Tracking Supreme Court Activities and its Verdicts

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
Is the SC getting out of the clutches of the ecosystem ?
https://zeenews.india.com/india/sta...nd-promotions-says-supreme-court-2262696.html
Supreme Court
State govt not compelled to give reservations in jobs and promotions, says Supreme Court
The top court's verdict came while dealing with pleas regarding Uttarakhand government's September 5, 2012 decision to fill up all posts in public services in the state without providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.



Written By:
Subhangi Kumari Singh
Updated:
Feb 09, 2020, 18:33 PM IST

New Delhi: In a key judgement the Supreme Court on Friday has ruled that states are not bound to provide reservation in appointments and there is no fundamental right to claim quota in promotions. The top court asserted that states could not be forced to make such provisions without data showing imbalance in the representation of certain communities in public service.

A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said, "In view of the law laid down by this court, there is no doubt that the state government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions.''

The verdict further added, "No mandamus can be issued by the court directing the state government to provide reservations," the bench said in its verdict.

The top court's verdict came while dealing with pleas regarding Uttarakhand government's September 5, 2012 decision to fill up all posts in public services in the state without providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The SC's judgment overturned Uttarakhand High Court's order that directed the state to provide quotas to specified communities.

Countering the high court verdict, the SC said, "It is settled law that the state government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the state is not bound to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions."

The bench further ruled that if a state wishes to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the state has to collect quantifiable data showing the inadequacy of representation of that class in public services

Referring to constitutional provision about the reservation, the bench said, "It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required in the matter of appointment and promotions to public posts."

Stressing on the language in clauses (4) and (4-A) of Article 16 of the constitution, the apex court said the inadequacy of representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the state, adding, there must be some material on the basis of which the state can form the opinion of providing reservation.

It noted that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution empowers the state to make reservations in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes "if in the opinion of the state they are not adequately represented in the services of the state".

Reacting to SC's verdict Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge said that this decision has worried the marginalized communities. Kharge said that his party will protest against it in and outside Parliament and blamed BJP and RSS saying they have been trying to get reservations scrapped for a long time.

Lok Janshakti Party leader Chirag Paswan also disagreed with the judgement and wrote, ''Recent judgment of supreme court says that states are not bound to provide quotas for SC/ST or OBC in government job and that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions. This is entirely against the concept of reservation. Lok Janshakti Party does not agree with such findings of the court.'' Giving his party's stand in the matter, he said, ''LJP demands Govt. Of India to restore reservation as provided under the constitution of India.''
 

kunal1123

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
579
Likes
1,058
Country flag
Supreme Court again fail. if they have just made new law invalid they have removed this for ever but now after 5 to 10 year they have to sit again and go for all set of lengthy task to just undo what they have done today and they have to do it any how...
indiatoday.in
Supreme Court upholds SC/ST Amendment Act, new law has no provision for anticipatory bail
3 minutes
Supreme Court has upheld the amended SC/ST Act in which preliminary inquiry is not a must and no prior approval is also required for senior officers to file FIRs in cases of atrocities on SC and ST.


Supreme Court has upheld the SC/ST Amendment Act. (PTI)

Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 enacted to nullify the effects of the March 20, 2018 judgment of the court which had diluted the provisions of the Act.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

The Act also does not provide for anticipatory bail to the accused being charged with SC/ST Act. Courts can, however, quash FIRs in exceptional circumstances.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat has penned down a separate order concurring with Justice Arun Mishra and added a caveat that pre-arrest bail should be granted only in extraordinary situations where a denial of bail would mean miscarriage of justice.

In its September 30 verdict, the Supreme Court's three-judge bench had recalled its March 20, 2018 order that had diluted the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act while restoring automatic arrest in such cases.

It had also recalled order on the preliminary probe by the police before the arrest.

In the March 20, 2018 verdict, the two-judge Supreme Court bench had held that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the Act had also introduced anticipatory bail provision under the Act.

The Centre had filed a review petition before the Supreme Court asking to review its order passed on March 20, 2018.

The Supreme Court's verdict on Monday came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.

For sports news, updates, live scores and cricket fixtures, log on to indiatoday.in/sports. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for Sports news, scores and updates.

Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
I hope govt's don't start passing any laws that allow this bypassing the basic requirement.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/citie...-to-take-the-hindu-pledge/article30976516.ece

HC directs all HR&CE dept. staff to take the ‘Hindu pledge’
Mohamed Imranullah S.

Judges make it clear that no one can be exempted, including the Commissioner
The Madras High Court on Tuesday ruled that all those serving in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department, right from its Commissioner to the lowest grade employee, must take a pledge that they were Hindus by birth and that they continued to profess the religion even now.

Justices M.M. Sundresh and Krishnan Ramasamy rejected the contention of the State government that officers in the rank of Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner need not take such a pledge and that it was meant only for employees below these officials.

Top brass not excluded

Referring to Section 10 of the HR&CE Act read with Rule 2 of the Manner of Proof of Professing Hindu Religion Rules of 1961, the judge said, the rule begins with the words, \u201cEvery person appointed or deemed to be appointed...\u201d and hence it was clear that Commissioner and other top officials could not be excluded from its ambit.

The rules do not make any distinction or differentiation on the basis of hierarchy of officials. \u201cWhat is applicable to lower grade officials should be applicable to those in higher cadre also. After all, both are involved in the same process. In fact, this should be applied with more rigour to persons working in higher capacity,\u201d the Bench said.

The judgment was passed on a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate S. Sridharan of Chennai with a plea to remove from service the incumbent HR & CE Commissioner and all other officials who had not taken the mandatory pledge to assert that they were Hindus by birth and they continue to profess the religion.

Objecting to the prayer sought for by the petitioner, a government advocate told the court that even if the court comes to a conclusion that such a pledge must be taken by the Commissioner and other top officials, it could direct them to take it even now, instead of ordering their removal as prayed for by the litigant.

Directive to govt.
Accepting the submission, the Bench directed all officials of HR & CE department across the State to take the pledge afresh, even if they had already taken it, as per the rules in force, within eight weeks.

The judge directed the government as well as the HR & CE Commissioner to ensure that the court orders were complied with promptly.

In his affidavit, the petitioner pointed out that Section 10 of the HR&CE Act of 1959 states that the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Commissioner and every other officer or servant appointed to carry out the purposes of the Act should be a person professing Hinduism and they shall cease to hold office when they cease to profess that religion.

Further, a Government Order issued on September 23, 1961, brought into force the Manner of Proof of Professing Hindu Religion Rules and as per those rules, every person appointed under the Act must take a pledge before the presiding deity in the nearest Hindu religious institution and in presence of the chairman of the board of trustees of that institution.

Written pledge

Two witnesses should be present at the time of taking the pledge and it should be reduced in writing.
The written pledge should be signed by the official concerned and placed before the head office, which should keep it as a permanent record along with the service register of the individual employee concerned.

Stating that the HR & CE department has one Commissioner belonging to the All India service apart from two Additional Commissioners, 26 Joint Commissioners and 64 Assistant Commissioners, the petitioner claimed that all those who had not taken the pledge as required under the 1961 GO must be removed from service forthwith.
 

Skyh3ck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2019
Messages
559
Likes
2,009
So HC in allahabad asks UP government to remove hoardings of rioters as it violates their privacy.. what kind of judge sit in courts man no common sense
 

Johny_Baba

अज्ञानी
Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
1,241
Likes
3,208
Country flag
So HC in allahabad asks UP government to remove hoardings of rioters as it violates their privacy.. what kind of judge sit in courts man no common sense
What kind of judge ?

well,

CJ of Allahabad High Court, Justice Govind Mathur was a card-carrying member of SFI as a student,Became a judge in 2004 with the blessings of Harkishan Singh Surjeet, a CPI(M) politician who's said to have met Fidel Castro and "El Che" Guevara in past and what not..

so you can guess "WHAT KIND" of judge he could be.
 

Spindrift

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
1,128
Likes
2,266
Country flag
So HC in allahabad asks UP government to remove hoardings of rioters as it violates their privacy.. what kind of judge sit in courts man no common sense
1). They are accused and not convicted.
2). They are in police custody or out on bail i.e. they are not absconding.
3). So putting up their photos and address, could in principle be a violation of their right to a dignified life (reason point #1), their privacy and liberty and hence a violation of article 21.
 

jackprince

Turning into a frog
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,084
Likes
4,584
Country flag


Note it. Unless Judicial Accountability Bill is passed and if needs be, dissenting judges be impeached, the opaque brotherhood or rather cabal that judiciary has become shall not let any reform stick. Modi or BJP wont be there all the time.
 

