Kashmir is paradise on earth, Sufism promoted secularism: CJI Gavai
While addressing the North Zone Regional Conference of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in Srinagar, the CJI began his speech with the famous Persian couplet: 'Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast' (If there is a paradise on Earth, it is here, it is here and it is only here).
'I am happy that I am again getting the opportunity to meet you in Kashmir, which is known as paradise. Whenever I have visited Kashmir, I have received love from everybody,' he said.
'I feel like I have come to my hometown. I am thankful for all the love and affection showered on me. I have been to all parts of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh,' he added. 'Kashmir's valleys, mountains, rivers, streams, if we see these, it can be safely said that Kashmir is a true paradise.'
The CJI spoke about Kashmir's 3,000-year-old civilisational heritage and its rich culture. He credited Sufism for upholding the values of secularism as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
'Sufism has truly promoted secularism,' he asserted.
Referring to secularism in Jammu and Kashmir, the CJI said, 'In Dargahs, every section of society, including Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs, go. Similarly, people of every religion go to Mandirs and Gurudwaras.'
Justice Gavai lauded the efforts of NALSA and the J&K Legal Services Authority for convening the interaction.
He also reflected on the legal and administrative foundation laid in the region as early as 1846, calling it one of the oldest and most structured legal systems in India.
'From 1928 till before the independence of the country, a high court had been established here and the Maharajas here also respected the orders passed by the high court,' he said.
'In the country's Constitution, we have promised ourselves justice, political, social and economic. We are bound to see that justice is implemented in its true spirit. The legal fraternity needs to have a commitment to the true values of the Constitution,' he added.
The CJI said that while Babasaheb B R Ambedkar brought about political justice by adopting the principle of 'one person, one vote and one value', the author of the Constitution also spoke about social compartmentalisation and the difficulty of moving from one compartment to another.
'Our society has been divided into different compartments. The entry from one compartment to another is nearly impossible. On the economic front, our wealth is concentrated in a few hands while the vast majority of the people find it difficult to have two meals a day. We will have to eliminate this inequality and bring about social and economic equality in the true sense. We all have to remain committed to this — whether it is the executive, legislature or judiciary. We are bound to see to it that social and economic justice is implemented in true spirit in this country,' he said.
Indirectly referring to the situation in Kashmir over the last 35 years, the CJI said there have been aberrations that need to be undone.
'There have been aberrations, but we have to work to remove these. This dialogue between judges and lawyers will give a new perspective. I am sure this programme will help in rebuilding the traditional and undivided Kashmir where all communities, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, used to live together,' he said.
Asserting that lawyers and judges are like two wheels of the golden chariot of justice, the CJI said, 'If you span one wheel, the efficacy of the entire chariot comes to a standstill. For this, lawyers and judges should work together to give justice to the people who live in the last village of this country. Unless people have the knowledge of their rights, the rights are of no use.'
In a key policy suggestion, the CJI urged the Chief Justice of the J&K High Court to consider establishing a separate bench for the Union Territory of Ladakh, acknowledging the consistent demand raised by the Ladakh Bar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Christians living in fear of persecution, says CBCI president over detention and arrest of two Malayali nuns
KOCHI: Calling the detention and arrest of two Malayali nuns — one from Kannur and the other from Angamaly — in Chhattisgarh a "deeply painful incident", Mar Andrews Thazhath, president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI), said the matter had been taken up with the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, and MPs Suresh Gopi and George Kurien. 'But the general atmosphere is one of fear,' he told reporters at Mount St Thomas, the Syro-Malabar Church headquarters in Kakkanad on July 28. "The fact that these nuns were arrested on trumped-up charges of human trafficking is extremely alarming. They have also been accused of religious conversion. These actions by the authorities infringe upon the Right to Religious Freedom and amount to a gross violation of the Constitution," he said. Mar Thazhath added that a section of the population continues to see Christianity as a foreign religion. He said the Chhattisgarh incident is a clear violation of minority rights and religious freedoms guaranteed by the country's secular Constitution. 'The Durg incident is just one among several recent episodes of persecution of Christians. There have been cases where priests were even denied the right to wear cassocks and move freely within the country.'
