Latest news with #PVSanjayKumar
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Courts have limited power to modify arbitral awards in rare cases, rules SC
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that courts have very limited powers to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Bar and Bench reported. The SC bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices BR Gavai, PV Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan, and Augustine George Masih, clarified that such modifications are permissible only in specific situations. These include when the arbitral award is severable, to correct clerical or typographical errors, in certain cases, to adjust post-award interest, and when invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, but only to ensure complete justice and with extreme caution. Justice KV Viswanathan dissented from the majority opinion on two key aspects. He disagreed with the use of Article 142 by the Supreme Court to modify arbitral awards and objected to the court's power to alter post-award interest. 'Section 34 cannot modify or vary the arbitral award. It is crystal clear that they cannot change or vary arbitral award as it will hit the core aspect,' Justice Viswanathan said. He further said, 'My point in difference is that courts cannot use Article 142. The other aspect I have dissented is the power to modify post award interest. It should rather be referred back to arbitrator.' Justice Viswanathan maintained that arbitral awards must remain untouched by courts and that any corrections related to interest should be referred back to the arbitral tribunal. The case background The matter reached the Constitution Bench after a three-judge Bench in February 2024 identified conflicting interpretations in previous rulings. Recognising the need for clarity, CJI Khanna had referred the matter to a five-judge Bench in January. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, courts may set aside arbitral awards on limited grounds such as violations of public policy, procedural irregularities, or lack of jurisdiction. However, the provision does not permit a review of the award's merits, and courts have consistently interpreted it narrowly to preserve the finality of arbitration, the news report said. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows for appeals against specific orders under the Act, including refusals to enforce or refer disputes to arbitration. Its scope, too, is limited, reinforcing the principle of minimal court intervention. Arguments from the bar Extensive submissions were made by senior advocates during the hearing. Justice PV Sanjay Kumar observed that Parliament may have intentionally excluded modification powers from the Act. CJI Khanna highlighted the importance of maintaining arbitration's finality, while Justice Gavai pointed out that Parliament could have expressly prohibited modifications if that was the intent. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar supported a flexible interpretation of 'set aside ', arguing it could include partial modifications to address injustice. In contrast, Saurabh Kirpal asserted that Section 34 clearly excludes any such power. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the Act as a 'complete code', stressing that its streamlined nature must be preserved.
New Indian Express
28-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
No error in Allahabad HC order impleading Centre and ASI in Shahi Idgah mosque case, says SC
The Supreme Court on Monday said that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in the Shahi Idgah case, allowing the Hindu side's plea to amend their plaint and add the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) as a party, is prima facie correct. The high court on March 5 allowed an amendment application filed by the Hindu side (plaintiffs) permitting them to incorporate new facts into the suit and add the Union of India and ASI as defendants. Challenging this HC order, the Muslim side had moved the top court and sought quashing of it. The Muslim side, in the top court, opposed the Hindu parties' application to amend the suit. They said it was a way to get around their defence, which was based on the Places of Worship Act. During the course of the hearing, the two-judge bench of the top court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and including Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, refused to entertain the appeal of the Muslim side. "The Committee of Management of the Shahi Idgah mosque is absolutely wrong in their plea that the Allahabad High Court's decision to allow the Hindu plaintiffs to do so was wrong," the court said. This order of the top court necessarily means that the Hindu plaintiffs have to be allowed to implead the ASI and the Union in the main suits filed on behalf of the deity. The apex court on Monday granted time to the Muslim side to file their reply and deferred the hearing to April 8. The complex is located adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, a site of significant religious importance for Hindus. The Hindu litigants claimed the premises hold signs suggesting that a temple once existed at the site. The mosque committee, in its appeal filed in the apex court, said the lawsuits filed by Hindu litigants over the dispute violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, and were therefore not maintainable. It is to be noted that Allahabad High Court judge Justice Mayank Jain had on August 1, dismissed the plea filed by the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee challenging the maintainability of the suits filed by the Hindu parties seeking restoration of the Lord Krishna temple at the location where the mosque exists. The Hindu parties claimed in the HC that Sri Krishna's birthplace lies beneath the mosque and that there were many signs which established that the mosque was indeed a Hindu temple. On the other hand, the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board sought dismissal of the plea filed by the Hindu side. It argued in the HC that the suits of the Hindu side were barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 ('Places of Worship Act') that prohibited changing the status of any place of worship from what it was on the day of the country's Independence.
