'. 'This (the act) is not even helping desi cows as those are getting replaced by Jersey cows. The transfer of newer breeds from different states has totally stopped due to fear of these cow vigilantes. The so-called gaushalas (cow shelters promoted by the state government) should pay the market price to farmers for unproductive cows and must come forward to rescue the farmers,' he said, adding that he was 'ready to pay any price' for his stand. Last week, The Indian Express had reported that Deputy Chief Minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Ajit Pawar held a meeting with top police officials in the state over the demands raised by the Qureishi community, which has been complaining against cow vigilantes who allegedly beat up and extort money from animal traders. Following the meeting, state police issued a circular, clarifying that private individuals have no authority to inspect vehicles that transport animals but only police can act against them. Terming the circular issued by Maharashtra police an eyewash, Maharashtra Congress spokesperson Sachin Sawant said, 'The circular says that only police can take action against illegal animal trade. But it does not say what action will be taken against the private individuals if they are take law in their hands? The majority of these so called cow vigilantes are linked to BJP and RSS and this issue is used for the politics of polarisation.'
