Latest news with #BhushanRGavai
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court seeks government's reply on plea against BNS ‘sedition' section
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Centre's response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the offence of sedition punishable under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The 79-year-old petitioner also challenged the provision for endangering sovereignty or integrity by 'use of financial means', which is undefined. (ANI) A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria further directed the petition to be tagged with a pending batch of cases where the validity of the erstwhile section 124A is already under challenge. The petition filed by retired Army officer SG Vombatkere, a Vishisht Seva Medal winner, described the new provision as nothing but a 'repackaged' sedition law, reintroducing section 124A under a new nomenclature. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate PB Suresh along with advocate S Prasanna pointed out that though the language of the new provision has been altered a bit, its substantive content which seeks to criminalise vague and broad categories of speech and expression makes the provision arbitrary and discriminatory, and hence unconstitutional. Incidentally, Vombatkere had challenged the earlier provision of section 124A, and it was on his plea among a batch of petitions, the top court in May 2022 directed all proceedings related to sedition to be kept in abeyance. The petition demonstrated how section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words — in spoken, written, electronic, symbolic, or financial forms — to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion, or subversive activities. It said that such sweeping language fails the test of constitutional validity for being vague and broad and that they could have a 'chilling effect' on free speech. It further questioned the undefined terms such as 'endangering', 'sovereignty', 'unity', and 'integrity' found in the title of the provision that forms the basis for punishing acts ranging from actual incitement to mere expression of critical or dissenting political opinions. 'The title itself prejudges and colours the conduct described in the provision as one that 'endangers' national integrity, without requiring any proof of such actual consequence,' the petition said. Objecting to such legal architecture, the plea said, 'The title invites prosecutorial and police discretion, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory application, especially against dissenters, minorities, journalists, and civil society actors.' The 79-year old petitioner also challenged the provision for endangering sovereignty or integrity by 'use of financial means', which is undefined. 'This may criminalise legitimate financial contributions, fundraising, or donations, even when unrelated to any unlawful act. The catch-all phrase 'or otherwise' renders the scope of the section limitless, in violation of the rule of law,' it added. 'Penal laws must meet the constitutional requirement of clarity and foreseeability. The use of such indeterminate terms violates the principle of legality and has a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech,' Vombatkere said. Similar arguments were raised by petitioners in questioning the continuance of section 124A which made the top court convinced that the validity of the provision needs to be examined. While passing the order to stay all pending trials concerning section 124A, a three-judge bench headed by the then CJI NV Ramana was inclined to refer the matter to a larger bench. This was necessary as the top court in a 1962 judgment in Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar had upheld the validity of sedition offence. However, the Centre told the court that the Parliament is in the process of bringing a new law to replace IPC. Even as the legislative exercise was underway, the batch of petitions came up for hearing from time to time in the top court. On September 12, 2023, a three-judge bench headed by the then CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud referred the matter to a larger bench having a minimum of five judges. The BNS which replaces IPC, came to be enacted by Parliament in December 2023 and was put into effect from July 1, 2024.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC seeks Centre's reply to plea challenging Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the central government on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the offence of sedition punishable under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner also challenged provision for endangering sovereignty or integrity by 'use of financial means' which is undefined. (File photo) A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria further directed the petition to be tagged with a pending batch of cases where validity of section 124A is already under challenge. The petition filed by retired army officer SG Vombatkere described the new provision as a 'repackaged' sedition law, which reintroduces section 124A under a new nomenclature. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate PB Suresh along with advocate S Prasanna pointed out that though the language of the new provision has been altered a bit, its substantive content, which seeks to criminalise vague and broad categories of speech and expression, makes the provision arbitrary and discriminatory, and hence unconstitutional. Also Read:Merely expressing support for Pakistan without naming India not an offence under Section 152 of BNS: Allahabad HC Incidentally, Vombatkere had challenged the earlier provision of Section 124A as well and it was on his plea among a batch of petitions, the top court in May 2022 directed all proceedings related to sedition to be kept in abeyance. The petition demonstrated how Section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words—spoken, written, electronic, symbolic, or financial—to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion, or subversive activities. It said that such sweeping language fails the test of constitutional validity for being vague and broad, and that could have a chilling effect on free speech. It further questioned the undefined terms such as 'endangering', 'sovereignty', 'unity', and 'integrity' found in the title of the provision that forms the basis for punishing acts ranging from actual incitement to mere expression of critical or dissenting political opinions. 'The title itself prejudges and colours the conduct described in the provision as one that 'endangers' national integrity, without requiring any proof of such actual consequence,' the petition said. Objecting to such legal architecture, the petition said, 'The title invites prosecutorial and police discretion, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory application, especially against dissenters, minorities, journalists, and civil society actors.' The 79-year old petitioner also challenged the provision for endangering sovereignty or integrity by 'use of financial means' which is undefined. 'This may criminalise legitimate financial contributions, fundraising, or donations, even when unrelated to any unlawful act. The catch-all phrase 'or otherwise' renders the scope of the section limitless, in violation of the rule of law,' the petition said. 'Penal laws must meet the constitutional requirement of clarity and foreseeability. The use of such indeterminate terms violates the principle of legality and has a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech,' Vombatkere said.