Skyh3ck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2019
Messages
559
Likes
2,009
Yes something needs to be done for judicial system.. they judges are securing post retirement career in Congress or settle in foreign land.. and will laugh at us
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
https://www.news18.com/news/india/n...peakers-only-human-voice-allowed-2621919.html

'Prophet Never Said So': Allahabad HC's No to Azaan on Loudspeakers, Only Human Voice Allowed


Image for representation.

Image for representation.


The chief prayer was that Muslims in the districts Ghazipur and Farrukhabad, should be permitted to recite Azaan through Muezzin by using sound amplifying devices and the restrictions imposed by the administrations should be declared wholly arbitrary.
Utkarsh Anand

  • CNN-News18
  • Last Updated: May 15, 2020, 7:27 PM IST

Share this:



New Delhi: In an important ruling on use of amplifying devices for religious purposes, the Allahabad High Court on Friday held that use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of Azaan or necessary for making Azaan effective since other citizens have a right to not hear what they do not want.

"It cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything which he does not like or which he does not require, since it amounts to taking away the fundamental right of other persons...No one has got the right to make other persons captive listeners," said the High Court bench headed by Justice Shashi Kant Gupta.


The court held that there is no constitutional protection to use of loudspeakers for Azaan since "no person has right to take away the right of others" and "use of microphones certainly takes away the right of the citizens to speak with others, their right to read or think or the right to sleep."

The bench said that Azaan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azan through loud-speakers or other sound amplifying devices cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion warranting protection of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which is even otherwise subject to public order, morality or health and to other provisions of part III of the Constitution of India.

"Thus, it cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything which he does not like or which he does not require since it amounts to taking away the fundamental right of other persons," it underscored.

The bench was dealing with a clutch of petitions, filed by Lok Sabha MP Afzal Ansari, Congress leader and senior advocate Salman Khurshid and another senior lawyer SWA Qadri.

The chief prayer was that Muslims in the districts Ghazipur and Farrukhabad, should be permitted to recite Azaan through Muezzin by using sound amplifying devices and the restrictions imposed by the administrations should be declared wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional since they do not, in any way, violate the guidelines issued for the containment of the pandemic.

It was also pointed out that the practice of opening the fast by the sound of the Azaan during Ramzan is an Islamic tradition prevailing since the time immemorial. They further said that no religious congregation was taking place in mosques.

The bench, however, noted that while a Muezzin or an Imam can be allowed to recite Azaan from the minarets of the mosques through human voice, use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted.

The Court asserted there is no such religious order which prescribes that Azaan can be recited only through loud-speakers or by any amplifiers.

"The use of microphone is a practice developed by someone and not by the Prophet or his main disciples, and which was not there in the past, and that the microphone is of recent origin and accordingly it could not be said that the use of microphone and loud-speaker is essential and integral part of the Azaan," added the bench.

It added: "Traditionally and according to the religious order, Azaan has to be recited by the Imam or the person in-charge of the mosques through their own voice. Right to religion, by no stretch of imagination, ought to be practised, professed and propagated saying that microphone has become an essential part of the religion."

The High Court this held the restrictions on use of loudspeakers as valid and reasonable.

"It is held that Azaan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azaan through loud-speakers or other sound amplifying devices cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion," concluded the court.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
6,337
Likes
10,057
Country flag
https://www.news18.com/news/india/n...peakers-only-human-voice-allowed-2621919.html

'Prophet Never Said So': Allahabad HC's No to Azaan on Loudspeakers, Only Human Voice Allowed


Image for representation.

Image for representation.


The chief prayer was that Muslims in the districts Ghazipur and Farrukhabad, should be permitted to recite Azaan through Muezzin by using sound amplifying devices and the restrictions imposed by the administrations should be declared wholly arbitrary.
Utkarsh Anand

  • CNN-News18
  • Last Updated: May 15, 2020, 7:27 PM IST

Share this:



New Delhi: In an important ruling on use of amplifying devices for religious purposes, the Allahabad High Court on Friday held that use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of Azaan or necessary for making Azaan effective since other citizens have a right to not hear what they do not want.