Scroll.in
38 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC asks Justice Varma why he appeared before inquiry panel if it was unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court's Justice Yashwant Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee probing the unaccounted cash row if it was unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench. 'Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past,' said a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih. The bench also questioned why Varma waited for the inquiry committee to submit its report before moving the court, according to Live Law. The court was hearing Varma's plea against the committee's report that indicted him in the unaccounted cash row. The Allahabad High Court judge had also challenged the recommendation made by Sanjiv Khanna – the chief justice of India when the report was submitted – to the president and the prime minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered at Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire there on March 14. He was a judge at the Delhi High Court at that time. The judge said he was in Bhopal when the cash was discovered and claimed that it did not belong to him or his family. Amid the row, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On Monday, Varma told the Supreme Court that he had appeared before the three-member inquiry committee because he thought it would 'find out who the cash belongs to', reported Live Law. Alleging that the committee did not follow procedure, Varma's counsel Kapil Sibal said that judges can only be removed from their post as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report. Article 124 deals with the composition of the Supreme Court, the appointment and removal of judges, and their qualifications. 'Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted,' said Sibal. 'All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution – release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, accusation against judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited.' He was referring to a report released by the Supreme Court on March 22, which included a video and three photographs, showing bundles of notes that were allegedly recovered from the judge's home. The court had also set up the three-member committee to look into the allegations against Varma. The redacted report showed that Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya had written to Varma on March 21, asking him to 'account for the presence of money/cash' in a room located in his bungalow. Sibal stated on Monday that by releasing the report, the process to remove Varma from his post had been politicised, according to Live Law. However, the Supreme Court said that the judge could not raise these points after having participated in the inquiry process. The bench adjourned the hearing till Wednesday, asking Sibal to submit the in-house inquiry committee's report. The committee, in its report, concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' in the charges against Varma. The report, dated May 3, held that the judge's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. However, the report did not address questions about how the fire started, how much money was found, where the cash came from or where it is now. After Varma declined to voluntarily retire or resign, Sanjiv Khanna sent the final in-house inquiry committee report on the incident to the president and the prime minister. Varma had challenged the committee's report ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion to remove Varma. The minister added that the decision to impeach the High Court judge was unanimous and that 152 MPs from the ruling coalition and the Opposition parties had signed the motion. To impeach a judge in Parliament, a removal motion is required to be signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If the motion is admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the matter. The Parliament votes on the impeachment if the committee finds misconduct. If the motion gets two-thirds of the votes, the president is advised to remove the judge.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court stays HC order pausing West Bengal govt's OBC quota notification
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Calcutta high court order, pausing the West Bengal government's notification extending reservation benefits to 140 communities under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, terming it 'erroneous'. The Supreme Court called high court's reasoning surprising. (AFP) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria expressed surprise over the June 17 order staying a June 10 classification notification in the absence of legislation. It said that a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) allowed the executive to identify socially and educationally backward classes for reservation through executive notification. The observation came in the context of the high court observation that the state acted with 'undue haste' through an 'executive fiat' without placing the matter before the legislature. 'We will stay the order…It is very surprising to read the reasoning given by the high court. Prima facie, we feel the order is erroneous,' the bench said. The bench, which was initially inclined to return the matter to the high court by ordering status quo, posted the matter for hearing after two weeks. The lawyers, appearing in the case, insisted that the Supreme Court hear and decide the matter. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the West Bengal government that challenged the June 17 order, said the state is facing contempt proceedings as it has to fill 900,000 posts based on the June 10 notification. Three individuals and an organisation challenged the notification, arguing that the state had not ascertained the economic conditions for extending the reservation and that it was not backed by law. A high court bench of justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty passed an interim direction staying the June 10 notification until July 31. Senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for the petitioners in the high court, told the Supreme Court about a similar exercise to classify 77 castes as OBCs, mostly Muslims, since 2010. The high court struck down that exercise in May last year. The state appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to interfere. In March, the state government withdrew its appeal, saying a revised exercise was being conducted. Kumar and Krishnakumar argued that one and a half months is too short for ascertaining the eligibility of the communities to be added as OBCs on the state list. Krishnakumar pointed out that the law mandates the state to consult the backward class panel and carry out an extensive survey of the communities intended to be added to the OBC list. Sibal cited the Constitution's Article 342A(3) and said states are entitled to prepare and maintain the OBC list. The high court order said prima facie it appears the government was proceeding in hot haste and attempting to bring in the self-same classes and re-introduce the percentage of reservation, which had been struck down, by executive orders and not in exercise of the state's legislative functions. The May 2024 high court order struck down the state's decision, relating to 77 communities, citing the same reasoning that the legislature, and not the executive, can carry out this exercise.
