Latest news with #Gavai-led
Indian Express
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court issues notice to Centre and states on petition challenging Waqf Act, 1995
The Supreme Court Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and states on a petition challenging the Waqf Act, 1995. A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih issued the notice on the plea by Delhi resident Nikhil Upadhyay, and tagged it with a similar petition by Advocate Hari Shankar Jain and another person. Hearing writ petitions challenging the recent amendments made to the Waqf Act, the bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Masih had earlier asked why the 1995 Act is being challenged now after so many years. While Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for petitioner Hari Shankar Jain, tried to explain that the petitioners had challenged the 1995 Act before the SC much earlier, and were asked to approach the High Courts, the bench was not convinced. On Tuesday, too, the bench asked Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay why it should take up petitions challenging the 1995 Act now. Upadhyay pointed out that the bench of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan — which had heard the Waqf (Amendment) 2025 matters before the CJI Gavai-led bench took over following former CJI Khanna's retirement — already agreed to hear the challenge to the 1995 Act separately and allowed those who had challenged the 2025 amendments to file their response to it. Upadhyay also referred to the April 17, 2025, order of the CJI Khanna-led bench, which said, 'the writ petitions challenging the 1995 Waqf Act and the amendments made therein in 2013, including W.P. (C) No. 353/2025 'Hari Shankar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.' and W.P. (C) Diary No. 19103/2025 titled 'Parul Khera v. Union of India and ors.', shall be separately shown in the cause list. The April 17 order added, 'As a special case, liberty is granted to the petitioners, who have filed writ petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, to file their response to the said writ petitions.' Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said Tuesday the court has not allowed a hearing on the challenge to the 1995 Act along with the petitions challenging the 2025 Amendment. Bhati, however, added there is no objection if Upadhyay's petition is tagged with the other petition by Jain challenging the 1995 Act.
Hindustan Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's remarks on judiciary next week
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition seeking contempt of court action against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey for his controversial comments on the apex court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). A bench headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai, who is in line to be the next CJI, directed the petition to be listed next week after advocate Narendra Mishra mentioned the case. Advocate Mishra said that while letters are pending with Attorney General for seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt against Dubey, no action was forthcoming even as the statements against the CJI and the top court were getting widely circulated. Incidentally, Mishra had approached the justice Gavai-led bench on Monday with the same request when he was asked to approach AG for consent. Two lawyers — Anas Tanwir and Shiv Kumar Tripathi — had sought AG's consent on Saturday soon after Dubey made the comments while speaking to news agencies. For filing any petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the Supreme Court, Section 15(1)(b) of the 1971 Act along with the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 or the 1975 Rules require prior consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. The relevant rule - Rule 3(c) of the 1975 Rules provides that either the court can take it up suo motu or a petition can be maintained directly by the AG or SG or by a private person after taking AG/SG consent. Dubey on Saturday triggered a row, saying, 'CJI Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country' and that 'the Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy'. His outrage was directed against the apex court's April 8 decision in a petition filed by Tamil Nadu government against the action of TN Governor RN Ravi to refer 10 bills for Presidental assent after it was re-validated by the legislature for a second time. The top court found the governor's action to be unconstitutional and set timelines asking the Governor to decide on bills within three months. The court also ordered that if bills are referred to President for assent, the same should be decided by the latter in three months. Dubey cited Article 368 of the Constitution and said that law-making is the job of Parliament while the Supreme Court is only meant to interpret laws. Dubey also cast aspersion on the impartiality of the judiciary by questioning the court's critical observations on the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act's dilution of the 'Waqf by user' provision. Advocate Mishra said, 'The comments (of Dubey) are hurting the court, and the government is not taking any action. The video is viral all over the country and there is no action on the letters written to Attorney General. Mishra also sought orders directing the removal of videos of Dubey's comments from social media platforms. Advocate Tanwir alleged that Dubey's remarks were 'grossly scandalous', 'misleading' and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the court. He said, 'These remarks are not only factually incorrect but are also intended to scandalise the Supreme Court, erode public trust, and incite communal distrust in judiciary's impartiality, all of which clearly fall within the meaning of criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.' Soon after Dubey's remarks courted controversy, BJP president JP Nadda distanced himself from the comments and warned the Jharkhand MP from further making such statements. Earlier, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar had described Article 142 of the Constitution – which gives Supreme Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice – as a 'nuclear weapon' used by the judiciary against democratic forces. He also criticised the top court for acting as 'super Parliament' for its directions in the TN case.
