Latest news with #Article25
Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
From loudspeaker ban & pothole-free roads to mangrove protection: As Bombay HC judge, Justice Oka's rulings shaped civic, environmental rights
Justice Abhay S Oka of the Supreme Court, set to retire on May 24, served 16 years as a Bombay HC judge (2003–2019), delivering key verdicts on civic issues, laying down directives on civic issues and citizens' rights to better living conditions and environment. His landmark rulings on noise pollution, illegal hoardings, potholes, mangrove protection and Mahul's air quality among others have set precedent for courts and authorities. At a farewell function in Delhi, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai, who has been his colleague for nearly four decades as a lawyer and judge, highlighted Justice Oka's 'distinguished tenure' at Bombay HC, saying his 'contribution to environmental jurisprudence and constitutional values…would leave an indelible imprint.' Noise pollution: Curbs on use of loudspeakers In August 2016, Justice Oka, while ruling on PILs, directed strict enforcement of noise pollution norms. He noted that 'use of loudspeakers (or public address system) is not an essential part of any religion,' and hence not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution that provided the fundamental right to profess, propagate and practice religion. He added that the same right was not available to pandals erected for religious celebrations and other functions on streets or footpaths, 'There is no fundamental right to celebrate religious festivals on streets.' The verdict banned loudspeaker use between 10 pm and 6 am across Maharashtra with certain exceptions and completely restricted horn use in silence zones and during night hours in residential zones. Though the Maharashtra government made allegations against Justice Oka of bias against state machinery and sought case transfer, it later issued an unconditional apology, which the HC accepted. In January 2024, a Bombay HC bench led by Justice A S Gadkari reiterated Justice Oka's 2016 observations and directed graded penalties related to noise pollution complaints by citizens. Action against illegal hoardings, banners In January 2017, a bench led by Justice Oka passed several directives to pull down illegal hoardings and banners and put a responsibility on civic and police officers for removal of illegal hoardings, banners or sky-signs and to register FIR against offenders. 'There is a competition amongst the political parties when it comes to the size of the sky signs displaying photographs of their prominent leaders…It is high time that the political parties and especially their leaders and workers do not adopt arm twisting tactics and take recourse to pressurising the municipal and police office,' the judgment noted. Thereafter, HC last year revived the 2017 PIL and has passed several directions to authorities and political parties to pull down illegal banners and hoardings. Pothole-free roads In February and April 2018, a Justice Oka-led bench at Bombay HC passed a judgment on a suo motu PIL, directing repair of potholes along all major roads in the city and sought uniform mechanism to redress citizens' grievances. He observed that citizens had the right to have good roads and footpaths and no city can become a smart city without them being in better condition. In September 2022, BMC assured another HC bench that it would concretise over 2,000 km of city roads. The court from time to time slammed BMC for its 'slackness' in fulfilling these assurances. Protection of mangroves In September 2018, Justice Oka-led bench held that 'there shall be total freeze on destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire state of Maharashtra.' Justice Oka in his verdict on PIL by Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) noted that 'the mangroves cannot be destroyed by the state for private, commercial or any other use unless the court finds it necessary for the public good. It said such destruction 'offends the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 (Right to life) of the Constitution.' After the 2018 judgment, any public development or infrastructure project involving cutting of mangroves requires the HC's approval. Mahul's air quality A month before his elevation as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, in April 2019, Justice Oka passed an order on a PIL related to projected-affected persons (PAPs) residing in Mahul surrounded by highly polluting industries. He had observed that 'PAPs cannot be forced to take accommodation in polluted areas, where air pollution is life threatening…' He said improper rehabilitation would infringe right of life of the people. Among other key rulings, in 2016, Justice Oka upheld Maharashtra's beef slaughter ban but struck down the prohibition on consuming beef from other states, calling it a violation of privacy under Article 21. In 2019, his bench pushed for a new HC building, leading to the Bandra (East) site being finalised last year.
