Latest news with #ofParliament
Mint
6 days ago
- General
- Mint
Breaking: Monsoon session of Parliament from July 21 to August 12, says Kiren Rijiju
Monsoon session of Parliament will be held from July 21 to August 12, news agency ANI reported. 'Government has decided to commence Monsoon Session of Parliament from 21st July to 12th August 2025,' Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju was quoted as saying by the agency. (This is a developing story. Check back for updates)
Hindustan Times
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Courts can interfere in laws only if there are glaring lapses, says SC
There is always a presumption of constitutionality in favour of any law and petitioners have to make a 'strong and glaring case' for the judiciary to interfere, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it heard petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act The top court's observations came on a day petitioners challenging the 2025 law argued that it held the potential to 'resurrect' suits and disputes questioning the religious character of mosques, and the Centre defended the law, saying waqf by its very nature was a 'secular concept' and could not be stayed given the 'presumption of constitutionality' in its favour. The Centre also urged the top court to confine the hearing to three issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as 'waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed'. 'There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there,' Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners challenging the law, began his submissions. The law, which received presidential assent on April 5 after being passed by both the Houses of Parliament earlier, makes sweeping changes to the governance and recognition of Islamic charitable endowments, or waqfs. The Centre has defended the amendments as necessary to curb corruption, enhance transparency and ensure better regulatory oversight. But several political parties, religious organisations and civil society groups have mounted a strong push back, calling the law a direct infringement on religious autonomy and an unconstitutional imposition on the Muslim community. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the law on multiple grounds, alleging that it undermines the fundamental rights of Muslims and erodes age-old waqf traditions. Petitioners have particularly targeted provisions such as the removal of 'waqf by user' — a principle that historically allowed recognition of religious endowments created through usage or oral tradition — and the invalidation of oral waqfs unless backed by formal deeds. These changes, critics say, jeopardise the status of mosques, graveyards and dargahs that have existed for centuries without written documentation. To be sure, the new law only does this prospectively, other than in cases where there is an existing dispute with the government. Appearing before a bench also comprising justice Augustine George Masih, a battery of senior lawyers led by Sibal said the new law will reignite disputes on mosques either declared protected or where proceedings are stalled due to the top court's interim order passed in petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991. He said provisions such as only allowing a practising Muslim to dedicate property, inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Council and boards were directed only against one community, which made the act 'manifestly arbitrary' and unconstitutional for violating right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26, and right to equality (Article 14) of the Constitution. The Centre submitted a written note through solicitor general Tushar Mehta and said the law only sought to regulate secular aspects of waqf administration while safeguarding religious freedoms. He said there was no 'grave national urgency' calling for its stay. 'It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament,' the note said. The law officer will advance submissions on Wednesday. The Centre said three issues, which were to be dealt by the bench for interim directions, was section 3(r) which prospectively removes recognition of 'waqf by user' and section 3C which introduced special provisions excluding government property from being declared as waqf. It said the third issue was with regard to the composition of the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards, allowing limited non-Muslim representation. 'The court had earmarked three issues. We had filed our response to these three issues. However, the written submissions of the petitioners now exceed several other issues. I have filed my affidavit in response to these three issues. My request is to confine it to the three issues only,' the law officer said. But the petitioners opposed this. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also appearing for petitioners said, 'There cannot be a truncated or a piecemeal hearing.' The bench adjourned the hearing of the case to Wednesday to enable the Centre to respond to these charges. Sibal cited the example of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal district, saying it was a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. He referred to section 3D of the 2025 act and argued that all declarations made under the waqf act will be void if the property in question was a protected monument. 'This is the extent to which this law can impact us. It is very disturbing.' He said that section 3D along with 3E (no land belonging to members of the Scheduled Tribes shall be declared or deemed to be Waqf property) was not part of the original bill that was presented to Parliament. 'The bill in Parliament did not have sections 3D and 3E and it was not before the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) either. It was introduced in the bill at the time of voting when rules are suspended. These are some of the disturbing features of this case,' Sibal said. Singhvi said that section 3D should also be seen in the context of its impact on Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that fixes the character of all places of worship as on August 15, 1947, except the Ramjanmabhoomi Babri Masjid dispute. 'Section 3D as read by government will impinge on the 1991 act as the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act has the effect of superimposing on the Places of Worship Act as a notification issued under Section 3D, declaring a protected monument, will override the character of that place of worship, which is shut off on a particular cut-off date,' he argued. The court was informed that at present, suits questioning the religious character of mosques and other places of worship in Mathura, Sambhal and Varanasi, among other places, were put on hold by a December 2024 apex court order. Singhvi questioned why Muslims were being singled out. 'It amounts to violation of Article 15 (right against non-discrimination on grounds of race, caste, sex, religion) because of section 3D which chooses one religion,' he said. In its April 17 order, the top court had refused to pass any interim order after recording the submission of the Centre that no waqf property, including those under waqf-by-user, shall be denotified and no non-Muslim shall be appointed to the council or boards. This order, that was to be in force till the next date of hearing, has been extended from time to time. The petitioners, also represented by senior advocates Rajiv Dhavan, Huzefa Ahmadi and CU Singh, detailed nearly a dozen grounds for seeking an interim stay. Sibal said, 'The 2025 act is framed for protection of waqf, but it is designed to capture waqf through legislative diktat which lays down no procedure.' The Centre will make its submissions on Wednesday.