United News of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC backs Allahabad HC's order in Shahi Idgah-Krishna Janmabhoomi case
New Delhi, Apr 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the Allahabad High Court's order allowing the Hindu side to amend their plaint and add the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as a party in the Shahi Idgah-Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute is prima facie correct. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar made the remarks while hearing the appeal filed by the Muslim side challenging the High Court's decision. "One thing is clear. The amendment to the original plaint by the Hindu plaintiffs has to be allowed," the Bench remarked during the proceedings. The Hindu parties had approached the High Court seeking to amend their original suit by claiming that the disputed structure was a protected monument under the ASI and, therefore, the protection under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 would not apply. Consequently, they argued, the structure cannot continue as a mosque. They also sought to make ASI a party to the suit, which the High Court permitted in March 2024. The Muslim side then approached the Supreme Court against this order. Earlier, on April 4, the apex court had issued notice to the Hindu side on this appeal. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the Court observed that the Muslim side's plea appeared "misconceived," with the Bench remarking, "This plea is absolutely wrong. The High Court should have allowed the amendment to add the parties to the suit." The Court, however, granted time to the Muslim side to file their written statement and deferred further hearing. In their plea before the High Court, the Hindu side asserted that a 1920 notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the United Province had declared the structure a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act. They argued that because of this historical status, the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which protects the status of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947, would not apply. The Muslim side opposed the amendments, arguing that the Hindu plaintiffs were attempting to "wriggle out" of the bar imposed by the Places of Worship Act by introducing new claims. "The proposed amendments show that the Plaintiffs are attempting to negate the defence taken by the defendant that the suit is barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991," they argued. The Allahabad High Court on March 5 allowed the amendment and the addition of ASI as a party, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court. The original dispute traces back to a civil suit filed by the Hindu side claiming that the Shahi Idgah mosque was constructed on the Krishna Janmabhoomi land. The suit was filed on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman and some Hindu devotees seeking removal of the mosque. Initially, the civil court had dismissed the suit in September 2020, citing the bar under the Places of Worship Act. However, the Mathura District Court reversed this decision in May 2022, holding that the suit was maintainable. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the High Court in 2023. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also considering appeals against related orders, including the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing consolidation of 18 related suits and their transfer to the High Court. It is pertinent to note that the apex court had, in December last year, directed courts across India not to pass any effective orders or surveys in suits disputing the religious character of existing structures, until the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 is decided. This order was issued in connection with a separate case challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act. Thus, no effective orders have been passed by lower courts, including in the Shahi Idgah matter, pending the Supreme Court's final decision on the 1991 Act. UNI SNG CS
Gulf News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf News
India Supreme Court hints at interim order on de-notifying existing Waqf land
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it may pass an interim order to stay certain key provisions of the recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and also expressed concern over the violence in West Bengal's Murshidabad district. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan said, 'One thing that is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. The issue is before the court and we will decide.' While the bench did not pass any order, it suggested it may stay certain provisions, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, the powers of collectors to decide disputes over Waqf properties, and the provision for de-notifying properties declared as Waqf by courts. The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. During the hearing, the bench said it is considering passing an interim order to balance equities. 'We will say — whichever properties were declared by court to be Waqf will not be de-notified or treated as non-Waqf, whether it is Waqf by user or not. Second, the Collector can continue with proceedings, but the proviso will not be given effect. Third, regarding Waqf Boards and Council... ex officio members can be appointed, but the other members must be Muslims,' said the bench. Request to be heard CJI Khanna was about to dictate the order when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, and other counsels appearing for parties defending the Act requested to be heard before the interim order was passed. The bench then posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday at 2 pm. During the hearing, the CJI observed that the government cannot rewrite history through the amendments to the Waqf law, referring to the scope under the new Act to de-notify properties declared as Waqf long ago. 'When a public trust is declared to be a Waqf 100 or 200 years ago... suddenly you say it is being taken over by the Waqf Board and declared otherwise,' said the bench. The top court questioned the government on how Waqf-by-user can be disallowed, as many would not have the requisite documents to get such Waqfs registered. CJI asked the Solicitor General, 'How will the government register such Waqfs-by-user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse, but there are genuine ones also... If you undo it, then it will be a problem.' No registration 'Before the British came, we did not have any registration. Many of the masjids were created in the 14th or 15th centuries. To require them to produce a registered deed is impossible. In most cases — say Jama Masjid Delhi — the Waqf will be Waqf-by-user,' CJI added. On the issue of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils, the bench said the closest parallel is the Hindu Charitable Endowments Act. 'Whenever it comes to Hindu endowments, it would be Hindus who would be governing,' Justice Viswanathan said. Solicitor General Mehta said that the control would be by a Board which may consist of Hindus or non-Hindus. Justice Kumar then asked Mehta to provide an example and remarked that the Tirupati Temple Board has no non-Hindus. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, said that a Collector is the officer designated to decide whether a property is Waqf or not in case of dispute. This person, being part of the government, becomes a judge in his own cause. 'This is per se unconstitutional. This also says that property will not be a Waqf till the officer decides so. Only Muslims had been part of the Waqf Council and Boards, but now, after the amendment, even Hindus can be a part of it,' he contended. People of other faiths on boards He further said that the central law regarding Sikh Gurdwaras and many state laws on Hindu Religious Endowments do not permit the inclusion of persons of other faiths in the respective boards. 'It is a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million persons,' Sibal added. CJI asked Sibal about his objections to the provisions mandating registration. 'What is wrong with it?' asked the bench. Sibal replied that presently, Waqf-by-user can be created without registration. 'You can register a Waqf, which will also help you maintain a register,' said the bench, adding that if you have a deed, there won't be any bogus or false claims. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing a petitioner, said that Waqf is an essential and integral part of Islam, as charity is an essential and integral part of the faith. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that deletion of 'Waqf-by-user' is dangerous, as about 400,000 out of 800,000 properties are Waqf-by-user, 'which have now become illegal with one stroke of the pen.' 'We have been told the Delhi High Court building is on Waqf land, the Oberoi hotel is on Waqf land. We are not saying that all Waqf-by-user properties are wrong. But there are some genuine areas of concern too,' said the CJI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the apex court that the law was enacted after an elaborate exercise by the JPC, which held meetings in different parts of the country and took views of stakeholders. Both houses of Parliament passed the bill after a long debate. Several petitions were filed in the apex court challenging the Act, contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violated their fundamental rights.
