SC Reserves Order On Whether The Ismail Faruqui Judgment Requires Re-consideration By A Larger Bench

dipak-misraThe Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment on the question whether it’s 1994 ruling in Ismail Faruqui Vs Union of India requires reconsideration by a larger bench. The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer was hearing a string of appeals against the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid dispute.
On previous occasions Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan, for the Sunni Waqf Board, has pressed for a reference to a constitution bench of the 1994 apex court judgment in as much as it observes that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam and that the namaz may even be offered in the open. It has been his case that the “questionable” remarks in Ismail Faruqui have infiltrated the judgment of the trial court.

In respect of the contention that a reconsideration of the 1994 judgment is barred by res judicata, Dr. Dhavan reiterated, “There is no absolutism…if there is similarity between two sets of cases, only then they attract res judicata under section 11 of the CPC…but what was ‘directly and substantially in issue’ (in Ismail Faruqui) was the question of the revival of the suits in their entirety and of acquisition…that was different”.


“College Cannot Impose Moral Paternalism on Students”, Kerala HC Quashes College’s Decision to Expel Students For Love Affair

news1The love affair and eloping termed as immoral amounting to a breach of discipline was based on the moral values of the persons in the management. It is a sin for some and not a sin for others. In law, it is the choice of freedom which is the essence of liberty, stated Justice Mustaque in the judgment.
In a significant judgment, the High Court of Kerala quashed the decision of a college to expel two students for their love affair and subsequent elopement. The students, who were majors, got married in the due course. One of them wanted to resume studies, and the other sought release of academic records retained by the college. The college had expelled them finding their acts amounting to “gross discipline”. When their demands were unmet by the college, they approached the High Court by Filing writ petitions.


SC collegium recommends Justice Bose’s name for appointment as Chief Justice Jharkhand High Court

Justice-Aniruddha-BoseThe Supreme Court collegium has recommended the name of Aniruddha Bose, a judge of the Calcutta high court, for appointment as the chief justice.SC collegium recommends Justice Bose’s name for appointment as Jharkhand HC chief justice SC collegium recommends Justice Bose’s name for appointment as Jharkhand HC chief justice.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the name of Justice Aniruddha Bose to take over as Chief Justice of Jharkhand High court.

Justice Bose, who is the senior-most Puisne judge of Calcutta High Court was initially recommended for elevation as Delhi High Court Chief Justice. His name was returned by the Central government on the ground that he has no experience as Chief Justice to handle the affairs of a prominent High Court like Delhi.

The Collegium has now reconsidered its proposal and recommended that Justice Bose be appointed as Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court instead of Delhi High Court. The resolution passed on July 16 states,

“Vide Minutes dated 10th January 2018, the Collegium had recommended the appointment of Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, senior puisne Judge of Calcutta High Court as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. The Minister for Law & Justice, for the reasons mentioned in the file, has referred back the above recommendation for consideration of the Collegium.

The Collegium on reconsideration of the aforesaid recommendation and having regard to all the relevant factors resolves to recommend that Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose be appointed as Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court instead of Delhi High Court.”

Meanwhile, the Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Gita Mittal has been transferred to Jammu & Kashmir High Court as Chief Justice and Patna High Court Chief Justice, Rajendra Menon J. has been transferred to Delhi High Court.


PIL On Military Land Grab: SC Notice To Centre, Army…

The Supreme Court has sought response from the Centre and Army on a PIL highlighting the encroachment of more than 12,000 acre of military land by the private realtors and land mafias across the country.

In his PIL, advocate SN Bhardwaj cited numerous scandalous military land scams involving Army officers, after obtaining an RTI response in which the military authorities admitted that thousands of illegal structures have been illegally constructed on military lands across the country.

There was rampant encroachment on military lands across the country and the military authorities failed to remove illegal encroachments on their military lands and land grabbers, land mafia were successful in encroaching the military lands to the extent of several thousands of acres across the country, petitioner’s counsel senior advocate Rakesh Khanna told a bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar.

The bench issued notices to the Central government and the Army and sought their replies within four weeks.

“Anti-social elements were causing great loss to the government exchequer and to the military authorities by causing wrongful gain to themselves and by causing wrongful loss to our Armed Forces. It was the duty of the military authorities to remove them immediately but they did not remove them over the years,” the PIL said.