"It cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything which he does not like or which he does not require, since it amounts to taking away the fundamental right of other persons...No one has got the right to make other persons captive listeners," said the High Court bench headed by Justice Shashi Kant Gupta.


The court held that there is no constitutional protection to use of loudspeakers for Azaan since "no person has right to take away the right of others" and "use of microphones certainly takes away the right of the citizens to speak with others, their right to read or think or the right to sleep."

The bench said that Azaan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azan through loud-speakers or other sound amplifying devices cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion warranting protection of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which is even otherwise subject to public order, morality or health and to other provisions of part III of the Constitution of India.

"Thus, it cannot be said that a citizen should be coerced to hear anything which he does not like or which he does not require since it amounts to taking away the fundamental right of other persons," it underscored.

The bench was dealing with a clutch of petitions, filed by Lok Sabha MP Afzal Ansari, Congress leader and senior advocate Salman Khurshid and another senior lawyer SWA Qadri.

The chief prayer was that Muslims in the districts Ghazipur and Farrukhabad, should be permitted to recite Azaan through Muezzin by using sound amplifying devices and the restrictions imposed by the administrations should be declared wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional since they do not, in any way, violate the guidelines issued for the containment of the pandemic.

It was also pointed out that the practice of opening the fast by the sound of the Azaan during Ramzan is an Islamic tradition prevailing since the time immemorial. They further said that no religious congregation was taking place in mosques.

The bench, however, noted that while a Muezzin or an Imam can be allowed to recite Azaan from the minarets of the mosques through human voice, use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted.

The Court asserted there is no such religious order which prescribes that Azaan can be recited only through loud-speakers or by any amplifiers.

"The use of microphone is a practice developed by someone and not by the Prophet or his main disciples, and which was not there in the past, and that the microphone is of recent origin and accordingly it could not be said that the use of microphone and loud-speaker is essential and integral part of the Azaan," added the bench.

It added: "Traditionally and according to the religious order, Azaan has to be recited by the Imam or the person in-charge of the mosques through their own voice. Right to religion, by no stretch of imagination, ought to be practised, professed and propagated saying that microphone has become an essential part of the religion."

The High Court this held the restrictions on use of loudspeakers as valid and reasonable.

"It is held that Azaan may be an essential and integral part of Islam but recitation of Azaan through loud-speakers or other sound amplifying devices cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion," concluded the court.
This need to be implemented very strictly. Any breaking of law need to be dealt very strictly.
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/...lawyers-face-lawyers-ire#.XssaoRn6XFU.twitter

Ex-Union ministers, now lawyers, face lawyers’ ire


Abhinandan Mishra





These former ministers may be stopped from appearing in front of judges in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
New Delhi:
Multiple former Union ministers, who are now practising as lawyers, may be stopped from appearing in front of judges in the Supreme Court (SC) and High Courts, as these lawyers were part of the Union Cabinet that had appointed some of these Supreme Court and High Court judges.
Some of the former Union ministers who are presently practising as lawyers in the Supreme Court and the High Courts and had decided on the appointment of judges in these very same courts in the past include P. Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid.
The Bar Council of India (BCI), which is a statutory body to regulate legal practice and legal education in India, has received multiple communications from its members across the country who have raised this issue.
The BCI, according to official sources, will be approaching the Supreme Court Bar Association, the various High Court bar associations and all the state bar councils to elicit their opinion on this “important” issue after normal functioning of the courts resume. “This is a massive conflict of interest scenario. How can we expect a judge to give an unbiased order when the lawyer arguing in front of him is the same person who had played a part in appointing him judge?”, a Supreme Court lawyer asked.
The BCI, in an official communication, has stated that this “issue has now become very important because not only in the matter of appointment of judges, but in the matter of engagements of government advocates and advocates for different organisations, corporations, companies, arbitration etc, only a few blessed advocates are getting the opportunity”.
“The commoners are being ignored and/or being made to suffer. Today, more than 18 lakh advocates are practicing, several thousands of them are deserving and competent, but only a few are getting all sorts of benefits. This is a matter of serious concern for the legal fraternity and the bar bodies are not supposed to sit tight over such issues,” the communication by the BCI reads.
Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, chairman of BCI Manan Kumar Mishra said that the BCI is yet to decide on the matter. “No decision has been taken as of now. I have suggested that this is not the right time to discuss these issues. The demand for looking into this matter has come from many lawyers across the states,” he said.
 

here2where

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,975
Likes
5,556
Country flag

Holy Triad

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
2,855
Likes
17,954
Country flag
libtard batshit liars accusing SC judges of being 'lenient' towards bjp gormint on the migrant tragedy ....

