Latest news with #Article
United News of India
9 hours ago
- General
- United News of India
SC agrees to hear Jaipur Royals' plea on historic covenants
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition filed by Rajmata Padmini Devi, Rajasthan Deputy Chief Minister Diya Kumari, and Maharaja Sawai Padmanabh Singh of the erstwhile Jaipur royal family, challenging the constitutional bar under Article 363 over adjudication of disputes stemming from pre-Independence covenants between princely states and the Government of India. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih on Monday signaled readiness to delve into the nuanced constitutional debate surrounding the continuing applicability of Article 363 especially after the repeal of its companion provision, Article 362, in 1972. Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, assisted by Senior Counsel Vibha Datta Makhija, contended that the 1949 covenant in question was not signed with the Government of India (GoI), but among five Rajasthan rulers, with the Centre acting merely as a guarantor. Hence, Article 363, which bars courts from entertaining disputes arising from covenants, should not apply. Salve invoked Articles 363 and 366, arguing that the ownership of the disputed properties existed prior to the covenant, and that the Constitution must now permit courts to re-examine the legal rights surrounding such properties. Justice Mishra, however, asked pointedly, 'Without the Government of India being a party, how did you merge with the Union of India?' He further questioned the broader implications: 'If your argument is accepted, then the entire state of Rajasthan would be governed by the King. "Will all princely states be free to claim their properties?' the Court asked. Salve responded that allowing adjudication was not tantamount to conceding ownership: 'Filing a suit is different from asserting rights. I'm only arguing on the right to be heard in court.' The petition challenges the April 17 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had dismissed four civil suits filed by the Jaipur royals and their trust over iconic Jaipur properties including Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha), Hazari Guards Building (Old Police HQ), and parts of the City Palace. The High Court had ruled that these suits were barred by Article 363, which prohibits court jurisdiction over disputes related to pre-Constitution covenants. The court accepted the State's revision pleas and rejected the royals' claims under the Civil Procedure Code. The apex court bench observed that the matter raises complex constitutional questions: 'You have been non-suited because of the bar. We are not commenting on merits. But allowing your argument would mean half of Jaipur could be yours.' The bench issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after eight weeks. Salve requested interim relief, seeking to preserve the status quo. Additional Advocate General (AAG) Shiv Mangal Sharma, appearing for the Rajasthan government, accepted the notice and assured the court that no precipitative steps would be taken regarding the disputed properties. This case may become a watershed moment in determining whether India's constitutional bar on royal covenants still holds, or whether legal avenues can reopen for former rulers seeking possession or compensation over their ancestral properties. The bench noted, this legal challenge could either reaffirm the constitutional closure of the princely era, or rekindle claims from royal families across the country, testing the delicate balance between historical integration and legal continuity in the Republic of India. UNI SNG RN
Scroll.in
11 hours ago
- Climate
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: 36 dead in North East rains, Centre notifies new domicile rules in Ladakh, & more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. Thirty six people have died in incidents related to the heavy rainfall in the North East since Friday. Eleven of the deaths were reported in Assam, 10 in Arunachal Pradesh, six in Meghalaya, five in Mizoram, three in Sikkim and one in Tripura. More than 5.5 lakh persons have been hit by the severe rainfall across the northeastern states. In Mizoram alone, over 550 landslides have been reported over the past 10 days. They have damaged more than 150 homes. In Manipur, over 56,000 persons were affected by flash floods. While 156 villages in 23 districts of Arunachal Pradesh were inundated and more than 10,000 persons remained in relief camps in Tripura. Read on. The Union government has notified rules of a new reservation and domicile policy in the Union Territory of Ladakh in response to protests by political, religious and social groups since 2019. Now only those who have stayed in Ladakh continuously for 15 years, beginning in 2019, will qualify as domiciles. This means that non-native persons living in Ladakh will be considered domiciled only after 2034. Besides, the government also announced an 85% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in government jobs in Ladakh, addressing the fear that non-natives would corner employment opportunities. More than 97% of the population in the Union Territory belongs to Scheduled Tribes. Earlier, only 80% of government jobs were reserved for them. In August 2019, the residents of Ladakh lost exclusive rights to own immovable property and get government jobs in the region. This was an outcome of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government's decision to rescind the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution and divide the state into the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Read on. Actor Kamal Haasan's production house has told the Karnataka High Court that it will not seek to release Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka for now. The production house will hold with the state's Film Chamber of Commerce about the actor's remark that Kannada was 'born out of Tamil', which led to protests from pro-Kannada groups. Haasan on Tuesday refused to apologise, saying he had 'no malice' behind the remarks. However, the judge who heard the case said that his remarks had caused disharmony, and urged him to apologise. The film, directed by Mani Ratnam, is scheduled to be released on June 5. Read on. Active Covid-19 cases in India have risen to 4,026, with five new deaths being reported over the last 24 hours. This marks an increase of 65 active infections since Monday. Two of the deaths were reported in Maharashtra and one each in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Of the five persons who died, four were elderly individuals with pre-existing health conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. The number of active cases has seen a surge since May 22, rising from 257 to more than 4,000. However, the variants leading to the current rise in cases are not severe and are sub variants of Omicron, Director General of Indian Council of Medical Research Rajiv Behl said. Read on.