It cited examples like illegal transfer of 71 acres of land adjacent to Sukna Military Station near Siliguri in West Bengal to private realtors for building educational institutions in 2008.

In 2015, it was in news that a shopping mall was constructed in cantonment land in Pune and a house complex at Army Shooting Range in Belgium, Karnataka.


Salve To File Appeal Against Singapore SC’s Order Denying Permission To Argue In Daiichi Vs Ranbaxy Matter

Days after the Supreme Court of Singapore rejected a plea for appearance of noted senior advocate Harish Salve in the Ranbaxy’s arbitration dispute with Daiichi, the sellers of former have decided to file an appeal against the February 17 order.

Talking to LiveLaw, senior advocate Salve said from London: “There is another legal option left with my client to file an appeal within the stipulated time of 30 days. I have been appearing for the parties in Delhi High Court and for better presentation of our case in the arbitration dispute, my client wanted me to appear.”

The former solicitor general is scheduled to appear in Delhi High Court for the case’s hearing on Monday.

The corporate sellers are seeking to set aside an award in excess of $500 million by a local arbitration panel to purchaser Daiichi for not revealing the risks involved in the buyout.

Their contention that Salve is a former solicitor general of India and, hence , would be familiar with the Indian public policy was rejected, with the Singapore court saying: “I should state that his general familiarity with Indian public policy does not satisfy the requirement of “special qualifications or experience” for the purposes of the specific issues in the OSes.

“In any event, it is accepted that whether Indian public policy is relevant at all for the purposes of setting aside the Award as being contrary to Singapore public policy is ultimately a question to be resolved under Singapore law with the assistance of the parties’ respective local Senior Counsel. Therefore, I concluded that the Applicant had failed to show that apart from his general expertise in Indian law, he had the requisite “special qualifications or experience” for the purposes of the specific issues in this case under s 15(1)(c),” the judgment authored by Judge Steven Chong said.

The High Court of the Republic of Singapore argued that this case is unique because the Indian law issues were complex and novel that the presence of Indian counsel would assist the court in reaching a conclusion.

The dispute pertains to the share purchase and share subscription agreement signed in June 2008, under which Japanese company Daiichi purchased shares held by the sellers of Ranbaxy.

The Indian pharma company fell under the scanner of US regulators, after which it was directed by Daiichi to sign a consent decree with one of these regulators.

The cost of compliance with this consent decree was estimated at US$35m to US$50m per year.

Ranbaxy also had to shell out a further US$500m as a penalty in a settlement agreement with a US government department in May 2013.

Daiichi then initiated arbitration proceedings against Ranbaxy, alleging, among other things, that it “suppressed key reports evidencing widespread and intentional breaches” while seeking damages under the Indian Contract Act.

The tribunal had held in favour of Daiichi, saying that the damages payable would be similar to those recoverable for fraudulent misrepresentation under general tort principles. To be more specific, the damages awarded were in excess of $500 million.

Challenging the award, the sellers moved before Singapore’s Supreme Court on the grounds that the award passed by the tribunal was in excess of its jurisdiction.


SC To Hear Letter Petition By Ex-Arunachal CM Kalikho Pul’s Wife Tomorrow

Taking everyone by surprise, the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to give an open hearing to the wife of former Chief Minister Kalikho Pul, who had committed suicide in August last year, on Thursday.

Pul had left a 60 page suicide note alleging the nexus among the politicians, lawyers and also the judges of higher judiciary.

Earlier this month, his wife had written a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) J S Khehar seeking a probe into the allegations leveled by her late husband.

Converting the letter to into a writ petition, a bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice U U Lalit has agreed to hear the case.

Talking to LiveLaw, a source close to the Pul family said “ Late CM’s wife is here in Delhi for past couple of days. The Supreme Court Registry has informed the family that she should be present in the court tomorrow.”

He also said “ we are also going to engage a lawyer who will appear for us in the court. There are couple of names, and by late evening we will take final call.”

Pul had named some sitting as well as former judges and senior politicians in a 60-page suicide letter he left behind at the time of his death last August. His wife has demanded a CBI probe into the corruption charges levelled by Pul.