Hours before taking up migrant workers issue, Supreme Court got stinging letter from senior lawyers

@Holy Triad - note how blood suckers have arrived in style.
One can simply deflect the accusations,by saying, the congi lawyers are playing politics to score brownie points.

But the SC did made stupid comments like this,

Can’t stop or monitor their movement on roads’: SC rejects plea seeking relief for migrants

"How can we stop it?" the SC bench observed, adding that states should take necessary action on these issues.






Both Elected and unelected officials turned their backs on this crisis.
 
Last edited:

Holy Triad

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
2,855
Likes
17,954
Country flag
libtard batshit liars accusing SC judges of being 'lenient' towards bjp gormint on the migrant tragedy ....

Hours before taking up migrant workers issue, Supreme Court got stinging letter from senior lawyers

@Holy Triad - note how blood suckers have arrived in style.

Get this,




It's called journalism & it will reveal what you hide or lie about.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, 31 March 2020, to the same Supreme Court: "As of 11 am this [Tuesday] morning,
no one is on the road. They [migrant workers] have been taken to the nearest available shelter"




This is from the solicitor general:pound:
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
Interesting to see that a judge could be moved just because he took on the police.
Ofcourse it may be routine... but the doubt remains

1593867063204.png
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
Cross posting.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/li...ter-sree-padmanabha-swamy-temple-2169076.html

LIVE | SC upholds Travancore royal family's rights to administer Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple
The verdict, pronounced by a division bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and UU Lalit, ruled that an administrative committee headed by the District Judge will continue to manage the temple.



Published: 13th July 2020 10:42 AM | Last Updated: 13th July 2020 11:58 AM | A+A A-





Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. (Express Photo)




By Online Desk

The Supreme Court on Monday in a 300-page verdict upheld the rights of Travancore royal family in the administration of Thiruvananthapuram's famed Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra pronounced the order after nine long years of hearing the case, allowing the appeal filed by members of the Travancore family.
A new temple administration committee chaired by the district judge will be formed.
Inventorying of Vault B, said to hold the most valuable treasures, has been left to the discretion of the new committee.
The existing administration committee chaired by the district judge will continue until the new panel is formed.
The SC order reversed the Kerala High Court order that stated the rights of family ceased to exist with the death of the last ruler of the Travancore in 1991.







LIVE Updates

12:59 pm Jul 13 Chronology of events
  • Jan 31, 2011: HC orders state government to take over the temple's control, restrains executive officer and Maharaja of the royal family against opening any of Kallaras (vault).
  • May 2: An appeal of Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, brother of the last ruler, comes up for hearing before the SC, which grants interim stay on the high court directives. It also directs conducting a detailed inventory of the articles/ valuables/ ornaments in Kallaras (vaults) and appoints a team of observers.
  • Jul 8: SC orders that opening of kallara 'A' and 'B' is to be kept in abeyance till further orders.
  • Jul 21: SC considers state's response, directs setting up of an Expert Committee to advise on inventory, conservation and security. It says panel would examine and give an opinion whether it is necessary to open Kallara 'B'.
  • Sep 22: SC examines interim report of the Expert Committee, issues directions. It says issue relating to opening of Kallara 'B' shall be considered after substantial progress is made in regard to documentation, categorization, security, preservation, conservation, maintenance and storage relating to the contents in the other Kallaras.
  • Aug 23, 2012: The Court appointed Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam as an amicus curiae.
  • Dec 6, 2013: Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma passed away, his legal heirs later substitute him in SC.
  • Apr 15, 2014: Amicus Curiae submits report.
  • Apr 24: The Court appoints Administrative Committee headed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, to manage the temple.
  • Aug-Sep 2014: Gopal Subramaniam writes to SC opting out as amicus curiae. Later, he withdraws his resignation and continues to assist the SC.
  • Nov 2014: Royal family questions Amicus Curiae Gopal Subramaniam's report, files objections before SC.
  • Nov 27: SC accepts some of the recommendations made by the Amicus Curiae.
  • Jul 4, 2017: SC appoints Justice K S P Radhakrishnan as Chairman of the Selection Committee for the Sreekovil and other allied works. SC says it would examine claims that one of the vaults of the temple contains extraordinary treasure with "mystical" energy, passes a slew of directions including on the security of the treasures, auditing of accounts and repair of the deity.
  • Jan-Apr 2019: The cases are posted before the bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra for final hearing.
  • Apr 10: SC reserves verdict on pleas challenging January 31, 2011 judgement of the Kerala HC in the matter.
  • Jul 13, 2020: SC upholds right of Travancore royal family in administration of Temple.
12:45 pm Jul 13 Royal family express happiness