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Waqf (Amendment) Act SC hearing LIVE: Supreme Court to continue hearing on plea challenging Waqf Act
Countering the Supreme Court's observation that a parliamentary statute like the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, petitioners on Tuesday (May 20, 2025) termed the new law a 'creeping acquisition' of waqf properties owned by the Muslim community, the largest religious minority group in India. Also read: Waqf (Amendment) Act hearing highlights on May 20, 2025 A Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard petitioners for a full day on their plea for an interim order to stay the implementation of the 2025 Act, which came into force on April 8. 'The 2025 amendments are a ruse to capture waqfs. Property can be acquired by the government through a legislative diktat, that too without payment of compensation, which is usual in cases of acquisition. These amendments directly encroach on a minority community's rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion),' senior advocate Kapil Sibal said. Also read: Will the Waqf law usher in transparency? Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that this 'super-imposing' of ancient monument laws on religious waqfs would have a ripple effect on the protection given to them under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Mr. Singhvi alleged that the government's claim of a 116% 'explosion' in waqf properties from 2013 to 2024 was intended to prejudice the court. The Centre defended the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court, saying waqf by its very nature is a 'secular concept' and can't be stayed given 'presumption of constitutionality' in its favour.
Express Tribune
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'Judge's consent needed for transfer'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined the procedure for transferring judges in India, noting that unlike the neighboring country, Pakistan's Constitution requires a high court judge's consent before they can be transferred to another high court. A five-member constitutional bench (CB) led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar resumed hearing multiple petitions challenging the transfer of three judges from provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), as well as the subsequent change in the IHC judges' seniority list. During the proceedings, Hamid Khan, representing the Lahore High Court Bar, continued his arguments, stating that several legal aspects of judges' transfers from high courts need thorough consideration. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that in India, judges' consent is not required for transfers, and such decisions are made in consultation with the chief justice of the high court of that state. "In our system, however, obtaining a judge's consent for transfer is a constitutional requirement," he noted. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that India follows a unified cadre system for high court judges, while Pakistan does not have a similar system for seniority. Justice Shakeel Ahmed added that in India, the seniority list for high court judges is uniform. Hamid Khan argued that in India, consultation with the chief justice is mandatory prior to any transfer. He said consent is essential when transferring judges and that, under Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, consultation is required before a transfer or new appointment. "The selection of judges for transfer must be based on merit and that the executive branch should not hold the authority to nominate judges for transfer. This power should rest solely with the chief justice," he asserted. Hamid Khan pointed out that instead of transferring judges to the IHC, new appointments are often made. "In a recent case, the IHC acting chief justice was consulted regarding the transfer of a judge from Balochistan, but the advice for transfers was not approved by the Cabinet," he added. Idrees Ashraf Advocate, representing PTI founder Imran Khan also presented his arguments. He stated that the transfer notification did not mention the tenure of the transferred judges and claimed that such transfers could lead to discrimination among judges within the same high court. Justice Mazhar asked the counsel if Article 25, which ensures equality before the law, should be considered in the process of judges' transfers. He also inquired whether the counsel would be satisfied if the transfer tenure was fixed at two years, noting that the core issue remains the matter of seniority. The court later adjourned the hearing until 9:30 am today (Wednesday).
The Hindu
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court asks about presumption of constitutionality of Waqf Act 2025, petitioners say it is a ‘creeping acquisition' of waqf assets