Scroll.in
13 hours ago
- General
- Scroll.in
Jammu and Kashmir LG dismisses 3 more government employees for alleged links with terror groups
Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha on Tuesday terminated the services of three more government employees for their alleged involvement with Pakistan-based terror groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen, NDTV reported. This takes the number of such terminations since 2020 to 83. The three persons who have been removed are Malik Ishfaq Naseer, a police constable, Ajaz Ahmed, a government school teacher and Waseem Ahmad Khan, a junior assistant at the Government Medical College in Srinagar, according to government orders issued by the general administration department. The government orders announcing the sackings said that the three persons had been dismissed under Article 311 of the Constitution. This provision protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal but allows exceptions on the grounds of national security. Commenting on the terminations, Peoples Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti asked why the Jammu and Kashmir government was watching the development 'completely unmoved like a mute bystander'. 'Since 2019 hundred of employees have been summarily dismissed without even a trial solely based on unproven allegations of so called terror affiliations,' Mufti said. 'While this iron fist approach may create a facade of normalcy genuine sustainable peace can't be achieved by inflicting suffering on people.' In the days leading up to the sacred occasion of Eid three government employees have been terminated over alleged links to terrorism leaving their families in distress. Since 2019 hundred of employees have been summarily dismissed without even a trial solely based on unproven… — Mehbooba Mufti (@MehboobaMufti) June 3, 2025 J&K People's Conference Sajad Lone said that the terminations were unfortunate. 'Time has come to stop this whole practice or retribution,' he said on X. 'This termination concept has been going on for decades. It has not helped in the past. It will not help in the future.' In February as well, Opposition parties had criticised Chief Minister Omar Abdullah for not halting the terminations.
The Hindu
14 hours ago
- General
- The Hindu
Calcutta High Court grants bail to murder accused citing Article 21 of Constitution over trial delay
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to two murder accused undertrials on the ground of right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as they have been incarcerated for more than 12 years. The two — Munna Dhali and Nabu Dhali, along with two others, are accused of murder of four persons in 2012 at Thakurpukur police station area in West Bengal's South 24 Parganas district and have been awaiting completion of trial in the case. "Without touching the merits of the case and solely on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, prayer for bail is allowed," Justice Suvra Ghosh said in the judgement delivered on May 15. While one other accused Rajesh Das was granted bail on similar grounds earlier, other accused Sattar Mondal had been refused bail on the ground of gravity of the offence and earlier rejection of bail. They were accused of murdering their employer Dipak Bhattacharya, owner of a local cable television business, his mother and two maids on September 6, 2012, at their residence at Biren Roy Road under Thakurpukur police station area. All the four accused were arrested on September 9. Justice Ghosh noted that the petitioners Munna Dhali and Nabu Dhali approached the court with a prayer for bail for the first time after being incarcerated for more than 12 years. The Judge also noted that though the prosecution undertook to examine five more witnesses within the next two months from February 24 this year, there has been no further progress in trial since then. Justice Ghosh directed that the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹10,000 each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local. She also directed accused Munna Dhali and Nabu Dhali to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and not to intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.
Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Indian Express
SC using special powers to reverse POCSO verdict shows its moral responsibility
Written by Shashank Maheshwari When Jesus of Nazareth stood before Pontius Pilate and declared that he came into the world to bear witness to the truth, the Roman governor responded with a question that still echoes through history: 'What is truth?' Jesus did not reply. His mission, the silence suggests, was not to define abstract truth but to stand for justice — the justice envisioned in the Kingdom of God. He died for that justice. In today's constitutional context, when the Supreme Court invokes Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the question is not merely, 'What is the law?' but something deeper and more human: 'What is justice?' Article 142 empowers the Court to deliver what the statutes sometimes cannot: 'complete justice.' It is not a routine remedy but a moral trust, invoked when our shared sense of fairness is offended — and this tension was at the centre of the Court's recent ruling in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025). This is a case where the victim was not only abandoned by her family but also neglected by the State and failed by delayed legal action. The case dates back to 2018, when a 14-year-old girl ran away to the house of the accused, who was 25 at the time. The victim's mother filed an FIR and requested the accused to bring her daughter back. The girl returned home a week later, only to go back to the accused's house a year after and begin cohabiting with him. She was completely abandoned by her family thereafter. During this period of cohabitation, a baby girl was born. After a delayed investigation, the accused was arrested under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for committing 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' and under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code — for repeatedly raping the same woman and for raping a woman under 16 years of age, respectively. He was also charged with kidnapping under the Indian Penal Code. The Special Court under POCSO sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment for sexual assault, along with five years for kidnapping. When the case reached the Calcutta High Court, it reversed the conviction, holding that both the victim and the accused were in a 'consensual romantic relationship' and that their actions constituted 'non-exploitative sexual acts.' The High Court also made objectionable remarks, directing female adolescents to control their sexual urges, along with similar directions to boys and girls — prompting the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu proceedings in the matter. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Special Court's judgment, reversing the High Court's decision, and emphasised that consent is irrelevant in cases involving a minor. A committee was appointed to assess the victim's socio-economic situation. Its report revealed her emotional trauma, financial exploitation, and the debt she incurred while supporting the accused. Invoking Article 142, the Court exempted the accused from further punishment to avoid inflicting additional harm on the victim. However, the Court clarified that this ruling is not to be treated as a precedent. Article 142(1) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any pending matter. No other constitution in the world grants such broad discretionary powers to its highest court, except for Bangladesh (Article 104) and Nepal (Article 88(2)). The interpretation of 'complete justice' under Article 142 has evolved significantly — from a restrained approach in Prem Chand Garg (1963), where the Court held it could not override statutes, to a more expansive use in the 1990s. In Union Carbide (1991) and Delhi Judicial Service Association (1991), the Court used Article 142 to bridge legal and executive gaps. Later, in Vishakha (1997), it issued binding guidelines in the absence of legislation. While such interventions helped address urgent injustices, they have also drawn criticism for bypassing constitutional limits. In the recent POCSO case, the Court acted out of deep concern for the victim's dignity and future. Yet it also stepped into executive territory — prescribing care plans, financial support, and directing state-level compliance. These are responsibilities typically expected of welfare departments or social services. Even when done with noble intent, such judicial action can disrupt the delicate balance of powers that underpins constitutional governance. The Supreme Court's intervention in this case was emotionally resonant and morally grounded. But the ruling serves as a reminder that Article 142 is not a blank cheque for good intentions. It is a delicate instrument, one that must be used sparingly — precisely because it enables the judiciary to operate outside statutory bounds. Though the Court explicitly stated that this case shall not be used as precedent, that does not mean similar decisions cannot be made in the future, even without relying on this ruling. This case should also serve as a caution: even justice must pause to reflect on its limits. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, justice is not only about what is right — it is about who decides what is right, and how. The writer teaches at Jindal global law school
