Latest news with #LiveLaw
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Supreme Court says it feels 'ashamed' over rising crimes against women
The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday said it feels "ashamed" seeing so many cases of violence against women, reported LiveLaw. The oral observation was made by Justices Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, calling for stronger implementation of laws meant to protect women from sexual offences, the report added. While addressing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati during the hearing, Justice Kant said, Justice Kant said: "Just examine possible solutions-which are comprehensive directions which can be effectively issued to make sure the impact we want to leave should be many voiceless people in remote areas, see what we can could for them. Wide publicity may not work out for them, let's accept these ground realities. what is the modicum for them?" He also suggested that educated people could be trained as paralegal workers to help those with limited access to justice. He said that since women are now elected as sarpanch under panchayat reservations, they could take up these roles as well, according to LiveLaw. He also said that it is only after a tragedy occurs that efforts are made to find solutions. "This is what is inherently wrong in the system", he added, as quoted by LiveLaw. What does the petition demand? The petition seeks a set of 'Pan-India Safety Guidelines, Reforms and Measures for Protection of Women', according to LiveLaw. "It is also urged that every convict u/s 376 IPC and Section 63 BNS, 2023 shall be punished with life imprisonment and permanent castration in cases of horrendous rape and murder of female and child victims," it demanded, It also sought the creation of a National Sex Offenders Registry that should be accessible online to all women, enabling them to identify repeat sexual offenders and take necessary precautions. It also urged the Court to apply the parens patriae doctrine to protect the fundamental rights of women, children, and the third gender, particularly their right to safety and a secure environment. It claimed that offenders in such cases have no fear because of the corruption, apathy, and lack of commitment among police and administrative bodies, because of which the laws are not implemented effectively. The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on July 29.
Scroll.in
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC issues notice to Centre, states on president's reference about timelines for assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all state governments on the reference made to it by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures, Live Law reported. The notice was issued by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. The matter concerning the appearances of the respondents will be heard on July 29. 'Tentatively, we propose to start [the hearing] somewhere in mid-August,' The Indian Express quoted Gavai as saying. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In light of the reference, the court will have to set up a Constitution bench to provide answers. The ruling on April 8 had come on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. In its judgement, the court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, it said that the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both sections outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgement had also introduced the concept of ' deemed assent ' in cases of prolonged inaction by the governor or president, allowing pending bills to be considered approved, Bar and Bench reported. Referencing the 14 questions, Murmu had asked whether the actions of governors and the president could be tried in court, and whether such timelines could be imposed on them in the absence of such provision in law.
Scroll.in
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to examine order mandating eateries along Kanwar Yatra route to display owner's identity
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to examine the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with their owners' identities, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh disposed of the interlocutory applications filed against the directives. But it said that the eateries must display their licences and registration certificates as required by law. 'We are told that today is the last day of the yatra,' Live Law quoted the bench as saying on Tuesday. 'In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage, we would only pass an order that all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements.' During the Kanwar Yatra, devotees, called Kanwariyas, walk hundreds of kilometres to collect water from the Ganga near Haridwar and carry it back to their home states to offer at temples. The devotees mainly come from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. This year's Kanwar Yatra started on July 11. The applications in the court were moved in the writ petitions filed in 2024 against directions to display the names of owners and staff, Live Law reported. The applications were filed by Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand and activist Aakar Patel. Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and the Association of Protection of Civil Rights were the other petitioners, Live Law reported. The applications argued that the mandate violated the 2024 interim order of court that prohibited forcing vendors to disclose their identities. The QR codes, now being made mandatory for food stalls and eateries along the pilgrimage route, would enable pilgrims and others to access personal details of business owners, said the applications. It contended that this not only undermines the spirit of the court's stay but also risks discriminatory profiling, particularly of vendors from minority communities, under the guise of public safety and licencing requirements. The applications claimed that the governments' orders violate the fundamental right to privacy and dignity. It pointed out that while vendors are legally required to display licences, those are meant to be posted inside their premises, not put up prominently outside or through public QR codes. During the proceedings on Tuesday, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, said that the authorities should have sought the modification of the 2024 order before issuing the directives on the QR code, Live Law reported. Singhvi also asked how the surname of an owner of an eatery was supposed to ensure good service, adding that the only intent was 'to cause religious profiling'. He asked how the identity of a person could be deemed offensive. The advocate also referred to reports about shops being allegedly attacked, adding: 'When you sow the seeds of divisiveness, the rest is taken care of by the populace.' The governments' directives were unconstitutional as they created divisiveness based on identity and violated the fundamental right to trade, he argued, adding that it was also a 'direct assault' on the principle of secularism, Live Law reported. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, said that the directions were issued as per the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Rohatgi also claimed that a few dhabas that used to sell meat were misrepresenting themselves by saying that they were selling only vegetarian food. This had offended the sentiments of devotees, he claimed. However, advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, noted that the eateries could only sell vegetarian items as per the local regulations during this period. But the court said that a customer should know if a place was exclusively selling vegetarian items throughout. 'If a hotel is running as a vegetarian hotel all through, then the question of indicating names and other things will not arise,' Live Law quoted Sundresh as saying. 'But if only for the purpose of yatra, somebody stops serving non-veg and starts selling veg, the consumer should know.' Ahmadi also asked what was the necessity of revealing the identities of the owners and the staff, adding that the mandate for the disclosure of the names was to understand the religious identity. 'What happens on the ground this sort of a message religion is to be considered as a factor, this is promoting untouchability through the backdoor,' Live Law quoted Ahmadi as saying. Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi, representing the Uttarakhand government defending the directions issued by the state. Another counsel for the state government claimed that that the real problem was dhabas named 'Shiva Dhaba' or 'Parvati Dhaba' being run by Muslim. 'Please, don't embarrass us like this,' the bench said without entertaining the submission.
