Latest news with #Jaising
Mint
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
‘Highly offensive': Senior advocate slams placement of men's toilet midway along Supreme Court corridor
Senior advocate and renowned human rights lawyer Indira Jaising has triggered a debate on social media by questioning the central placement of the men's toilet within the premises of the Supreme Court of India. She described its location in the court corridor as 'highly offensive to women' and urged the Chief Justice of India to take note. Jaising believes the current positioning of the men's toilet - reportedly located midway along a main corridor - reflects a relic of a time when the legal profession was overwhelmingly male-dominated. 'Oh my God! When will the men's toilet be shifted from the centre of the corridor to the end of the corridors of the Supreme Court? Highly offensive to women. The Chief Justice of India to note,' Jaising wrote, sharing a picture of herself. The image shows her standing in front of a sign that reads "Gents Toilet for Advocates Only", which appears to be located within the premises of the Supreme Court of India. She is dressed in a traditional white saree with a black waistcoat - typical courtroom attire for Indian lawyers - and is seen leaning against the wall with her hand on her forehead, seemingly expressing frustration. Her post has garnered a multitude of responses. Here are some of the reactions: 'Completely agree except the offensive part. It is awkward for every gender, including men. But not offensive.' To this, the senior advocate replied, 'You may be right, but its location suggests it belongs to a time when women were not lawyers in large numbers. Times have changed, and so must the architecture.' 'Apart from everything, how is it offensive to women?' The advocate responded with a pointed remark: 'It is offensive in a hugely public space. The toilet needs to be shifted to the end of the corridor.' 'Best thing I saw today.'
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Indira Jaising raises a stink over Supreme Court men's toilet location: ‘Highly offensive to women'
Senior advocate Indira Jaising has voiced her objection to the location of the men's toilet in the Supreme Court. In a post shared on social media, Jaising suggested that the toilet me moved from the centre of the corridor towards the end as its current location is 'highly offensive to women'. She also asked the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take note of the issue. 'Oh my God! When will the men's toilet be shifted from the center of the corridor to the end of the corridors of the Supreme Court? Highly offensive to women . The Chief Justice of India to note,' Indira Jaising wrote in her post, shared yesterday on the social media platform X. Accompanying the post was a photograph that shows Jaising outside the toilet. A sign above the door reads: 'Gents toilet for advocates only.' In follow-up posts, Jaising explained why the location of the men's toilet in the Supreme Court is offensive. She said that the toilet is located in the centre of the corridor in a 'hugely public space.' She also pointed out that the location of the toilet suggests that it belongs to a time when not many women were lawyers. 'It's location suggests it belongs to a time when women were not lawyers, in large numbers, times have changed and so must the architecture,' said the senior advocate. Indira Jaising is an Indian lawyer and human rights activist well known for her advocacy for gender equality and social justice. This Mumbai-born lawyer became the first woman designated as a Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court in 1986. Her legal career is marked by landmark cases, including representing victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy and advocating for women's rights in cases like Mary Roy's, which secured equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women.
The Hindu
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to examine POCSO clause requiring mandatory reporting of sexual activity
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 24, 2025) agreed to hear concerns flagged by senior advocate Indira Jaising that mandatory reporting of sexual activity, even if a voluntary one, under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) is leading to the criminalisation of the young and poses a threat to the fundamental right to health of adolescent girls. Appearing before a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, Ms. Jaising, who is amicus curiae in the case along with senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, said the age of consent was raised from 16 years to 18 in 2012 with the enactment of the POCSO. This has led to a situation when knowledge of even voluntary sexual activity between juveniles is required to be reported to the police. Also read | Why has the Supreme Court clarified POCSO provisions? 'Counselling and not criminalisation is required in such cases. We do not need to create an army of criminals,' Ms. Jaising submitted. The senior advocate said parents, guardians, and even doctors are being penalised on the ground that they had knowledge but did not report to the police about the sexual activity. 'A doctor to whom a juvenile approaches for medical care has to report the sexual activity to the police even if she says it was voluntary. In such a situation, juveniles would turn to quacks and endanger their health,' Ms. Jaising argued. The court said Ms. Jaising has raised a 'serious and relevant' issue. It scheduled a detailed hearing on May 8. The Bench suggested taking the aid of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, and, if required, the Attorney General of India on the issue. The Legislature had intended the requirement for mandatorily reporting sexual activity under Section 19 of the POCSO to prioritise timely intervention and protection of children.
