Posted on

Supreme Court stays the disturbing order by Bombay HC which held that groping a minor girl without touching her skin did not amount to sexual assault

groping SCI

The Bombay High Court had acquitted a man of sexual assault charges under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for groping a child, and instead convicted him under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for a lesser offence. Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala said that the allegation was not serious enough for the greater punishment prescribed under the law. The ruling, which drew criticism for its restricted interpretation of the offence, spotlights the concept of mandatory minimum sentencing in legislation, including POCSO.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the “disturbing” decision of the Bombay high court (HC) which held that groping a minor girl without touching her skin did not amount to sexual assault under Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Attorney General KK Venugopal mentioned the judgment passed by a single judge of Nagpur bench of Bombay HC on January 19. By this order, the court acquitted a man accused of groping a 12-year old girl. The HC on appeal acquitted him of this charge and held him guilty only under molestation punishable with one year under IPC Section 354.

The three-judge bench headed by CJI SA Bobde issued notice to the accused and Maharashtra government to reply within two weeks. “Meanwhile, we stay the acquittal of accused in regard to Section 8 of POCSO,” said the bench also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

The AG said, “The order is very disturbing and is likely to set a dangerous precedent.” He requested the court to take suo moto cognizance as he was in the process of filing a petition against the order. The bench permitted the AG to file a petition and stayed the acquittal of the man.

The HC had held that no offence under Section 8 of POCSO was made out as there was no physical contact. The man was accused of groping the girl and removing her salwar. The AG said, “It is an unprecedented order as it will mean that if a cloth is touched, no case under Section 8 is made out. This court must take notice of the judgement.” The accused was earlier convicted by a trial court under Section 8 of POCSO and sentenced to three years. The apex court will examine this issue after two weeks.

Posted on

Plea regarding aspirants who lost chance at UPSC exams due to the Covid19 to be heard by SCI on Monday

Supreme-Court

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a plea seeking grant of one more chance to appear in the UPSC’s civil services examination to those aspirants who could not appear in their previous attempt last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation.
The crucial hearing assumes significance in the wake of the Centre’s assertion last Friday that it was not in favour of granting one more opportunity to the civil services aspirants who could not appear in their last attempt in 2020.

A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar had taken note of the submissions of Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on January 22 and had asked the government to file an affidavit to this effect.

“We are not ready to give one more chance. Give me the time to file an affidavit. Yesterday night, I received instruction that we are not agreeable,” the law officer had told the bench.

The bench, which also comprised Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murai, had asked the law officer to supply the copy of the affidavit to the counsel of civil services aspirant Rachna who had moved the court with the plea for grant of extra chance to crack the test.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench that the government was considering the issue of granting one more opportunity to those civil services aspirants who could not appear in their last attempt to crack the UPSC exam.

The top court on September 30, last year, had refused to postpone the UPSC civil services preliminary exam, which was held on October 4, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and floods in several parts of the country. However, it had directed the Central Government and the Union Public Service Commission to consider granting an extra chance to candidates who otherwise have their last attempt in 2020, with a corresponding extension of the upper age-limit.

The bench was then told that a formal decision can be taken by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) only.

Posted on

As Farmers stand united and undeterred over January 26 tractor rally, GOI goes to the Supreme Court-farmers are determined to sit in protest till May 2024

Agitating farmers, their unions, and various supporters have remained firm on holding a tractor rally on the Republic Day and vowed to continue their stir till the agri-laws are repealed, even as Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar urged them to discuss alternatives to scrapping the legislation at the next meeting scheduled earlier for January 19. The next meeting has been postponed to January 20. The farmers’ protests have been going on for one week short of two months.

“We are prepared to sit in protest till May 2024. Our demand is that the three laws be taken back and the government provide a legal guarantee on the MSP,” Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) leader Rakesh Tikait told reporters in Nagpur. The statement indicating little change in the unions’ stand came ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on Monday on the issue of Agri-bills and ongoing protests on Delhi’s borders for over 50 days.

Saying that “soldiers were mere farmers in uniform”, Swaraj India national president Yogendra Yadav asserted at a press conference that the farmers too would celebrate the festival of republic. Mr. Yadav said that as per the pre-announced programme, the parade would be held inside Delhi and tractors would travel on the 50-km-long Outer Ring Road. He added that weapons, provocative speeches and violence would not be allowed and there would be no attempts to attack or lay siege to buildings and places of national and historical importance.

