Parliament's laws out of contempt ambit : SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others, who claimed that the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 to curb Maoist activity was in contempt of the court's landmark verdict against vigilante group Salwa Judum that year.
'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,' a two-judge bench comprising justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said.
Sundar had alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in 2011 to stop support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists.
However, the bench observed that it was the duty of the state government and the Centre to take adequate steps for restoration of peace and rehabilitation of the residents who have been affected by violence from whatever quarter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
After Basavaraju, another jolt to maoists: Sudhakar killed
Security forces killed top Maoist leader Gautam alias Sudhakar in Chhattisgarh's Bijapur district. Gautam carried a reward of Rs 40 lakh. He was a Central Committee Member. He was responsible for violence and radicalizing youth. This is a major blow to Maoist leadership in Dandakaranya region. Security forces recovered an AK-47 and explosives. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads After CPI (Maoist) general secretary Nambala Keshav Rao's (70) killing, another top Maoist and senior Central Committee Member (CCM), Gautam alias Sudhakar , carrying a reward of Rs 40 lakh, was killed in an encounter with security forces in Chhattisgarh's Bijapur district on Thursday, officials have police said Gautam was a senior Maoist leader responsible for various violent incidents that resulted in the deaths of many innocent tribal civilians and the martyrdom of security personnel. Moreover, as the in-charge of the Maoist ideological training school (RePOS), Gautam was involved in misleading and radicalising the youth with violent and anti-national ideologies, they death of Gautam marks a major success for the security forces and is a significant blow to the Maoist leadership, particularly in the Dandakaranya region. His neutralisation is expected to cause a considerable setback to the already weakening strength of the banned and outlawed Maoist organisation, according to Bastar reward on Gautam may increase as police from adjoining states are yet to collect information and the reward amount on Gautam. Chhattisgarh police said that the exchange of fire broke out in the forest of Indravati National Park area when a joint team of security personnel was out on an anti-Naxalite operation based on inputs about the presence of senior cadres. An AK-47 rifle, along with a large quantity of other explosive material, arms, and ammunition, were also recovered during the search."After the neutralisation of CPI Maoist general secretary Basavaraju on May 21, 2025, this marks another severe blow to the banned and outlawed Maoist outfit across the country. A joint team of STF, DRG, and CoBRA was launched for the search operation in the National Park area of Bijapur district. In 2025 so far, the dead bodies of 186 Maoist cadres have been recovered in the Bastar Range," Bastar police said in a statement on inputs indicated the presence of CCM Gautam alias Sudhakar, along with Telangana State Committee Member Bandi Prakash, Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee Member Pappa Rao, and several other armed Maoist cadres in the 2024-2025, more than 403 Maoist cadres have been neutralised and their bodies recovered in the Bastar Range following multiple encounters between Maoists and security forces, police said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
