Latest news with #JusticeKant
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Vijay Shah remark row: Supreme Court raps M.P. Minister over public apology
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) pulled up Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah for not issuing public apology over his remarks against Indian Army officer Col. Sofiya Qureshi., an Army officer who briefed the media during the Operation Sindhoor., saying he is testing the court's patience. A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the conduct of the Minister was making the court doubt his intentions and bona fide. Senior advocate K. Parmeshwar, appearing for Mr. Shah, said he had issued a public apology, which was online, and would be placed on court's record. The court also asked the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to complete the probe against the M.P. Minister by August 13, and submit a report. An FIR was filed against Mr. Shah late on May 14 for allegedly calling Colonel Qureshi 'sister of the terrorists' of Pahalgam attack, after the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter. In the May 19 hearing, Justice Kant had remarked that the Minister's comments amounted to 'crass, thoughtless remarks'. The court said there was no point apologising to the court merely to 'wriggle out of a situation'. 'Instead of leading by example, you, a public figure and a politician of experience, do this most unfortunate thing… The sentiments of the people were ruthlessly hurt by your comments. You should have done or said something to convey your sincere regret,' Justice Kant had addressed Mr. Shah's side in court. (With inputs from PTI)
Indian Express
24-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
‘Right of society to watch or not watch a movie,' says SC while hearing petitions challenging release of ‘Udaipur Files'
The Supreme Court Thursday said 'it is the right of the society to watch or not watch' a movie and that it will only lead to complications if every creative work is sought to be connected or identified with someone or something. Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench which took up pleas for and against allowing release of the film, Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder, said that what happens in society becomes a theme for the film industry, fiction writers, artists, etc. The two-judge bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, told the counsel for petitioners opposing the film's release, 'Your right can also be safeguarded by permitting people to watch a movie of their choice. You have a right to challenge a revisional decision.' The court's reference was to the July 21 order by a Centre-appointed committee, given after reviewing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the film. Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, gives the Centre revision powers over the decisions of the CBFC. The committee was set up following a direction by the Delhi High Court. Hearing a plea by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, the high court had stayed the release of the film till the Centre took a call. The Supreme Court is also seized of a petition by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case, on which the film is based. The committee report recommended that the filmmakers 'replace the existing disclaimer with the provided recommended disclaimer' and include a voice-over for the disclaimer; remove the frames in the credits that thank various individuals; replace all instances of the name 'Nutan Sharma', including on the poster, with a new name, besides directing the removal of some dialogues. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the report. He said the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution 'has to be religion neutral and cannot be selective'. Agreeing with Mehta that it should not be selective, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, said that it is 'not so' in this case. He questioned the composition of the committee but Justice Kant said they must have been duly nominated and added that their appointment by itself is not under challenge. Justice Bagchi said, 'Government can always have an advisory panel; they are seeing an artistic work.' Sibal urged the court to watch the film. He added that there is a judgment by former chief justice Sanjiv Khanna that free speech cannot be hate speech. Sibal said, 'Everything in this movie spews venom about a community. There is nothing else in the movie.' Appearing for the accused Javed, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy said allowing the film's release would jeopardise his right to a fair trial. But Justice Kant said, 'Do not underestimate our judicial officers. People sometimes get unnecessarily hyper and apprehensive that the judicial officer or judges are influenced by these things. We will not be able to hold the court single day, if we are affected by these blackmailers… making sarcastic comments only because they are heavily bribed (for making the comments)… it is part of the judicial training of our officers… a judicial officer is duty bound that he or she has to decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence and material on record.' He further said, 'See the predicament of the judges. If they acquit someone, some part of the society will make allegations; if they convict, the other part will. The judiciary should remain unaffected by all this nonsense… Most of us don't read newspapers in the morning. We don't care about it. Why should we?' Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for the filmmakers, said all the recommended changes have been made and the movie must now be allowed to be released. 'The movie in totality will not even have the real portrayal as wanted by the Director, but we are still okay with it…' he said, adding, 'I am a law-abiding citizen. I have waited for 10 days. My investment is at stake.' The court said it will hear the case again on Friday, when it will decide whether it should ask those objecting to go back to the high court and seek relief there.