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Supreme Court's BIG order in custodial torture case in J&K: Orders ₹50 Lakh compensation, CBI probe
The Supreme Court on 21 July ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the alleged torture of a police constable at a Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) in Jammu and Kashmir's Kupwara in 2023. The top Court also directed immediate arrest of the officers of the J&K police who were responsible for the abuse and ordered the Union Territory administration to pay a compensation of ₹ 50,00,000 to the victim as restitution for the gross violation of his fundamental rights. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the accused officials involved in the alleged custodial violence must be arrested within a month. The Appellant Khursheed Ahmed Chauhan, a police constable, had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's refusal to quash FIR registered against him under Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide). Chauhan alleged that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading torture, including mutilation of his private parts, during a six-day illegal detention from 20 to 26 February 2023, at JIC Kupwara. The SC bench set aside the High Court's decision. In the judgment authored by Justice Mehta, the SC noted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings of an alleged offence under Section 309 IPC would be a travesty of justice and hence quashed the FIR, legal news website LiveLaw said. However, it took strong exception to the custodial violence suffered by the Appellant during the illegal detention, LiveLaw said. Apart from conducting a detailed inquiry about the officers responsible for the abuse, the CBI was also directed to conduct an inquiry into 'systemic issues' prevailing at the JIC in Kupwara. The continuation of the criminal proceedings of an alleged offence under Section 309 IPC would be travesty of justice. The court underscored the need to assess whether structural or institutional failings enabled a climate of impunity that led to the custodial abuse, LiveLaw reported.
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Supreme Court's BIG order in custodial torture case in J&K: Orders ₹50 Lakh compensation, CBI probe
The Supreme Court on July 21 ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the alleged torture of a police constable at a Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) in Jammu and Kashmir's Kupwara in 2023. The top Court also directed immediate arrest of the officers of the J&K police who were responsible for the abuse and ordered the Union Territory administration to pay a compensation of ₹ 50,00,000 to the victim as restitution for the gross violation of his fundamental rights. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the accused officials involved in the alleged custodial violence must be arrested within a month. The Appellant Khursheed Ahmed Chauhan, a police constable, had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's refusal to quash FIR registered against him under Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide). Chauhan alleged that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading torture, including mutilation of his private parts, during a six-day illegal detention from February 20 to 26, 2023, at JIC Kupwara. The SC bench set aside the High Court's decision. In the judgment authored by Justice Mehta, the SC noted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings of an alleged offence under Section 309 IPC would be travesty of justice, and hence quashed the FIR, legal news website LiveLaw said. However, it took strong exception to the custodial violence suffered by the Appellant during the illegal detention, LiveLaw said. Apart from conducting a detailed inquiry about the officers responsible for the abuse, the CBI was also directed to conduct an inquiry into 'systemic issues' prevailing at the JIC in Kupwara. The continuation of the criminal proceedings of an alleged offence under Section 309 IPC would be travesty of justice. The court underscored the need to assess whether structural or institutional failings enabled a climate of impunity that led to the custodial abuse, LiveLaw said. The Court further mandated that the police officers allegedly involved in the torture be arrested forthwith, within a period of one month, and that the investigation be completed within three months from the date of FIR registration, according to LiveLaw.