Dangwimsai — the first wife of Pul — has demanded a new FIR in the case as the state government did not probe the death of Pul “properly”, despite an FIR by the family.


SC Rejects Challenge Against Allahabad HC Ruling Upholding 25% Quota For Minorities In UP Pension Scheme

supreme-court-of-india1Dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Hindu Front for Justice, the Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court ruling which had held that blocking 25 per cent of benefits in a pension scheme in favour of minorities is not invalid.

The Hindu Front for Justice had filed a public interest litigation questioning the validity of the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government, wherein in the matter of granting pension, the government in its wisdom has chosen to block 25 per cent of the benefit of the pension scheme in favour of minority community. Petitioners had contended that such blocking of benefits in favour of one particular minority community is not at all subscribed by law and reservation for the members of minority community namely Muslims is not at all subscribed by the Constitution and has the effect of dividing the country, which was never in the mind of the makers of the Constitution.

A division bench of the high court, in a 40-page judgment, had rejected contentions put forth by the petitioners and had held that economic reservation in the shape of providing pension, wherein it is limited to reasonable number in favour of minorities based on total population, can be said to be based on permissible classification. Read more here.

The SLP was heard by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar. The court dismissed the SLP after observing that no ground for interference is made out in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Read the Judgment here.


Post-Acquisition Allottee Has No Locus To Contest Claim For Enhancement Of Compensation: SC

Mere fact that the Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the Court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation, the bench said.

The Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Gupta vs. State of Haryana, has held that the mere fact that the government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, permitting the allottee (HSIDC) to be impleaded as a party, had held that the right of representation to a local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired can also be applied to any person who is liable to pay the enhanced compensation treating such person to be the “person interested” under Section 3(b) of the Act.

Challenging the high court order, an appeal was preferred before the apex court which considered the question whether a post-acquisition allottee of land is necessary or proper party or has any locus to be heard in the matter of determination of compensation under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act).

A bench comprising Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit also held that lack of sincerity on the part of the state authority for whose benefit the acquisition has been made, by itself cannot be a valid ground to permit post-acquisition allottee to be treated as a necessary or proper authority under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to proceedings for determination of compensation.

Read the Judgment here.


SC Tells States To Take Steps To Fill Jail Officers’ Vacancies By Mar. 31

supreme-court-of-india1

Taking serious view over the inadequate number of jail officers across the country, the Supreme Court has directed all state governments to take “concrete” steps to fill the vacancies by March 31.

Also finding deficiencies in the training of jail staff, the court expressed its unhappiness and directed the Central government to prepare training manual for various categories of staff and officers in jail.

For strict monitoring of prisons, the court stressed for constitution of Board of Visitors in jails and sought the Centre’s report.

Amicus curiae Gaurav Aggarwal cited before a bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur the government data in Lok Sabha about the present strength of the jail officers – 52,666 against the sanctioned strength of 77,988 by December 2014.

Referring to the government’s answer to a query in Lok Sabha, the bench noted that there is a gap of 27,000 staff at present.

“We direct all the state governments and Union Territories to take immediate steps to fill up the existing vacancies and initiate steps in this regard on or before March 31. The steps taken by each state or union territory should be intimated to the Ministry of Home Affairs,” the bench said.

In 2013, the court had taken suo motu cognizance of a media report on the inhuman conditions of jails across the country.

It accepted the submission of amicus saying: “It appears that over the past many years, hardly about 7,800 staff has been given some kind of training, mostly the refresher training. This is an unhappy state of affairs considering the fact that the number of staff is I the region about 50,000.”

The court ordered the Centre, in consultation with states, to take steps to prepare the training manual by March 31.

In addition, the court took on record the variation in expenses incurred towards each inmate per annum in different states. To address the issue, the Home Ministry was directed to come out with a scheme for auditing these accounts with the assistance of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

For financial year 2015-2016, Bihar showed per inmate Rs 83,692 per annum, where as Rajasthan showed only Rs 3,000. Similarly, Nagaland data says Rs 65,468 and Punjab is Rs 16,669.

Further, the court directed for constitution of Board of Visitors in jail and directed the Home Ministry to submit a status report.