The Supreme Court said on Monday that the farmers’ proposed tractor rally on Republic Day is a matter of law and order and has to be decided by the police. During the hearing on a plea seeking an order against the tractor rally planned by the farmers, the Supreme Court also told the Centre that it has all the authority to deal with the matter.

The Supreme Court was hearing a plea of the central government, filed through the Delhi Police, seeking an order against the protesting farmers’ tractor march or any other kind of protest “which seeks to disrupt the gathering and celebrations” of Republic Day on January 26.

“Police is the first authority to decide who should be allowed to enter Delhi. The question of who should be allowed to enter the city [Delhi] and how many people can be allowed to enter are matters to be decided by the police,” the Supreme Court said, adding, “We cannot interfere.”

Addressing the Centre, the court said, “We are not going to tell you what you should do. We will take up this matter on Jan 20. Does the Union of India want the Supreme Court to tell it what powers you have under the police Act? Why do you need the court to tell you that you have power?”

“We have not taken charge of the matter the way you think we have. Apparently, the intervention of the court has been strongly mistaken by you [Centre]” the court said, further adding, “It is for the police to decide on the plea for permission for demonstration in Ramlila maidan.”

Announcement by KKU

Darshan Pal, president of the Krantikari Kisan Union (KKU), said  that the display of unity among the farmers’ outfits and support from several sections of the society have been the driving force behind the ongoing protests against the new farm-laws. He asserted that the farmers would only intensify the  protests further if the Centre did not repeal the laws.

He said that the aim of the proposed “tractor parade’’ by farmers’ outfits on January 26 was not to disrupt the Republic Day celebrations. “Our target is not the India Gate, Rajpath, Lal Quila, or Parliament. All we are asking is for a route in Delhi where farmers can parade on their tractors and vehicles on Republic Day,” he said.

“We only want to show how many people have been protesting for the farmers’ cause for the past two months. The tractor parade is not only going to be in Delhi, but will also be held at State and district headquarters across the country. We want to show that every section of the society is extending its support to the farmers, and they have a constitutional right to exercise it, but if the government tries to throttle the proposed parade, it will stand exposed,” he said.

Farmers would continue to seek permission for the ‘tractor parade’ in Delhi, Mr. Pal said. “All the outfits will soon have discussions on issues surrounding the holding of the tractor parade in Delhi. We will take the opinion of legal experts as well and find a solution.”

Mr. Pal said that the agrarian crisis was not limited to Punjab and Haryana. In fact, every section of agriculture-based society across the country was being impacted, and all of them had extended support to the ongoing protest. “Apart from the new farm-laws, the issue of indebtedness and Minimum Support Price (MSP) have come to the centre-stage through this ongoing agitation. Also, the protests have led to consolidation and unity among farmers’ unions. In this backdrop, I am confident that this movement will only intensify across the country,” he said.

Mr. Pal said that the decision of the Bharatiya Kisan Unions’s Bhupinder Singh Mann to recuse himself from the committee of experts nominated by the Supreme Court for negotiations with the farmers was a welcome move. “It is in fact a humiliation for the government,” he said.

“The pressure of protest is mounting on the government. We have also conveyed a message to Anil Ghanwat, the farmer-leader from Maharashtra who is part of the committee. If he also quits, it will be a shocker for the government,” he said.

Posted on

Supreme Court stays the farm laws and forms committee- farmers refusing to hold talks with the committee

Supreme Court

Amid a deadlock in the government’s negotiations with the protesting farmer unions, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on petitions challenging the validity of the three farm laws enacted last September.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the implementation of the three controversial farm laws, known to be with glaring loopholes, calling its order “extraordinary” and a “victory for fair play”. The stay on their implementation means the Centre cannot, for the time being, proceed with any executive actions to enforce the laws.

The top court told the centre that it has the power to suspend the farm laws at the core of massive farmer protests near Delhi and form a committee to solve the crisis. “These are matters of life and death. We are concerned with laws. We are concerned with lives and property of people affected by the agitation. We are trying to solve the problem in the best way. One of the powers we have is to suspend the legislation,” Chief Justice SA Bobde said.

