Latest news with #SupremeCourtBench
The Hindu
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Does India's alleged forced repatriation of Rohingya refugees breach international law?
Earlier this month, reports surfaced alleging that Indian authorities had transported dozens of Rohingya refugees to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and subsequently abandoned them in international waters, in an attempt to deport them to Myanmar. However, on May 16, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh declined to pass any interim order to halt the purported deportation. The Court also cast doubt on the credibility of the evidence submitted before it. Meanwhile, the United Nations has launched an inquiry into the incident and has called on the Indian government to cease the inhumane and life-threatening treatment of Rohingya refugees, including their repatriation to perilous conditions in Myanmar. Does India's alleged forced repatriation of Rohingya refugees constitute a violation of international law? Does the deportation of refugees without adherence to due process infringe upon constitutional protections? In the absence of treaty ratification, is India nonetheless bound by the customary international law principle of non-refoulement? What policy reforms are needed to ensure a humane and rights-compliant refugee framework in India? Guest: Colin Gonsalves, senior advocate and founder of Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik Edited by Jude Francis Weston For more episodes of In Focus:
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Ashoka University professor's plea hearing LIVE: Supreme Court to hear Ali Khan Mahmudabad's case today
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh is scheduled to hear a criminal writ petition on Wednesday (May 21, 2025) filed by Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor of political science with the Ashoka University, who was arrested by the Haryana Police for his social media posts in connection with Operation Sindoor. Meanwhile, a local court at Haryana's Sonipat on Tuesday (May 20, 2025) remanded to judicial custody Mr. Mahmudabad, rejecting the State Police's plea to extend his police custody by another seven days. The court has fixed May 27 as the next date of hearing. Mr. Mahmudabad was arrested on May 18 after two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against him at the Rai police station. The court had on Sunday remanded him in to two days in police custody in one of the cases, and sent him to judicial custody in the second case. The two separate FIRs were filed by the Haryana State Commission for Women Chairperson Renu Bhatia, and Jathedi sarpanch Yogesh Jathedi, respectively, and were based on similar allegations.
The Hindu
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear Ashoka University professor's plea against his arrest on May 21
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh is scheduled to hear a criminal writ petition on Wednesday (May 20, 2025) filed by Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor of political science with the Ashoka University, who was arrested by the Haryana Police for his social media posts in connection with Operation Sindoor. An application for his interim bail is tagged with the petition. On Monday (May 19, 2025), senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Lzafeer Ahmad made an oral mention before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai for an early listing of the case. Mr. Sibal asked the court for an early hearing of the academician's plea challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against him and his subsequent arrest by the Haryana Police. 'He has been arrested for a patriotic statement. Please list it for tomorrow or the day after,' Mr. Sibal had urged the Chief Justice. Chief Justice Gavai had indicated that the case would be listed before the appropriate Bench the next day or after. However, it was not listed on Tuesday (May 20, 2025). The supplementary cause list for Wednesday (May 21, 2025), issued on Tuesday (May 20, 2025) evening, however showed it listed before Justice Kant's Bench. Mr. Khan's lawyers have briefed the media that he was arrested on charges of endangering the country's sovereignty and integrity and promoting enmity between different groups, among others, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). They had maintained that the charges against Mr. Khan were 'frivolous' and that similar comments had been made by many political leaders and retired Army officers on social media. The Haryana Police had stated that Mr. Khan was arrested on the basis of an FIR registered on the complaint of Haryana State Commission for Women Chairperson Renu Bhatia. Jathedi Sarpanch and BJP Yuva Morcha general-secretary Yogesh Jathedi had lodged a second FIR against Mr. Khan on May 17.