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
'Can't Act Like Crook': Supreme Court Slams ED Over Low Convictions
Last Updated: The bench also raised serious concerns about prolonged incarceration during pending investigations and trials. The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its low conviction rate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The apex court said that the agency 'cannot act like a crook". The remarks by the Supreme Court cam during two different hearings by separate benches of the Supreme Court. The court reviewed matters concerning the legitimacy and execution of the PMLA. Both benches voiced concerns about the Enforcement Directorate's investigative practices, extended timelines, and notably low rate of convictions. In the first case, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai was hearing review petitions challenging its earlier ruling from May 2 in the Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) insolvency case. That ruling had ordered the company's liquidation and rejected the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel. However, the verdict has since been withdrawn, and the review petitions are now being reconsidered. During the hearing, the Enforcement Directorate's handling of the BPSL case came under scrutiny. This led to a tense exchange between the bench—which also included Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran—and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the ED. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Enforcement Directorate by highlighting the agency's financial recoveries. 'Let me tell a fact which was never said before in any court — ED has recovered Rs 23,000 crore and given it to the victims," he stated, stressing that the funds do not remain with the government but are returned to those defrauded. 'In some of the cases where politicians were raided and cash was found, our machines stopped functioning due to the volume of money… we had to bring in new machines," Mehta further defended. CJI, however, mentioned that judges don't decide matters on narratives. 'I don't see news channels. I only read headlines in newspapers for 10 to 15 minutes in the morning," he said. In a second and separate hearing, a three-judge bench comprising justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh said that ED cannot act like a crook. The remarks came while the court was hearing review petitions against the 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case. 'You cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of the law," said the bench. 'There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies. See what I observed in one of the cases….it came true in what a minister said in Parliament. After 5,000 cases, less than 10 convictions… That's why we insist improve your investigation, witnesses…we are talking about liberty of people," the bench. Justice Bhuyan added. The bench also raised serious concerns about prolonged incarceration during pending investigations and trials. Addressing Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the Enforcement Directorate, it remarked, 'We are equally concerned about the image of ED also. At the end of five-six years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this?" Previously, in the Vijay Madanlal ruling, the Supreme Court had upheld several contentious provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). These included the ED's authority to arrest, conduct searches and seizures, impose a reverse burden of proof, withhold the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), and enforce strict bail conditions. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
End ‘inhuman' hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered immediate phasing out of hand-driven rickshaws in Maharashtra's hill town of Matheran within six months, observing that continuation of such an inhuman practice in a developing country like India violates human dignity and betrays the constitutional guarantee of social and economic justice to all citizens. End 'inhuman' hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran: SC Dealing with an issue concerning plying of e-rickshaws in Matheran, one of the few towns in the country where vehicular traffic is prohibited, the top court was informed that to service the transportation needs of about 8 lakh tourists visiting the hill station annually and over 4,000 residents living in the town, hand-driven rickshaws are still in vogue. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai said, 'Continuing such practice even after 78 years of independence and after 75 years of the Constitution being enacted promising social and economic justice to its citizens, would be betraying the promise given by the people of India to themselves.' Granting six months for the state to phase out hand-rickshaw pullers and in the meantime, framing a scheme for their rehabilitation, the court further held, 'We direct the state to forthwith stop plying of hand-held rickshaws in a phased manner and in any case within six months.' The court noted that persons pulling hand-held rickshaws are victims of circumstances who have no alternate source of livelihood and such practices were held to be against the goal of social justice by the top court in a 1980 decision in Azad Rickshaw Pullers union v State of Punjab. 