Also Read: Debate over farm laws in Supreme Court

The top court also issued notice to farmers’ unions on a Delhi Police plea to stop a tractor rally during the January 26 Republic Day parade. The judges rebuffed the lawyer for protesting farmers, ML Sharma, as he said that the farmers would not participate in the committee as Prime Minister had refused to talk to them.

Earlier the top court demanded the repeal of the three new farm laws, saying that it was “extremely disappointed” with the negotiation process, and also expressed its inclination to stay the implementation of the acts. It asked the central government whether it would pause the three controversial laws at the core of massive farmer-protests near Delhi, and suggested a committee for negotiations.

Meanwhile, the farmers, thousands of whom have camped out around Delhi since late November  made this clear, as they did back then and in December, when they said “now is not the time for a committee”.

Farmers’ groups have said that they would not accept the committee set-up by the court or hold discussions with them. The committee, they said, included members who are in favour of the farm laws. “We do not accept this committee, all the members in this committee have been pro-government and these members have been justifying the laws,” said Punjab farmers’ unions.

The list includes Bhupinder Singh Mann, the national president of the Bhartiya Kisan Union and All India Kisan Coordination Committee; Dr Parmod Kumar Joshi, an agricultural economist who is also the Director for South Asia, International Food Policy Research Institute; Ashok Gulati, agricultural economist and former chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices; Anil Ghanwat, the chief of Shetkari Sanghathana, who in articles written in the media have expressed views in favour of the farm laws.

Posted on

GOI looking towards the Supreme Court over the farmers’ protests

The farmers’ protests have heavily damaged the face value and probably also the credibility of the government, which is looking cornered at the present with support pouring in from multiple sources for the farmers.

As the eighth round of talks between protesting farmers and Centre failed to make any headway, the Union government has pinned hopes on the Supreme Court hearing on January 11 on a batch of petitions challenging the three new farm laws and to end protests by farmers on the borders of Delhi. The Supreme court had recently heard the petitions and arguments by various parties like the farmers, the Delhi government and the GOI, in which the Apex court had stated that the protests can go on till the time they are peaceful.

Also Read: Components of the Farm bills 2020

As successive rounds of talks between farmers and Centre have failed, the Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar had urged farmers to present their stand before the top court so that a legal, holistic solution can be arrived at. While Centre wants the apex court to hear the pleas on the legal validity of farm laws and agrees to abide by its decision, farmer groups remain insistent that they would not return home till the three new farm laws are repealed.

Various opposition leaders and farmer groups have already moved the top court against the new farm laws, claiming that farm laws cannot be diluted without the consent of individual states since state assemblies are competent to legislate on agriculture and trade laws. Legislative Assemblies of Punjab and Kerala have already passed resolutions to nullify the effect of Central farm laws, and Punjab has even passed a law to ensure Minimum Support Price (MSP) for farmers in the state.

Many opposition parties and farmer groups have cited past verdicts of the Supreme Court, while stating that Centre cannot frame laws on agriculture. Though agriculture is a part of the state list under the Indian Constitution, the Concurrent List allows both Centre as well as states to decide on production, distribution and supply of all products; including agricultural produce.

Hearing the case last month, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Bobde had expressed empathy towards the plight of farmers, while hinting to form a committee comprising of farm experts and farmer unions to peacefully resolve the dispute.

While the Union government is ready to make amendments in the new farm laws, farmers have resolved to celebrate harvest festivals of Lohri and Baisakhi while sitting at the protest sites, and have refused to budge till the new laws are undone.

Many farmer groups are also wary of moving the court, stating that policy matters are to be decided by governments, not the judiciary which only examines the constitutional validity of laws. And if farmer groups donot come to court, the resolution of this dispute will have to wait at least till the 9th round of their talks with the Union government on January 15.

Posted on

Response of Centre on PIL against three farm laws sought by SCI

The Supreme Court sought the response of the Centre on a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of newly enacted three farm laws on grounds including that Parliament lacked power to make legislations on the subject.

The plea also raised questions over the validity of “the Constitution (3rd Amendment Act) of 1954” which allegedly empowered the Centre to frame the controversial laws on agriculture.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, while issuing notice to the Ministry of Law and Justice on the PIL of lawyer M L Sharma, said that it would hear on January 11 all the pleas challenging the new farm laws as also the ones raising issues related to the ongoing Farmers’ protests at Delhi borders. In a hearing conducted through video conferencing, the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, took note of the petition which also contended that the subject ‘agriculture’ has wrongly been put in the concurrent list in the Constitution by parliament in 1954.