The Hindu
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
CJI Gavai-led Bench to devote whole of May 20 to hear arguments on interim stay of 2025 waqf amendments
A Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Thursday (May 15, 2025) decided to devote an entire day on May 20 to hear arguments for and against an interim order to stay the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Also read: Supreme Court hearing on waqf case highlights - May 15, 2025 Chief Justice Gavai asked the lawyers to come prepared, submit a consolidated note of their submissions and points of law beforehand to ensure that the case is not adjourned. 'We will not take up any other matters on Tuesday (May 20, 2025),' the Chief Justice addressed the lawyers. The Waqf law challenge had come up before the Bench of Chief Justice Gavai for the first time, the very next day after he assumed office as top judge. Both Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, on the petitioners' side, suggested at the beginning of the hearing to schedule it for next week, giving the Bench ample time to study the case papers. The case had last come up before a three-judge Special Bench led by Chief Justice Gavai's predecessor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, on May 5. Justice Khanna had at the time expressed reluctance to continue hearing the case, saying he had very little time till his retirement on May 13, 2025. The hearing on May 5 was originally scheduled to hear arguments on an interim order to stay the implementation of the 2025 amendments to the Waqf law, which, according to the petitioners, interfered with the right of Muslims to manage their own religious affairs and properties. Prior to May 5, the Bench of Justices Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan had nudged the government on April 17 into coming out with a statement in open court that they would not change the character or alter the status of waqf properties across the country on the basis of these amendments. The Bench had recorded the statement in its April 17 order. The interregnum between the April 17 hearing and May 5 had seen the government file an affidavit in court, highlighting the 'phenomenal increase' in Waqf assets in the decade between 2013 and 2024 while justifying the 2025 amendments as a necessary measure to counter rampant encroachments into government and private properties made in the name of Waqfs. Justice Khanna had opened the May 5 hearing saying the issues raised were serious. He had however said with the little time left in his tenure, he did not want to reserve orders on interim relief. In a clear message, that his successor would take the call on steering the future course of the case. Justice Khanna had posted the case for hearing next on May 15. Over a 100 petitions were initially filed in the case, with many following. This had led the Supreme Court to convert the case into a suo motu one in order to avoid duplicate petitions and repetitive arguments in court. The petitions have argued that the 2025 amendments infringed upon and prejudiced the rights of Muslims across the country. The amendments fundamentally altered the governance, creation, and protection of Waqf properties — Islamic endowments dedicated perpetually to Allah for religious and charitable purposes. The enhanced role of state in the waqf administration impinged on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions The petitions have highlighted that amendments omitted the concept of Waqf-by-User affirmed by the Supreme Court itself as a property which would attain the status of waqf through long-standing religious use. Further, an amendment to the composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council has mandated inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf administrative bodies.
The Hindu
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Every word spoken by constitutional functionary guided by national interest: Dhankhar
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Tuesday (April 22, 2025) asserted that every word spoken by a constitutional authority is guided by supreme national interest as he hit out at his critics for questioning his remarks on a recent Supreme Court order. A Supreme Court Bench had recently prescribed a three-month timeline for the President to decide on bills reserved by governors for her nod. Judiciary can't attack forces of democracy, says Vice-President Reacting to the directive, Mr. Dhankhar had said that the judiciary cannot play the role of a 'super Parliament' and get into the domain of the Executive. Addressing a Delhi University event, he said every word spoken by a constitutional functionary is guided by the supreme sublime interest of the nation. 'I find it conceivably intriguing that some have recently reflected that constitutional offices can be ceremonial, ornamental. Nothing can be far distanced from a wrong understanding of the role of everyone in this country — constitutional functionary or a citizen,' he said. He also said there is no visualisation in the Constitution of any authority above Parliament. 'Parliament is supreme,' he asserted. Voicing concern over a recent Supreme Court ruling prescribing a timeline for the President to decide on bills, Mr. Dhankhar had on Friday last (April 18, 2025) said India had not bargained for a democracy where judges will legislate, perform Executive functions and act as a 'super Parliament'. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had, for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date such reference is received. 'There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment ... We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, becomes law,' Mr. Dhankhar had said in New Delhi. The Vice-President was criticised for questioning the judiciary over the timeline for the President to take decisions, saying this is 'unconstitutional'.