The Citizen
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
‘Can you imagine our system being hacked': MPs sceptical of IEC's e-voting proposal
E-voting could potentially increase voter turnout and youth participation. Police officers are seen at the Berario Recreation Centre IEC voting station on 27 May 2024. Picture: Michel Bega/The Citizen Members of Parliament (MPS) have voiced scepticism about a potential shift from traditional ballot papers to electronic voting (e-voting). The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) appeared before the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) on Tuesday to present its considerations for introducing e-voting systems in South Africa. LIVE interactive map, latest news, multimedia and more! View Map A six-month public consultation process is currently underway and set to conclude in September. The feedback gathered will shape a revised policy discussion document, leading to a Green Paper expected by March 2026. Growing ballot and rising costs IEC CEO Sy Mamabolo told the committee that the inclusion of independent candidates and a growing number of political parties has made the ballot paper increasingly long and costly. Mamabolo explained that this has created additional demands for voters. 'Within that broad package of measures we are taking, one of the considerations is the possible introduction of electronic voting. 'We don't see this as an isolated measure but as a package of interventions, utilising technology to make electoral administration better,' he said. ALSO READ: Why South Africa's youth voters are staying away from the polls However, Mamabolo clarified that no final decision has been made on the implementation of e-voting. 'There is no decision to implement electronic voting precisely because we consider the decision a national policy matter, within the purview of Parliament as a policy-making institution of the country. 'We have not taken that decision, nor are we empowered to make the decision.' Watch the meeting below: IEC on e-voting benefits According to the IEC, e-voting could potentially increase voter turnout and youth participation, both of which have been on the decline. The commission also noted that the system could expand access to elections, particularly for disadvantaged and marginalised groups, by overcoming linguistic, visual, and physical barriers. READ MORE: Home affairs minister unveils digital reforms to transform elections The committee heard that electronic voting could improve electoral efficiency by reducing the time required to count and process votes. 'Traditional manual or paper-based systems are labour-intensive and prone to human error,' Mamabolo said. He added that digital systems may deliver faster and more accurate results. MPs concern over IEC e-voting proposal Despite the possible advantages, several MPs raised significant concerns. MK Party MP Zwelakhe Mthethwa questioned the timing of the proposal, citing unresolved issues from the 2024 general elections. 'We even have a legal case that is sitting in court, having not resolved an issue of a technical glitch that had far-reaching consequences on our elections last year,' he said. Mthethwa also raised national cybersecurity vulnerabilities. 'With us being so backwards in terms of ICT as a country, can you imagine our system being hacked as we vote by somebody sitting somewhere in the world and interfering with a serious process wherein we want to elect our leadership?' Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Anna van Zyl queried the financial implications of adopting e-voting in the short and long term. READ MORE: IEC official accused of stealing election ballot boxes sees discharge application rejected She also questioned the privacy of voters in the context of biometric systems. 'Your vote is your secret,' van Zyl said. Additionally, she expressed concern about the functionality of voter management devices (VMDs) in rural areas where network connectivity is often poor. Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) MP Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi pointed to failed e-voting attempts elsewhere. 'What do you hope to achieve differently from those countries such as Namibia?' she asked. Mkhaliphi referenced ongoing issues with the current voting infrastructure. 'The current VMD is always giving us problems, and it also causes a lot of stress and infighting,' she said. She warned that persistent challenges like load shedding and unreliable network coverage make South Africa ill-equipped for the technological demands of e-voting. Call for careful evaluation Committee chairperson Zweli Mkhize acknowledged that e-voting might become more prevalent in the future, but emphasised the need for thorough groundwork. He said the problem the IEC plans to solve with e-voting must be clearly identified and that any chosen technology must align with South Africa's unique context. Mkhize further underscored the importance of transparency, constitutional compliance, and auditing of the paper trail in any system considered for implementation.