The bench also allowed the lawyer to amend his PIL in which he has also sought quashing of the three laws. Earlier on November 19, the bench had restored the PIL of Sharma which was dismissed on October 12 and he was asked to approach the High Court instead.

The top court has already decided to hear pleas of RJD lawmaker from Rajya Sabha, Manoj Jha, and DMK Rajya Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu, Tiruchi Siva, and one by Rakesh Vaishnav of Chhattisgarh Kisan Congress against the three laws: Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020; Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.

Posted on

SC stated that the conception that housewives do not add to economic value of household must be overcome

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India said that the conception that housewives do not work or do not add economic value to the household is “problematic” and needs to be overcome. A grant of compensation in a motor accident case was being handled by the Apex Court, where the Delhi High Court had reduced the earning of the deceased wife as she was a homemaker. This observation, coming months after the judgement of the SCI confirming the equivalence of the daughters in coparcenary inheritance, is significant.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice NV Ramana felt that fixing an economic value to the hard work and labour by homemakers is difficult but nevertheless significant. Justice Ramana, in a concurring but separate order found that nearly 159.85 million women in India are engaged in “household work” as compared to 5.79 million men, citing the 2011 census.

A recent report released by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI) showed that on an average, women spend 299 minutes a day on unpaid domestic services for household members versus 97 minutes spent by men on an average. She prepares food, manages procurement of groceries and shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs, and maintenance work and tends to children and aged members of the household.

“Despite all of the above, the conception that housemakers do not work or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea that has persisted for many years and must be overcome,” Justice Ramana added.

The bench, also comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant unanimously agreed to raise the compensation awarded to the motor accident victims, Poonam, a housewife, and her husband Vinod – to Rs 33.2 lakh instead of Rs 22 lakh awarded by the High Court.

The Court said that a homemaker’s notional income must be determined by Courts keeping in mind the number of women engaged in this activity, and the value of their labour, service, and sacrifices. Their activities contribute in a real way to the economic condition of the family and the economy of the nation and ought to be recognized in the reflection of our changing attitudes and mindsets as well as towards achieving the constitutional vision of social equality and dignity of all individuals.

The motor accidents claim in the present case was instituted by the two daughters of the couple who died in April 2014. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded the daughters Rs 40.7 lakh compensation but on an appeal by the insurance company, the same was reduced to Rs 22 lakh by High Court.

Posted on

UP lost case filed under the National Security Act against Dr. Kafeel Khan

Dr. Kafeel Khan

The government of Uttar Pradesh lost its case in the Supreme Court seeking tough charges against a doctor, Kafeel Khan, under the National Security Act (NSA) for a speech against the amended citizenship law.

“Criminal cases will be decided on their own merits. You cannot use a preventive detention order in another case,” Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said, confirming an Allahabad High Court order that had freed the doctor.

“It seems to be a good order by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order. But the observations will not affect the prosecution on criminal cases,” Justice Bobde further said.

The Yogi Adityananth government had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s September 1 verdict that cancelled the detention of Kafeel Khan under the NSA, calling it “illegal”.

“Once again the UP government has failed. They tried to imprison me and put me behind bars on the day my brother was getting married. Anyway, thanks to the judiciary and to all of those across the globe who prayed for me and have supported me for the past three and a half years,” Kafeel Khan said reacting to the order.

The Gorakhpur-based doctor was arrested from Mumbai in January over an allegedly “inflammatory” speech he gave last year at the Aligarh Muslim University during a protest organized against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The doctor was slapped with charges under the National Security Act for “disturbing public order in the city and creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity within the citizens of Aligarh”.

The High Court had scrapped the detention order, saying that the doctor’s speech did not show any effort to promote hate or violence.

While Dr. Khan was first charged for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, charges under the NSA were invoked later after he was given bail on February 10.

The UP government argued that Dr. Khan had a history of committing offences, which led to disciplinary action, suspension from service, registration of police cases and the national security act.

The NSA empowers the government to detain people without being charged in court for up to a year if they suspect that they could disrupt public order, endanger the security of India or its ties with foreign countries.

(Source: NDTV News)

Posted on

SCI acknowledged the right of farmers to non-violent protests & said it will not interfere with the farmers’ protest against three farms laws

SCI acknowledged

The judiciary had over the past few months received a  lot of flak over its approach in treating the cases of Arnab Goswami and Siddique Kappan. Its indifference with the farmers’ protests was also observed.