United News of India
24-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC asks UGC to finalize anti-bias rules amid plea by mothers of Vemula, Payal Tadvi
New Delhi, Apr 24 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to proceed with the finalization and notification of draft regulations aimed at curbing caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions. The bench clarified that these regulations will operate in addition to the recommendations that may emerge from a task force constituted by a coordinate bench of the court to examine the broader issue of student suicides and systemic discrimination. The directions came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom died by suicide following alleged caste discrimination. The PIL calls for systemic reforms and enforcement of accountability in academic institutions. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh heard the matter, with senior advocate Indira Jaising representing the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union government. Indira Jaising passionately argued that while a task force has been formed by another bench, immediate steps are necessary to prevent further tragedies. 'We are concerned about the living, and what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future,' Jaising said, stressing that existing regulations are outdated and lack the necessary clarity on caste-based discrimination. Justice Kant concurred that the petitioners had 'successfully demonstrated' the obsolescence of current frameworks and emphasized that the task force should be supported in crafting comprehensive, forward-looking solutions. However, the courtroom saw moments of tension as Jaising objected to repeated interruptions from SG Mehta, accusing him of displaying a 'male chauvinist attitude' and alleging differential treatment of women advocates. At one point, she attempted to walk out of the courtroom, stating, 'Let my junior counsel argue.' Justice Surya Kant intervened to maintain decorum, urging both parties to remain calm. Jaising later apologized to the bench for raising her voice, while Mehta acknowledged, 'My Lords, it is very difficult to be a judge.' Resuming her arguments, Jaising informed the bench that the coordinate bench had already acknowledged pending matters related to UGC regulations and formed a task force headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge with subject experts. In this context, the current bench issued the following key directions: UGC may proceed with finalization and notification of the draft regulations. The notified regulations shall function alongside recommendations made by the task force, once submitted. The petition, rooted in the tragic loss of two young lives, underscores the urgent need for institutional reform and enforcement of safeguards against caste-based discrimination in academic spaces. The matter remains under judicial consideration. UNI SNG PRS
The Hindu
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC gives green signal for notification of new UGC Regulations to fight campus discrimination
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 24, 2025) did not agree with a plea to stall the finalisation and subsequent notification of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations of 2025 to counter discrimination in higher educational institutions' campuses. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing an application filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising and advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar, to stall the notification of the 2025 Regulations until a National Task Force chaired by former Supreme Court judge, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, formed by the apex court in a judgement on March 24 came out with its comprehensive report on mental health concerns, suicides of students and discrimination faced by them along with recommendations to counter these issues. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to the submission made by Ms. Jaising, saying a meeting to finalise the 2015 Regulations was already underway on April 24 and the process of notifying them must not be stopped. Ms. Jaising said there were still 'grey areas', especially regarding caste discrimination, in the 2025 Regulations. She urged the court to direct stay the notification of the new Regulations till the Task Force recommendations came on board. Until then, Ms. Jaising said, the extant 2012 Regulations could continue to be implemented. The court took the middle path, saying the 2025 Regulations would be notified, but the Task Force's work would not be affected by it. In fact, the Task Force would also consider the 2025 Regulations to spot any lacunae which needed to be addressed. Once the Task Force came out with its recommendations, they would be considered and incorporated into the Regulations, if found necessary. The court gave the petitioners or anyone concerned liberty to approach the court once the Task Force recommendations came out to suggest any additions, deletions or incorporations. 'These Regulations [of 2025] will be notified and it will not affect the work of the Task Force. The Task Force recommendations can be included or the Union government may also come out with appropriate suggestions,' Justice Kant observed. The March 2025 judgement by a Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala was based on an appeal filed by the parents of two deceased students against a January 2024 order of the Delhi High Court which refused to direct the police to register an FIR in connection with the death by the two students. While Ayush Ashna was found dead on July 8, 2023 in his hostel room, Anil Kumar was found dead on September 1, 2023 in his hostel room at IIT Delhi. It was alleged that both the students, who belonged to the Scheduled Castes, were murdered and they had earlier confided in their parents being subjected to caste discrimination. Ms. Jaising said she would make representations on behalf of her clients before the Task Force. Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at Hyderabad Central University, and Payal Tadvi, a tribal student of TN Topiwala National Medical College, died by suicide in January 2016 and May 2019, respectively, after being subject to on-campus caste bias. In February, the Union government had informed the apex court in an affidavit that the new set of Regulations would wipe out discrimination, especially on the basis of religion or caste. The draft Regulations, which were placed on record in the court, would give the University Grants Commission 'teeth and power' to de-recognise non-compliant or misbehaving higher education institutions. The draft Regulations were published in the UGC website for inviting public comments and suggestions. The Regulations described its objective as the eradication of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, place of birth, or caste, particularly against the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions. The Regulations would also allow the UGC to take 'additional punitive actions' on a case-to-case basis. eom
