Latest news with #Article142
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi hails Karnataka's gig workers' welfare ordinance
Bengaluru/New Delhi: Congress MP and opposition leader in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, Thursday lauded the state govt's decision to promulgate an ordinance establishing a social security board for platform-based gig workers, calling it a "historic step" that reflects the party's vision for workers' rights across the country. Referring to slogans he heard during his nationwide march, Rahul, in a post on X, said: "'Rating nahi, haq chaahiye'. 'Insaan hai hum, ghulaam nahi'. These powerful words from gig workers stayed with me during the Bharat Jodo Yatra." He went on to say: "Our Congress govt in Karnataka has taken a historic step by issuing an ordinance that guarantees rights, dignity, and protection to gig workers... These workers bring us food, deliver essentials, and drive us safely — in the heat, cold, and rain." Pointing to exploitative conditions gig workers face, he said: "Yet, they are too often blocked from their apps without explanation, denied sick leave, and paid according to opaque algorithms. We are changing that." Rahul said the new ordinance ensures social security, fair contracts, transparency in algorithmic pay, and an end to arbitrary blocking. "This is how technology should serve people — driving innovation and justice. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Rajasthan showed the way. Karnataka has acted. Telangana is next." In Bengaluru, Karnataka labour minister Santosh Lad expressed gratitude to governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot for swiftly approving the ordinance, and credited Rahul for bringing the issue to the forefront. After leading a delegation of gig workers to felicitate the governor, Lad said: "Today, the vision of our leader Rahul Gandhi has been realised. We thank the governor for passing the ordinance within a day of it being sent to Raj Bhavan. " He said platforms which use services of gig workers to "further their profits" must consider the welfare of these employees "who inhale carbon dioxide day in and day out". "I am not going to blame anyone, but it is important to consider the social security of these workers," he said. However, while praising Gehlot for his prompt action, Lad also criticised Raj Bhavan over delays in approving other bills. "It is only in non-BJP governed states that Raj Bhavans withhold assent for bills," Lad said. "In BJP-governed states such actions are unheard of. Our youngsters need to understand the consequences of such actions, why there is a debate on Article 142 in the country and why courts are intervening in such matters. " The ordinance paves the way for the establishment of a Gig Workers Welfare Board, expected to be a first-of-its-kind step towards regulating platform-based work and providing structured protection to lakhs of delivery partners, drivers, and other on-demand workers in the state.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
‘Legal system failed her': SC spares sentence in POCSO case linked to Calcutta HC's ‘control sexual urges' remark
The Supreme Court on Friday decided not to sentence a man convicted under the POCSO Act, 2012, saying the legal process had caused more harm to the victim than the incident itself. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to do 'complete justice,' to show leniency in the case. The decision was based on a detailed report from a court-appointed expert committee. The judgment came after a suo motu proceeding triggered by controversial remarks made by the Calcutta high court while acquitting a 25-year-old man earlier convicted under the POCSO Act. The high court's comments on adolescent sexuality, saying that girls should 'control their sexual urges,' drew widespread criticism, reported LiveLaw. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal on August 20, 2024, reinstated the conviction, and condemned the high court's language as 'objectionable and unwarranted,' violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The convict, previously found guilty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is now married to the victim, who is an adult, and they live together with their child. 'The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as crime in law the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system, and constant battle to save the accused from punishment,' LiveLaw quoted the Supreme Court bench as saying. 'The facts of this case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacunae in the legal system,' the Supreme Court observed. It added that the victim had been denied the opportunity to make an informed choice due to failures in societal, familial, and legal structures. 'The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her,' the bench remarked. The Supreme Court further recognised the emotional bond the victim has developed with the accused. 'That is the reason we are giving for exercising power under Article 142, not to impose sentence,' Justice Oka said, stressing the unique and deeply personal dynamics of the case. Following the Calcutta high court's suo motu proceedings, the apex court formed a three-member committee, including a clinical psychologist, a social scientist, and a child welfare officer, to provide guidance to the victim and assist her in understanding her rights and options. Based on the committee's confidential report, the Supreme Court determined that sentencing the man would cause further harm to the victim. In earlier hearings, the apex court directed the West Bengal government to ensure access to education for the couple's child and recommended vocational support for the victim after her 10th board exams. Moreover, the top court issued broad directives for nationwide compliance with child protection laws, mandating that the judgment be circulated to all States and Union Territories for review and policy action. The Ministry of Women and Child Development was asked to consider the suggestions made by the SC-appointed amicus curiae and report on further steps.
Mint
23-05-2025
- Mint
‘No sentencing in POSCO case, victim did not see it as crime': Supreme Court delivers ruling using Article 142
Livemint Published 23 May 2025, 01:16 PM IST 'No sentencing in POCSO case; victim did not see it as a crime, living together with accused as a couple' : Supreme Court delivers landmark ruling using its extraordinary powers under Article 142, as reported by NDTV. (This is a breaking news)
India Today
23-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Top court frees man convicted of sex with minor, says she didn't see it as crime
The Supreme Court on Friday used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to set free a man convicted of sharing a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).While the conviction was upheld, the bench ordered no sentencing for the man, now the victim's husband, observing, "What troubles is the issue of sentencing. Victim didn't treat this as heinous crime. Victim couldn't make informed choice. Society judged her, legal system failed her, family abandoned her. She is trying to save her husband."advertisement"The facts of this case highlight lacunae of legal system," the bench further observed, noting that it was not a "legal crime", while saying that the girl had to face an uphill battle with the police and the legal system to save the accused. "It's not the legal crime but the consequences that took a toll on the victim. She had to face battle with police and legal system to save the accused," the bench noted.
Hindustan Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC likely to take up presidential reference next week
The Supreme Court is likely to take up the presidential reference on the timeline for gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills as early as next week, even as an internal debate has emerged over whether the matter must be placed directly before a Constitution bench or if a three-judge bench may first hear it and issue preliminary notices. People familiar with the development said that the court registry has been asked to examine previous Article 143 references to determine if even initial hearings were conducted by benches of at least five judges, or if smaller benches issued notices before the matters were escalated to Constitution benches. One of the people cited above said: 'The case will eventually go to a Constitution bench, and that is settled. The only issue being considered is whether notices to the attorney general, solicitor general, and all states can be issued by a three-judge bench initially, or must it be done solely by a five-judge bench.' This person pointed out that there is a view that since the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 involves a substantial question of law, a five-judge bench must hear the matter from the outset. The procedural dilemma arises even as President Droupadi Murmu, in a rare move invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, has sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 complex legal questions following the court's April 8 judgment that laid down timelines for governors and the President to act on state bills. The reference, filed on May 13, asked the court to clarify whether the President and governors must follow judicially prescribed timelines despite the Constitution being silent on such timeframes, and whether such executive actions are justiciable before the courts prior to a bill becoming law. The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, delivered by a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, for the first time prescribed a deadline of three months for the President to decide on a bill referred by a governor, and held that a governor must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-enacted bills. If a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the President's consideration, the judgment held, this must be done within three months of its presentation. In that case, which involved 10 pending bills from Tamil Nadu, the court went so far as to invoke Article 142 to hold that the governor's inaction was 'illegal' and the bills would be deemed to have received assent. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether such 'deemed assent' is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the President or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the President's discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review. The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. 'This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry's review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,' said another person familiar with the internal discussion. Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court's advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court's opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation. 'The questions go to the heart of Centre-State relations, the federal structure, and the limits of judicial and executive powers,' said a government official familiar with the drafting process. 'This is not just about one judgment, but the architecture of how laws are made and how constitutional roles are performed.' Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the President or governor's discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether. Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.
