Latest news with #SupremeCourtofIndia
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
K.S. Aiyar Memorial Lecture at IIPA on Aug 2
The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), Karnataka Regional Branch, will host the K.S. Aiyar Memorial Lecture on August 2. Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India will deliver the lecture on the theme 'Good Governance under the Constitution of India.' Karnataka Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh will be the chief guest. The event will be held at 4 p.m. at the Multipurpose Hall, Infantry Road.
Hindustan Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to commence hearing on presidential reference matter from August 19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will commence detailed hearings in the presidential reference matter on whether governors and the president can be judicially compelled to act within fixed timelines on state bills, scheduling the matter before a five-judge Constitution bench starting August 19. Supreme Court of India. (PTI Photo) The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, finalised a nine-day hearing calendar extending into September. The court also decided to hear preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu against the maintainability of the reference at the outset before allowing the Union government and other supporting parties to present arguments. The bench accepted a request by senior advocates KK Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu, respectively, to allow them make arguments on why the reference ought to be returned and how it is an attempt to re-litigate settled law and amounts to an appeal disguised as a reference. The Constitution bench directed that written submissions be filed by August 12. The hearings will take place on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, with arguments by the Union and supporting states. August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9 have been set aside for states opposing the reference, followed by a rejoinder by the Union on September 10. Advocate Aman Mehta was appointed nodal counsel for parties supporting the reference, and Misha Rohatgi for those opposing it. 'The time fixed shall be scrupulously followed and parties shall complete their arguments within the stipulated time,' the bench emphasised in its order. The hearing arises from an unprecedented presidential reference under Article 143, in which President Droupadi Murmu referred to the 14 constitutional questions of the Supreme Court stemming from the court's April 8 judgment that imposed enforceable timelines on constitutional authorities for acting on state bills. The April ruling, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had for the first time laid down binding timelines for governors and the president in relation to state legislation. It held that governors must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills and decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The court also ruled that inordinate delays could result in 'deemed assent', invoking Article 142 to ensure constitutional functionality. That verdict arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which had accused its governor of delaying assent to 10 important state bills. The court termed the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and directed action within defined timelines, triggering constitutional debate about separation of powers and the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and all state governments, noting that the constitutional issues raised go beyond Tamil Nadu and have implications across the country. 'We are going to decide for everyone, and not only for Tamil Nadu,' the bench said, as it scheduled further proceedings for July 29 to finalise the hearing dates. In Tuesday's hearing, Venugopal and Singhvi reiterated their objections to the maintainability of the reference. Tamil Nadu has already filed an application seeking outright dismissal of the reference, while Kerala accused the Union of misleading the court into overturning the April 8 judgment. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, urged the court to consider the maintainability along with the merits, arguing, 'In the past, all issues have been decided together.' The bench, however, agreed to give Venugopal and Singhvi an hour on August 19 to argue on the maintainability of the reference. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether a 'deemed assent', as mandated in the April 8 judgment by the two-judge bench, is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the president or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the president's discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review. The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. 'This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry's review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,' said another person familiar with the internal discussion. Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court's advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court's opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation. Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the president under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the president or governor's discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether. Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Woman uses false rape case to force man to return money
Lucknow: On Monday morning, an affidavit filed at the Jhansi district court revealed the misuse of criminal allegations of rape and molestation to settle a financial dispute. The matter involved two individuals, one of whom was nearing retirement by the end of July and had previously engaged in a monetary transaction. Since the borrower is a govt servant, his retirement benefits would have stopped if he was not cleared of accusation of sexual harassment of women at workplace under the Vishaka guidelines. Despite repeated requests, the borrower had failed to return the money, leading to escalating tensions. Driven by desperation to recover unpaid dues, the lender, a widow had filed a written complaint against the man (borrower), alleging molestation and rape. However, the charges, now revealed as fabricated, were a calculated move to pressure the man into settling the debt. The copy of the affidavit with TOI, states that the allegations were baseless and that the complainant no longer seeks any legal action on the previously submitted complaint. "This case underscores the grave consequences of misusing sexual assault laws, especially considering the Vishaka guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in 1997. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Victoria Principal Is Almost 75, See Her Now Reportingly Undo These guidelines were designed to protect individuals — especially women — from sexual harassment in the workplace, ensuring dignity, safety and justice. However, false accusations not only harm the accused but also dilute the credibility of genuine victims and undermine the legal safeguards meant to protect them," said a senior govt official, who earlier had served in one of the Vishaka committees to probe another sexual harassment case. With the financial matter resolved and the money returned, both parties signed the affidavit voluntarily, in full consciousness, and without any influence of intoxicants, read the affidavit. The document was carried out in the presence of witnesses, confirming that no further dispute or financial obligation remains.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Haryana: Vikas Barala dropped from law officer post after not joining