The Supreme Court's observation on Tuesday (May 20, 2025) that a parliamentary statute like the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 enjoyed a presumption of constitutionality was countered by petitioners, who termed the new law to be a 'creeping acquisition' of waqf properties owned by Muslim community, the largest religious minority group in India. A Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard petitioners for a full day on the question of passing an interim order of stay on the implementation of the 2025 Act, which came into force on April 8. Waqf (Amendment) Act hearing highlights: May 20, 2025 'Today, you [petitioners] are only arguing for interim relief. The presumption in favour of a parliamentary law is that of constitutionality,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the lead counsel for the petitioner side. Mr. Sibal said a presumption of constitutionality was rebuttable if a prima facie breach was shown. The court could intervene and stay the law in public interest if its execution caused irreparable injury. 'The 2025 amendments are a ruse to capture waqfs. Property can be acquired by the government through a legislative diktat, that too without payment of compensation, which is usual in cases of acquisition. These amendments directly encroach on a minority community's rights under Article 25 [freedom of religion],' he submitted. He noted how Section 3C of the 2025 Act gave free rein to any encroacher to start a dispute. The inquiry into the dispute would be conducted by a designated officer, who is a government servant or an 'agent of the government'. There is no time line or procedure prescribed for the inquiry in the Act. A dispute over even a fragment of the land would freeze the waqf status of the entire property. 'This means existing uses of the property, whether it be for schools, hospitals, burial, community centres, etc, would have to immediately cease. There is also no restriction on demolition or on the government creating irreversible third-party rights in such properties during the inquiry period . The government can unilaterally deem a property as non-waqf,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The senior lawyer referred to the 'subordination' of Muslim members in waqf administrative bodies by including non-Muslims in them. He said no other religious endowments, Hindu or Sikh, allowed room to members of other faiths to run their temples or gurudwaras. Mr. Sibal pointed out that a waqf property, once declared a protected monument or area under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, would become void as a waqf under Section 3D of the 2025 Act. 'The purpose of the 1904 and 1958 Acts is preservation and not extinguishment or alteration of title. As such, the declaration of property as an ancient monument cannot extinguish its identity or character… Article 25 and 26 [freedom to manage religious affairs] protections for religious practices and institutions can coexist with heritage preservation statutes… There are many examples of sites which have historically been both waqf and protected as ancient or archaeological monuments… The 2025 amendments pave way for waqfs to lose their character with retrospective effect. Section 3D is patently expropriatory,' Mr. Sibal argued. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that this 'super-imposing' of ancient monuments laws on religious waqfs would have a ripple effect on the protection given to them under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. He submitted that many of these age-old waqfs were unregistered waqf-by-user. The 2025 Act has effectively invalidated unregistered waqf–by-users. Mr. Singhvi submitted that 50% of the waqfs of over eight lakh were unregistered. The new law has barred any unregistered waqf-by-user from approaching court. Many of the age-old waqfs have no documents or deeds to support their identity though they have been used for charitable and religious purposes for centuries. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan submitted that beliefs, practices and property that sustain these beliefs and practices form the bulwark of religions. 'Take these away, the entire edifice of secularism will become suspect,' he said. The petitioners said Section 3E, which stated that no land belonging to members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Vth or VIth Schedule of the Constitution would be declared or deemed to be waqf property, was discriminatory. Mr. Sibal challenged the requirement under Section 3(r) of the 2025 Act that a waqf could only be created by 'any person showing or demonstrating that he is practising Islam for at least five years'. 'Are there any ascertainable distinctions which would make me a Muslim? That I do not drink liquor or perform namaz five times a day…' senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi asked the court. Mr. Singhvi said 'asking proof of one's faith was discrimination on the ground of religion'. 'The five-year period is arbitrary and imposes a condition that effectively suspends the ability of Muslims to exercise their fundamental rights in a manner of their choosing. It is a new and arbitrary threshold,' Mr. Sibal submitted. Mr. Singhvi countered that the government's claim of a 116% 'explosion' in waqf properties from 2013 to 2024 was intended to prejudice the court. 'This data sourced from the Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) portal is not indicative of how many waqfs existed in 2013. Similarly, the data is not proof of when a particular waqf has come into existence or was registered. The only inference that can be made from the data post 2013 is that the details of the waqfs were uploaded or updated. In any case, an improved compliance with registration does not mean land-grabbing,' he said. The Centre is expected to begin its counter-arguments on May 21.