Scottish Sun
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Scottish Sun
Meghan ‘does use HRH title… but only among friends' as experts blast her for breaking late Queen's Megxit ‘rule'
ROYAL experts have slammed Meghan Markle for using her royal title on a gift card, telling her "you can't have it both ways". Meghan and Prince Harry agreed they wouldn't use their HRH titles after they broke from the royal family - but the Duchess of Sussex seemingly still uses it with her friends. Advertisement 7 Meghan shared the photo in a recent podcast interview Credit: Instagram 7 The Duchess's controversial use of the HRH title 7 Meghan sent Kern Lima the basket about a year ago In a recent podcast interview, a photo showed a gift basket of ice cream and strawberry sauce Meghan sent to Kern Lima a year ago. With it came a note on monogrammed paper, signed: "With the compliments of HRH the Duchess of Sussex." Sources said that while Meghan and Harry do still have their titles, they agreed not to use them for "commercial purposes". The source said the note was a "personal gift" but the couple don't publicly use HRH. Advertisement But royal expert Hugo Vickers told The Sun the card shows "complete disrespect" and suggests Meghan is "exploiting the system". He said: "I think it's very shocking. "One thing that was made absolutely clear when they left was that the HRH title was not to be used. The other person who doesn't use it is Prince Andrew, who has accepted that completely. "And now we see a card printed with HRH printed on it. This is completely unacceptable. Advertisement "It brings up the wider issue of what they are doing with their titles all along. The reason we follow what they're doing is because she is married to Prince Harry. "It gives a soap opera element that wouldn't be there if she was just a film star. It's bad enough them using the Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles. Meghan Markle risks breaking 'Megxit' agreement with late Queen after 'offensive' revelation in new podcast "The problem with that is that it would be more difficult to remove them because it would require an Act of Parliament. Parliament has more important things to think about than them. "The fact this has been used with a card is very worrying. It's a complete disrespect for the deal that was made with the Queen." Advertisement When asked what he thinks about Meghan using the title with her friends, he said: "It shouldn't be used at all. "None of the titles should be used - it's exploiting the system. It links them to the British Royal Family. "They can't have it both ways. They shouldn't take advantage of it under any circumstances - a deal is a deal. The fact that a card has been printed shows this is not just a one-off thing. This card exists and is presumably being used quite a lot under all sorts of circumstances. "I'm not surprised they are doing this - they're pushing the boundaries all the time. But they really can't do that." Advertisement Meghan Markle & Prince Harry are in no man's land – it's a total crisis point for them, claims expert By Summer Raemason MEGHAN Markle and Prince Harry are "in no man's land" as they navigate "crisis point", claimed experts. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have both launched multiple business ventures since stepping down as senior working royals and quitting the UK in 2020. Since turning their backs on the Royal Family, the couple have battled several stumbling blocks while trying to carve out their new identities. Meghan, 43, has this year released her latest Netflix series With Love, Meghan, in which she hosted Hollywood pals. Shortly after came the roll out of her brand As Ever, despite the company facing a series of setbacks. The mum-of-two then dropped her second podcast, Confessions Of A Female Founder, which has already dropped off the Spotify Top 100 list. The Duchess has also been promoting her ShopMy page, on which she advertised a controversial "ethical" handbag, where she shares links to her wardrobe and pockets a commission. Harry meanwhile has been busy working on his Polo documentary on Netflix, and as ever his Invictus Games. But despite trying to "reinvent themselves", the pair are yet to settle on a particular niche, according to experts. Meanwhile, fellow royal author Ingrid Seward said: "I think if her late grandmother-in-law Queen Elizabeth was still around she would be highly offended, as she was very sensitive about that. "She wouldn't think it was the correct form and remember she removed the HRH titles from both Diana and Sarah Ferguson. "The Queen didn't remove HRH but told them not to use it. "But she isn't here anymore so maybe Harry and Meghan think they can get away with it." Advertisement No memoir plans It comes after Meghan admitted she had no plans to follow in Harry's footsteps and pen a memoir yet - but said "I've got a lot more life to live before I'm there". In the podcast, the 43-year-old gushed about her children, her life in California and called Harry a 'fox' with cosmetics entrepreneur Jamie Kern Lima. But halfway through the chat the host revealed around a year ago Meghan sent her a gift box of food and thank you card. Posting a photo of the present it revealed the card read: 'With Compliments of H.R.H The Duchess of Sussex.' Advertisement The cosmetics boss said: 'I had a very full house and all of sudden I get word that you dropped off this gift basket with ice creams, homemade strawberry sauce to put on top of the ice cream just to see if that helps lighten my load.' Meghan and Harry agreed not to use their HRH title at the