Regarding the ongoing farmers’ protests, the Supreme Court of India said, “We are of the view at this stage that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment & without any breach of peace either by the protesters or police.”

SCI today acknowledged the right of farmers to non-violent protests, and said that it was thinking of setting up an “impartial and independent” panel of agriculture experts and farmer unions to resolve the impasse over three contentious farm laws with glaring loopholes.

A bench headed by CJI S A Bobde said that it would set up the committee which may include experts like P Sainath and representatives of the government and farmers’ bodies to look for the resolution of the deadlock over the statutes. The bench also comprising justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said, “We acknowledge the right of farmers to protest but it has to be non-violent.”

In a hearing conducted via video conferencing, the top court said that the purpose of staging protest can be achieved if the farmers and the government hold talks and “we wish to facilitate that”. “We will not decide the validity of law today. The only thing which we will decide is the issue of protest and the right to move freely,” the bench made clear at the outset of the hearing which is still going on.

The hearing comes amid heavy criticism of the judiciary in the public domain and a day after the Supreme Court said that the government’s negotiations with the protesting farmers have “not worked apparently” and that it will form a committee having representatives of both sides to resolve the deadlock. Agriculture minister expressed hope that there will be a solution “soon” to the ongoing impasse.

Protesting farmer unions said that constituting a new panel to break the stalemate on the three new agri-laws is not a solution as they want a complete withdrawal of the legislations. They also said that the government should have formed a committee of farmers and others before the laws were enacted by Parliament. Abhimanyu Kohar, a leader of the Rashtriya Kisan Mazdoor Sabha which is one of 40 protesting farmer unions, said that they have already rejected a recent government offer to form such a panel.

Posted on

Supreme Court to issue appointment orders to the members of NGT-tribunal functioning at less than minimum mandated strength

sci-ngt

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, on Wednesday, ordered that the appointment orders will be issued to the current judicial and technical members of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The bench stated that the hearing on the matter stands deferred for four weeks with a hope that appropriate decision including appointment orders will be issued regarding the present members of the NGT. Justice A M Khanwilkar underlined that the order is placed before the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (MOEFCC) for information and necessary action and he asked to submit a compliance report to the SCI before the next date of hearing.

With reference to Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) the SCI noted, “We are informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in its order dated  July 23, 2020 and reiterated on August 14, 2020, the proposals regarding the appointment of judicial as well as technical members are now forwarded after due compliances to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), who has authority to take a final decision thereon.”

The Apex court bench stated that they have no doubt that the authorities would act swiftly in the matters of the appointments. The Bench also highlighted its concern that the NGT is running at less than the minimum statutory strength provided for it.

What is NGT

The National Green Tribunal was established on October 18, 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. It was established for effective and expeditious disposal of cases pertaining to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. It also acts on the enforcement of any of the legal rights relating to environment, giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

It is a specialized body equipped with the necessary expertise to handle environmental disputes involving multi-disciplinary issues. Under Section 19 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 the Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure. Additionally, the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and is guided by the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal is vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure for discharging its functions.

With the establishment of the NGT, India had become the third country in the world to set up a specialized environmental tribunal, only after Australia and New Zealand, and the first developing country to do so.

Structure

NGT comprises of the Chairperson, the Judicial Members, and Expert Members. They shall hold office for a term of five years and are not eligible for reappointment.  The Chairperson is appointed by the Central Government in consultation with Chief Justice of India (CJI). A Selection Committee shall be formed by the central government to appoint the Judicial Members and Expert Members. This committee is generally identified with the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. There are to be least 10 and maximum 20 full time Judicial members and Expert Members in the tribunal.

Functions

The Tribunal is mandated to work for disposal of applications or appeals within 6 months of filing of the same. Initially, the NGT was proposed to be set up at five places of sittings. It follows circuit procedure for making itself more accessible. New Delhi is the Principal Place of Sitting of the Tribunal and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata, and Chennai are the other four places of sitting of the Tribunal.

NGT generally entertains petitions which bring to light instances of substantial environmental damage. A valid complaint is taken note of even in the absence of any representation from the aggrieved party and can be filed even without an advocate.

The author is a student member of Amity center of Happiness