11:43 am Jul 13 Temple executive officer welcomes verdict
V Ratheesan, IAS said the court's direction to continue with the present committee for the timebeing is a recognition.
11:34 am Jul 13 State govt welcomes verdict
The state government respects the SUpreme Court verdict and hence won't challenge it, Devaswom Minister Kadakampally Surendran said.
11:29 am Jul 13
The top court delivered the verdict on a batch of appeals, including the one filed by the legal representatives of the Travancore royal family, challenging the January 31, 2011 verdict of the high court in the matter.
11:27 am Jul 13 Committee to decide whether to open Vault B or not
The question on whether Vault B will be opened or not will be decided by the committee formed. J Lalit stated that this interim arrangement will become the final arrangement.
11:24 am Jul 13 What is Shebaitship?
Broadly described, a shebait is the human ministrant and custodian of an idol, its earthly spokesman, its authorised representative entitled to deal with all its temporal affairs and to manage its property.
11:16 am Jul 13 All committee members to be Hindus
Supreme Court specifies that all members of the temple committee will be Hindus.
11:15 am Jul 13 Shebaitship by royal family upheld
The apex court stated that administrative Committee will manage the temple affairs while District judge of Thiruvanathpuram will be the chairperson of the committee.
11:14 am Jul 13 Verdict as read out:
"We allow the appeal of the royal family of Travancore. Death does not effect Shebaitship of the Travancore Family. The bench gives a nod for constituting a committee headed by the district judge of Trivandrum."
11:08 am Jul 13
The death of the last ruler will not result in escheat of the rights in favour of the government.
11:04 am Jul 13

11:02 am Jul 13 Royal family reacts to the verdict
Travancore royal family expressed happiness over the verdict. The temple wealth belongs to the deity, said the family.
11:01 am Jul 13 Quick background of the case
  • The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra is considering the appeal petition filed by the Travancore royal family against the 2011 verdict of the
  • The High Court had ruled that the temple and its assets should be taken over by the state government. Inventorying of the vaults where a treasure worth one lakh crore is hidden was also ordered.
  • Though inventorying of three vaults was completed, the opening of the Vault B, said to be the most important among them in terms of the value of items, was not done following the opposition of the royal family. They claimed that the vault cannot be opened as it would affect the sanctity of the shrine.
  • In the course of the case the royal family had put forth a suggestion to form a committee to manage the temple with a retired high court justice as its chairman.
  • The family wanted the chairman to be nominated by the high court chief justice. Besides the decision on ownership and management of the temple, the SC is also expected to make a call on whether to open the vault B.
10:59 am Jul 13
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
Are we seeing revival of common sense and logic?

https://indianexpress.com/article/i...nst-law-prohibiting-animal-sacrifice-6509396/

‘There is a dichotomy’: SC notice to Kerala on law banning animal sacrifice in temples
“There is a dichotomy. Killing animals and consuming is allowed. But killing animals, offering to deity and then consuming is not allowed,” said the CJI, heading a three-judge bench, also comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and A S Bopanna.

Written by Ananthakrishnan G | New Delhi | Updated: July 17, 2020 1:47:29 am
supreme court, animal sacrifice, kerala high court, kerala law on animal sacrifice, indian express


The plea said the high court order violates his fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. (Representational)
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Kerala government on a plea challenging a 1968 state law banning animal sacrifice in temples.
“There is a dichotomy. Killing animals and consuming is allowed. But killing animals, offering to deity and then consuming is not allowed,” said the CJI, heading a three-judge bench, also comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and A S Bopanna.
“People talk of all kinds of things. They say in the 1960 law it is permissible to kill an animal but it is not allowed to be cruel to the animal,” added the CJI.