Business Recorder
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Khar condemns India's actions, praises role of Pakistan armed forces
ISLAMABAD: Hina Rabbani Khar, the former foreign minister on Tuesday said that recent incidents between the two nuclear-armed neighbours should not be a cause for celebration, noting that 'celebrating how one nuclear power challenges another without regard for capability or consequence is deeply irresponsible.' Speaking over the recent tension between India and Pakistan, she condemned India's actions in recent regional military tensions and warning against what she described as a growing disregard for international law and norms. She recalled the 2019 crisis following India's air strikes inside Pakistani territory, a move she described as 'reckless escalation.' She accused India of repeatedly crossing red lines during that episode, while Pakistan, she said, 'demonstrated restraint' despite what she called a 'fever of extremism' gripping Indian leadership at the time. 'All of Pakistan stood united in the face of that aggression,' Khar said, stressing that India misread Pakistan's restraint as weakness – a miscalculation, she warned, that could have led to catastrophic consequences. Turning to more recent developments, Khar took aim at the global community's response to Indian actions, challenging narratives that framed India's behaviour as self-defence. 'What new metrics are being applied,' she asked. 'Have we abandoned the UN Charter and the rule of law? Are we no longer signatories to Article 25, which obliges all nations to follow UN Security Council resolutions,' she questioned. She criticised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's unilateral declarations regarding Kashmir, asking whether the world was expected to 'pay homage' to such claims while turning a blind eye to long-standing international resolutions on the disputed region. Citing US President Donald Trump's acknowledgement of Kashmir as a disputed territory, Khar argued that the Indian narrative had begun to unravel. 'The illusion of India's conventional and military supremacy has been broken – not by Pakistan, but by Modi's own extremist policies,' she declared. According to Khar, the belief that India could serve as a regional security provider has been undermined by its inability to secure its own borders during confrontations with Pakistan. 'Pakistan proved its capabilities through both defensive and calibrated offensive responses,' she asserted. Khar argued that Pakistan's military professionalism and operational competence had been underestimated. 'We don't just possess technologically advanced weapons – we train to use them better,' she said, claiming that Pakistan had altered global perceptions of power in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific strategy. On the broader issue of terrorism, Khar accused India of weaponising the narrative. 'If terrorism takes place in India, it invokes self-defence. If it happens in Pakistan, what are we expected to do? Remain silent?' she asked, warning of the dangerous precedents being set. She questioned whether Pakistan would have been justified in retaliating militarily when it traced Indian involvement in past terror incidents like the Jaffar Express attack. Khar argued that India's attempts to detach itself diplomatically from Pakistan – a strategy pursued over the last 15 years – had failed. 'By provoking Pakistan into conflict, they re-hyphenated themselves with us in the eyes of the world,' she said. 'India has shown itself to be the irresponsible nuclear actor in the region, not Pakistan.' Criticising India's perceived attempts to reshape regional realities through rhetoric and force, she said, 'Calling a dispute resolved does not resolve it.' She welcomed President Trump's offer to mediate on Kashmir and noted that when he and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio advocated for a ceasefire, they were quickly accused of dishonesty by Indian voices. 'The real theatrics,' she said, 'have been visible in broad daylight – from Indian political rhetoric to the implosion of its media and societal narratives.' Khar concluded by stating that Pakistan would remain unapologetic in defending its sovereignty and would continue to celebrate the restoration of peace, including the role played by international partners in achieving a ceasefire. Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Tariq Fazal Chaudhry, Abdul Qadir Patel and other lawmakers belonging to all political parties hailed national unity in recent tensions with India, claiming military success, including the downing of five Indian aircraft. At the onset of the session, the lawmakers clashed over proposed legislation aimed at enhancing oversight of the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) and budgetary processes. PPP's Agha Rafiullah introduced the PSDP Oversight Bill, seeking transparent fund allocation and timely project completion, which was opposed by the government, terming it unnecessary. Naveed Qamar, another PPP MNA, insisted that PDSP must be discussed in the standing committee like the finance bill, and warned, 'If this attitude persists, the tables could turn.' Minister Food Security Rana Tanveer Hussain dismissed the bill, insisting the planning minister could be summoned as needed and existing committees were sufficient. A separate proposal by Rana Iradat Sharif Khan to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office met similar resistance. The parliamentary secretary for finance, Saad Waseem Chaudhry, argued it would duplicate existing parliamentary functions. The House also passed two private members' bills—the International Examination Board Bill, 2024 and the Ghurki Institute of Science and Technology Bill, 2024—with majority support. Both bills had previously been reviewed and cleared by the relevant parliamentary committees. The legislation was approved clause by clause during the session. The day, reserved for private members' business, also saw a flurry of new legislative bills introduced across diverse sectors. These included the Elections Amendment Bill, 2025, the Trade Organizations Amendment Bill, 2025, the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill, and the Islamabad Capital Territory Senior Citizens Amendment Bill, 2025. Other proposed amendments addressed narcotics control, labour laws, civil service regulations, and trade development, including the Control of Narcotic Substances Amendment Bill, 2015, the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill, 2025, and the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan Amendment Bill. Multiple bills focused on higher education, including the Al Musaddiq Institute of Higher Education Bill, Rawal International University Islamabad Bill, and the Wah Institute of Modern Sciences, Wah Cantt Bill. Additionally, the Pakistan General Cosmetics (Repeal) Bill was introduced, signalling a possible regulatory shift in the cosmetics sector. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