Vikas Barala CHANDIGARH: In a significant turnaround by the Nayab Singh Saini-led BJP govt, the office of the Advocate General has dropped the name of Vikas Barala as a law officer as he did not report for joining, an official spokesperson of the state govt confirmed on Monday. The official categorically confirmed that except for Vikas Barala, the rest of the law officers appointed had joined and assumed charge. Consequent to the joining report compiled by the concerned authorities, Vikas Barala's name was dropped, the official remarked. Notably, the development came within a week after the Haryana govt notified the list of appointments of law officers in the office of the Advocate General Haryana to defend the state in the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. On July 18, the Haryana govt notified the appointment of 92 law officers, including Vikas Barala, to the office of the Advocate General Haryana. Barala, who happens to be the son of Rajya Sabha MP Subash Barala, is facing trial as an accused in the stalking and attempted abduction of the daughter of a senior Haryana bureaucrat (now retired). His name figured as Assistant Advocate General (AAG) for defending cases of Haryana in New Delhi, including the Supreme Court of India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo This triggered controversy and put a question mark on the criteria adopted and the rules followed for the selection of names by the screening committee, which was constituted by the AG office. Opposition parties and leaders criticised the Saini-led govt on this appointment. As to why Vikas chose not to join remains a mystery. However, sources indicate that it was a decision of the party high command as well as the govt after he did not report for joining. The screening committee, which comprised two retired judges of the high court, ignored the serious charges against him. The members of the Advocate General Haryana-headed screening committee that recommended Vikas's appointment were Mani Ram Sharma (IAS), special secretary, home department as the nominee of the additional chief secretary (home), Ritu Garg, legal remembrancer, and two retired judges, Justice Darshan Singh and Justice H S Bhalla, who were members (eminent legal professionals). Normally, those having affiliation with the ruling party are appointed as law officers, and their tenure is co-terminus with the party in power. On August 5, 2017, Vikas Barala and his friend Ashish allegedly followed the bureaucrat's daughter and tried to stop the car of a senior Haryana bureaucrat. The girl called the Chandigarh police, who apprehended the boys. At the time of the incident, they were under the influence of liquor. Both were booked under section 354 D (stalking) of the IPC and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Later, police added two more sections for attempted kidnapping, and they were arrested. Vikas's father, Subhash Barala, was then serving as the state president of Haryana BJP. The trial of the case is currently pending before the district court in Chandigarh and is slated for hearing on August 2. The trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
"Why Did You Wait?" Supreme Court's Tough Questions To Cash Row Judge
New Delhi: Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the Supreme Court's action against him following the cash recovery from his Delhi home, the top court today said the petition "should not have been filed like this" and that the judge's "main issue is with the Supreme Court". "This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see, the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is (the) Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned," the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said. According to the Supreme Court website, the petition, filed by the judge under the name 'XXX', has three respondents: (1) The Union of India (2) Supreme Court of India (3) Supreme Court of India. Justice Datta also took exception when he found that the report of the three-judge panel, which probed the allegations against Justice Varma, had not been attached to the petition. "Where is the report of the three-judge panel?" he asked. When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal replied that the report is in public domain, Justice Datta replied, "No, you should have attached the report with your plea." Arguing the matter, Mr Sibal pointed to the rules laid down in the Constitution for the removal of a judge. He flagged the action against Justice Varma and said it did not follow due process. "The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc, there cannot be a discussion of judges' conduct even in the parliament. If the Constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in Parliament till such misconduct is proven, then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto, media accusations against judges, findings by the public, discussing conduct of judges... all are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the constitution bench judgment," he said. The top court referred to former Chief Justice Khanna's letter to the Prime Minister and President, recommending action against Justice Varma. "How do you know the letter asked for impeachment? The letter is not in the public domain," the court asked. When Mr Sibal said the cash was found in the outhouse and questioned how it could be attributed to the judge, Justice Datta responded, "Police, FIR, staff, all were there and cash was found." The senior lawyer replied that the judge's staff were not present. When Justice Datta asked if Mr Sibal was saying that the committee's report is not worth it, he replied, "No, it's not." "Why did you not challenge when (the) committee was appointed, why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," Justice Datta asked. Mr Sibal said Justice Varma appeared before the committee because he thought it would find out who the cash belonged to. The case will be heard next on Wednesday. Justice Varma made headlines after a massive cash recovery from his Delhi residence during a fire. Following the incident, which triggered allegations of corruption, he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal. The judge has now challenged this action. He has said the top court panel did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office". "This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says.