He was apparently referring to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The CJI also wondered, “Maybe there is a point in saying that taking lives is permissible in certain circumstances but cruelty is not.”
The plea challenges the June 16, 2020 Kerala High Court order upholding the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968. It has been filed by a group of people following the Shakteya traditions.
The petitioners, some of them from the SC community, said “Saktha practices are an integral part of their communal culture” and their “family deities… are Shakthi form of female Goddesses who they believe are protectors of their life and harmony”.
They contended that after the ban, they “are unable to perform ‘bali’ rituals which they believe is diminishing” the family deity’s power.
The plea, filed through Advocates A Karthik, Ananthu Bahuleyan, Sarveshwar Kannan and Anushka Pardikar said, “Shaktism or Shakthi tantric practices are a major tradition of Hinduism… In Shakthi worship as per its scriptures and practices…animal sacrifice is essential and unavoidable…”
The petitioners said they are now “employing representational methods…which Shakteya tradition believe as an incomplete/flawed consecration”.
The Act, they argued, is “blatantly discriminatory” as it applies only to Hindus but does not stop other religions from practising it. They referred to bird sacrifice at a Church in Kochi and the festival of Bakrid in this regard.
“In a pluralistic society like that of Kerala…a State intervention in the form of a legislation exclusively to prohibit the religious sacrifice and killing of animals/birds by members of a particular community alone is arbitrary and violative of Article 14,” the plea contended.
The petitioners said that when questions were raised in the state assembly on applicability of the law beyond temples, “it was stated that in other religious practices, it could not be considered as sacrifice as the animals were later cooked and consumed”.
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,421
Likes
7,800
Country flag
Obviously, when its against them its there is a fundamental freedom violation or against principles of natural justice. (I myself hated that contempt of court. But love to see these idiots squeal)

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/vio...in-supreme-court-2272399?pfrom=home-topscroll

"Violates Freedom Of Speech": Contempt Act Challenged In Supreme Court
Petitioners said the 1971 act violated freedom of speech, expression and equality, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and asked the court to quash certain provisions

All IndiaReported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Chandrashekar SrinivasanUpdated: August 01, 2020 11:07 am IST
'Violates Freedom Of Speech': Contempt Act Challenged In Supreme Court

Supreme Court is to hear contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan next week



New Delhi:
Senior journalist N Ram, advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Union Minister Arun Shourie moved the Supreme Court Saturday challenging the Contempt of Courts Act, which they said had a "chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression" as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Describing the 1971 act as "unconstitutional and against the basic structure of the Constitution", the petitioners asked the court to quash certain provisions.

The petition argued that "the impugned sub-section is unconstitutional as it is incompatible with values (of the Preamble) and basic features of the Constitution" and, further, that it is "unconstitutionally and incurably vague, and manifestly arbitrary".

"...by criminialising criticism of the court in sweeping and absolute terms, the impugned sub-section raises a prior restraint on speech on matters of public and political importance," it stated.

The challenge to the Contempt of Courts Act comes days before the top court is to hear contempt proceedings against Mr Bhushan over serious allegations against the judiciary.

Last month, Mr Bhushan alleged the judiciary had a hand in dealing damage to democracy.

"Prashant Bhushan's tweets undermines the dignity and authority of the Institution of the Supreme Court and the office of the Chief Justice of India in the eyes of the public," the court said last month.

The court also named Twitter India in the proceedings, demanding to know why the tweets were not removed after a contempt action became evident.

The matter is to be heard next on August 4.

Mr Bhushan has a second contempt proceeding against him - a 11-year-old case over comments to a news publication on former Chief Justices of India.

Meanwhile, as many as 131 personalities, including former judges, authors, former government servants and journalists, opposed the court move's and wanted proceedings against Mr Bhushan to be dropped.

A statement from them said: "We cannot countenance a situation where citizens live in fear of the Court's arbitrary power to punish for contempt for words of criticism on the conduct of judges, in or out of court".







N Ram and Arun Shourie have also had contempt proceedings against them in the past.

The senior journalist had to face one in the Kerala High Court over publication of court proceedings in the Kollam liquor tragedy case. Mr Shourie faced a contempt case over an article about the Justice Kuldip Singh commission; the court finally ruled that the article did not amount to contempt of court.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top