United News of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC ashamed over rising crimes against women; Seeks concrete solutions beyond symbolism
New Delhi, July 22 (UNI) Expressing deep anguish over the rising incidents of brutal violence against women, the Supreme Court today remarked that it feels "ashamed" to hear frequent cases of assaults, including recent incidents where women were burnt alive. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association seeking Pan-India Safety Guidelines to protect women, alongside reforms including mandatory chemical castration of sexual offenders upon arrest, immediate polygraph tests, life imprisonment, and permanent castration in cases of heinous rape and murder. The petition also demanded setting up a National Sex Offenders Registry accessible to all women. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted that only two days ago, a girl was burnt alive. Justice Kant responded, 'We are equally concerned… so many voiceless people in remote areas suffer. Wide publicity may not work out for them. Let's accept these ground realities.' The Court, however, adjourned the matter to Thursday after noting that the Union Government's counter-affidavit was not on record. It urged Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to treat the issue not as adversarial litigation but as a collective challenge requiring both long-term and short-term solutions. Justice Kant observed, 'Just examine possible solutions… comprehensive directions that can create real impact. Only when tragedy strikes do we wake up. This is what is inherently wrong in the system.' He suggested appointing educated villagers as paralegal workers to bridge justice accessibility gaps, especially when ASG Bhati informed the Court about existing One Stop Centres in every district. Justice Kant proposed that women elected as sarpanch under Panchayat reservation could also be empowered to act as paralegal workers. The petition invoked the doctrine of parens patriae for the Court to safeguard the fundamental rights of women, children, and the third gender. It stated that despite stringent laws after the JS Verma Committee recommendations in 2013, heinous cases like Unnao, Kathua, and Hathras continue to occur due to police and administrative apathy, corruption, and lack of implementation. 'Parliament has passed strict laws but without effective and timely implementation, criminals have no fear,' the plea said, urging the Court to issue strict, time-bound guidelines to prevent such crimes. UNI SNG RN
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Ashoka prof Mahmudabad can return to social media, SC raps SIT on probe
The Supreme Court on Wednesday relaxed Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad's bail conditions, allowing him to resume writing online posts or articles, except on topics related to the subjudice case, reported PTI. He was arrested by the Haryana Police on May 18 after two First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed in connection with his posts on the Indian Army's 'Operation Sindoor'. The top court granted him bail on May 21. A SC bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, on Wednesday, said, 'He is free to express any opinion except on the sub-judice case.' The bench also raised concerns over the direction of the investigation being carried out by the Haryana Police's Special Investigation Team (SIT), stating that it had 'misdirected itself' in its handling of the case. It further directed the SIT it to restrict its inquiry to the two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against Mahmudabad over his social media posts on Operation Sindoor. 'We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,' Justice Kant said, as quoted by LiveLaw. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, told the court that the SIT seized his devices and also enquired about foreign trips for the last ten years, LiveLaw reported. Court questions seizure of personal devices The bench noted that there was no justification for seizing the professor's electronic devices as part of the investigation. 'We just want to know from what purpose they have seized devices? We will call them (officers),' Justice Kant said. It also added that since Mahmudabad was cooperating with the investigation, 'there was no need to summon him again.' 'You don't require him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary,' Justice Kant observed. It further directed the SIT to examine whether an offence had been made out under the FIRs and submit a report within four weeks. Mahmudabad's social media posts: Background Mahmudabad was held for making alleged derogatory remarks toward the Indian Army and two women officers — Colonel Sofia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh — who appeared at media briefings on 'Operation Sindoor'. In his post, he described the appearance of two women officers at a press briefing as mere 'optics' and 'just hypocrisy'. The remarks drew strong backlash and were seen as disrespectful towards women in uniform. Shortly after, the Haryana Women's Commission took suo motu cognisance, and a BJP Yuva Morcha leader filed a complaint against him.
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
‘Disturbing': SC asks YouTubers who joked about disabled to attend next hearing too
THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday reiterated its call for framing guidelines for social media users, balancing freedom of speech and expression with rights and duties. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this as it heard a plea by M/s SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Cure Foundation accusing YouTubers Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar of cracking insensitive jokes on persons with disabilities (PwDs). Complying with the court's direction during the last hearing, the five appeared before the Bench Tuesday. The Supreme Court gave them two weeks to file a counter-affidavit and directed all except Sonali Thakkar to appear again before the bench on the next date of hearing. Thakkar has been allowed to appear online. 'Respondents number 6-10 are present in court in compliance with our order. Their counsel seeks and is granted two weeks to file counter-affidavit… No further time shall be granted… Respondents 6-8 and 10 shall remain present in person on the next date as well. Any absence shall be viewed seriously. Respondent No.9 (Sonali Thakkar) is permitted to appear online,' the bench said in its order. Justice Kant said, 'Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined. (SMA Cure) Foundation has raised serious issues. Something very disturbing.' The court is also seized of two other petitions by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for clubbing of FIRs lodged against them in connection with allegedly objectionable remarks made on 'India's Got Latent' show. In May, the court while hearing Allahabadia's plea to club the FIRs against him had flagged the need to put regulations in place for social media use. It also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter. On Tuesday, the Attorney General sought more time to assist the court. He said the question of their enforceability will have to be considered at length. Allowing the request, Justice Kant said, 'We would like to test the guidelines… You have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts — where the limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start… We would like to invite open debate on that… Members of Bar, stakeholders and all so-called stakeholders, all invited.' He sought to stress that Article 21, which deals with the right to life and liberty, would prevail over Article 19, which deals with freedom of speech and expression. 'Right to dignity also emanates from the right which someone else is claiming… Article 19 can't overpower Article 21… Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place,' said Justice Kant. He also pointed to the need to ensure that the guidelines are not misused. 'What we are doing is for posterity. What we do should not be misused by anyone, you have to ensure that too. There has to be a balance. We have to protect citizens' rights,' Justice Kant remarked. Apology before NCW YouTuber Samay Raina appeared before the National Commission for Women (NCW) on Tuesday and submitted a written apology over remarks deemed disrespectful to women in his show 'India's Got Latent'. The NCW summoned Raina over objectionable content in the programme aired on an online platform. During the hearing before NCW chairperson Vijay Rahatkar, Raina expressed regret for his comments and assured the Commission that he would avoid such statements in the future, according to a statement. He also agreed to create content that upholds the dignity of women and spreads awareness about their rights and respect, the NCW statement said.