Sandringham Agreement five years ago, amid fears they would use their royal titles to make money. Experts said the Queen didn't remove their titles, but did tell them to stop using it. The Duchess also had some backlash earlier in the month in a similar row. Advertisement On Instagram, she shared a message from Ukraine's Vice President addressing her as "Your Royal Highness." It came after she insisted her surname is now Sussex while correcting her friend in her Netflix show. Meghan Markle shares rare pics of Archie & Lilibet in rose garden after revealing daughter's adorable American accent By Charlotte Bend THE Duchess of Sussex has shared three rare snaps of Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie just a day after revealing her daughter's adorable accent. Meghan Markle, 43, posted the adorable pictures of her son, five, and daughter, three, on Instagram. Captioning the rare moment, Meghan wrote: "Sunday kind of love….with my little loves." The mum-of-two even featured in the first as she appears to hold a pink rose on a sunny day in front of her children. It comes just hours after the Duchess of Sussex revealed Princess Lilibet's adorable American accent for the first time. Responding to her mother's question about strawberry jam, the toddler could be heard with a Californian accent. 7 Meghan Markle also has her own podcast which recently launched Credit: Supplied 7 She was blasted for being out of touch after telling people they can live like her while filming her Netflix series Credit: Netflix Advertisement 7 Meghan and Prince Harry agreed they wouldn't use their HRH titles after they broke from the royal family Credit: Alamy
Telegraph
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
In defence of the UK Supreme Court
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, one of the flagship statutes of the Blair government, was passed almost exactly twenty years ago. Among other things, it abolished the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and replaced it with a new court of final appeal for the United Kingdom to be called the Supreme Court. The change was largely cosmetic. It was designed to correct the constitutional anomaly that the highest court of the land was nominally a committee of the legislature. In the British constitution it is quite common to find that the label is no guide to the contents of the bottle. But everyone who cared to know realised that the Appellate Committee was actually a proper court whose judicial functions were quite distinct from everything else that happened in the building. The Supreme Court is institutionally and physically separate from the House of Lords, but otherwise it is exactly the same as the old Appellate Committee. The three main differences between the Supreme Court and the Law Lords have all been wholly positive. First, its judges are chosen on merit by a non-political commission. There is therefore no danger of the selection process being used to politicise the Court, as has happened in the United States. Secondly, the Supreme Court is more deliberative and collegiate than its predecessor. The result has been a higher quality of judgements, more coherent and more useful as explanations of the law. Thirdly, the Court has a closer engagement with the public whom it serves. Brief explanations of each decision in non-technical language are given when the judgements are handed down. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has proved to be surprisingly controversial in some quarters, and notably on the right. This is mainly due to the two Gina Miller decisions. They were significant interventions in the prolonged constitutional crisis generated by the decision to leave the European Union. Many leavers condemned them without any evidence as politically motivated decisions by judicial remainers trying to sabotage Brexit. The Johnson government at one stage toyed with the idea of abolishing it. The former UKIP MP Douglas Carswell recently called in this newspaper for the Law Lords to be restored. The Court's critics seem to have been misled by its name. They think that it is a British version of the US Supreme Court which can override Acts of Congress. In fact the Supreme Court has no power to override Acts of Parliament, any more than the Law Lords did, although both courts were required by statute to give overriding effect to EU law while we were members of the European Community. Far from undermining the constitutional authority of Parliament, the Supreme Court has consistently defended it. In the first Gina Miller case, it decided that Theresa May could not give notice to leave the European Union without Parliamentary approval. In the second one it decided that Boris Johnson could not prorogue Parliament whenever it suited him. Both decisions involved fundamental issues of constitutional law which had to be decided by a court. Since then, the Supreme Court has held in two landmark cases that where considerations of social, economic or political policy are relevant in a public law case, judges should normally take their cue from Parliament. The Court's critics are often people who object not just to the constitutional role of judges but to the role of Parliament itself. Mr Carswell, for instance, would like to see a British government ruling by what he calls orders in council, i.e. by decree. We are only a democracy because governments are answerable to the elected House of Commons. So long as Parliamentary democracy remains the foundation of our constitution, the Supreme Court will have an indispensable role to play in our national life.