'It is really unfortunate that after 45 years of the decision of this court, the inhuman practice of a human being pulling another human being is still prevalent in the town of Matheran…Permitting such an inhuman practice which is against the basic concept of human dignity in a country like India, which is a developing country, belittles the constitutional promise of social and economic justice,' the bench held. The court was conscious that ending this practice will entail depriving them of their source of livelihood. The court noted that with advancement of technology, e-rickshaws are now available which are eco-friendly and operate on batteries. The court directed the Maharashtra government that while evolving a scheme for rehabilitating the hand-held drivers, the state must consider a novel scheme launched by Gujarat government in Kevadia, where e-rickshaw licenses on hire has been provided to local Adivasi women who ferry tourists visiting the town to witness the Statue of Unity - a massive 600-feet statue of Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, and the Sardar Sarovar dam. The court asked the state to consider giving priority to hand-held rickshaw pullers in getting the licenses for e-rickshaws and also consider tribal women among other needy persons in and around Matheran. The court was assisted in passing the order by senior advocate K Parmeshwar assisting the court as amicus curiae who insisted that only 20 e-rickshaws should be permitted for now. The court further permitted laying of paver blocks on the main city road from Kasturi Naka to Shivaji Statue (4-km long stretch) without any concrete bedding to ensure the roads are motorable by rickshaws, horse carts even during monsoons. The hand-held rickshaw pullers and horse-cart pullers were represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Nina Nariman who took the court through the adverse effects of concreting the roads. However, the court permitted no paver blocks on the internal town roads and the trekking route. The court allowed the state to consider sponsoring the e-rickshaw scheme through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative or any other scheme but clarified that non-availability of funds will not be treated as an excuse for not implementing the scheme. Matheran located in the Western Ghats was declared an eco-sensitive zone by the Centre in 2003 and is home to several species of flora and fauna including the bonnet macaque, Hanuman langur, Malabar giant squirrel, and barking deer among others.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC allows use of Stalin's name in TN schemes, says other govts do it too
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday said naming of welfare schemes after political netas was all pervasive in states and at Centre and ruled that no exception could be taken to Tamil Nadu govt's 'Ungaludan Stalin' scheme, which translates into 'Your's Stalin'. Setting aside Madras HC's July 31 interim order restraining use of names of political personalities in any govt scheme in TN, which goes to polls in April-May next year, a bench of Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria penalised petitioner before the HC, AIADMK MP C Ve Shanmugam, with Rs 10 lakh. Dictating the order in open court after a more than hour-long hearing on appeals filed by DMK and TN govt, CJI Gavai said, "Launching of schemes in the name of political netas is a phenomenon practised throughout the country. The Tamil Nadu govt has submitted a list of 45 welfare schemes (launched by states and Union govt) named after various political netas. We do not wish to name the schemes in order to cause embarrassment to political parties. " While directing the AIADMK MP to deposit Rs 10 lakh within a week with the TN govt for utilisation in welfare schemes for the underprivileged, the CJI said, "Time and again we have observed that political battles are to be fought in the electoral arena. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brigade™ Insignia. 3, 4 & 5 BHK Starting at ₹3.39 Cr* Brigade Group Learn More Undo Courts are not the place to fight political battles." Interestingly, the CJI-led bench withdrew Shanmugam's writ petition before the HC to the SC and dismissed it terming it as "fully misconceived and an abuse of the process of law" for singling out the TN scheme and not challenging similar schemes prevalent in other states and at Centre. It allowed appeals of DMK and TN govt to set aside the HC order. DMK was represented by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson. Rohatgi said SC had permitted use of photographs of the President, PM, CM and cabinet ministers in public advertisements to generate awareness among citizens about welfare schemesand that no political party in office has been immune to this phenomenon. For TN, senior advocate A M Singhvi supported the contentions of the party and said the scheme was meant to set up camps in every nook and corner of the state to enable and facilitate people of TN to avail full benefits of existing welfare schemes. Wilson said the AIADMK MP had approached Election Commission with the same allegation on July 21 for action against DMK and three days later, moved the HC alleging that EC was not taking action. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the AIADMK MP, attempted to convince the court that a conjoint reading of a series of orders passed by SC on the issue took one to the conclusion that no welfare scheme could be named after political netas. After imposing a cost of Rs 10 lakh on Shanmugam, the bench said if the amount was not paid by the MP within a week, he would be liable for contempt of court proceedings.