Additional Solicitor General NK Kaul informed the court that a manual for juveniles in conflict with law is under preparation and the same would be ready by end of March.

Warning that heavy cost will be imposed in case the states and union territories failed to provide necessary data to the Centre, the court fixed April 12 as the next date of hearing.

On the top court’s order, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative said: “We appreciate the court’s direction. Effective boards can really help the jail administration. But without suitable, trained and active people in place, nothing will change on the ground. This court should continue to monitor the appointment and work of these boards in consonance with 2011 MHA advisory.”


Aadhaar Bill: Courts Cannot Question Legislative Procedure: AG To SC

The AG told the court that the Speaker’s decision on any legislative procedure can never be questioned by Court.

“Tentatively we do not agree with the petitioner but we shall hold a detailed hearing after four weeks. Be ready on that day”,a bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said after Rohatgi showed the constitutional provision relating to the issue.

A Money Bill is one that contains provisions for taxes, appropriation of funds etc. Money Bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha cannot make amendments to such bills passed by the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can suggest amendments, but it is the Lok Sabha’s choice to accept or reject them.

Senior lawyer P Chidambaram arguing the matter for Ramesh questioned the “grossly unconstitutional” passing of the Aadhar law as money bill. Ramesh while proposing amendments in the bill in the Rajya Sabha, had then expressed “anguish” that the bill was brought as a money bill, an act he likened to “knocking a nail in the coffin of the Upper House”.

Accusing the BJP-led NDA government of showing “utter contempt” of the Rajya Sabha for taking the money bill route to pass the Aadhaar bill, the opposition party had earlier indicated that the matter could be challenged in the court.

Rejecting the Rajya Sabha’s five amendments and the Opposition’s appeal not to make “haste”, the Lok Sabha had on March 16, 2016 adopted the Aadhaar (targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Bill, 2016, by a voice vote after rejecting the recommendations for five amendments made by the Upper House earlier in the evening.

Armed with the Speaker’s decision that it was a money bill, the government pushed it in the Rajya Sabha, which cannot amend it but only make recommendations for amendment to the Lok Sabha.

Once the Lok Sabha passes a money bill with or without amendments recommended by the Rajya Sabha, it is deemed to have been passed by both the Houses.

Showing urgency in getting the law through, the government, which enjoys a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha, had brought the measure to the lower house within an hour of being returned by the Rajya Sabha.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who moved the bill and piloted them in both the Houses, had also turned down opposition argument that Parliament cannot legislate since the matter is before Supreme Court.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.


Can’t Allow Pvt FM Stations To Air News: Centre To SC

“All these stations, channels are run mainly by NGO/other small organizations and private operators, several anti national radical elements within the country can misuse it for propagating their own agenda”: Home Ministry Affidavit.

Private FM and community radio service operators in India, unlike their counterparts in foreign countries, will not get a chance to air news and current affairs programmes in the near future and the government’s monopoly is set to continue.

In an affidavit filed on the direction by the Supreme Court in a PIL on the issue, the Centre has said it was not possible to grant them permission saying that several anti- national radical elements within the country and also abroad can misuse it for propagating their own agenda.

The SC is hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Common Cause in 2013, seeking a direction to the Centre to allow private radio stations and community radios to broadcast news, arguing that radio is a more accessible medium for the masses, particularly the poor.

“MHA is of the view that Community Radio Service operators and Private FM operators may not be allowed to broadcast news and current affairs programmes. Broadcast of news by these stations/channel may pose a possible security risk as there is no mechanism to monitor the contents of the news bulletins of very such station”, an MHA affidavit filed in the court said.

“All these stations, channels are run mainly by NGO/other small organizations and private operators, several anti national radical elements within the country can misuse it for propagating their own agenda. Community radio stations also air programmes involving chats with NRIs and local population settled abroad. These stations may be exploited by foreign / radical organizations to broadcast radical views of some of these NRIs, as due to paucity of funds, the radio stations would not be able to afford authentic news sources”, it said.

The NGO’s lawyer Prashant Bhushan had argued that not everyone can afford to open a private TV channel, but people can open community radio stations and FM channel.

Holding that broadcasting of news bulletins and current affairs programmes on radio are at present “the exclusive preserve of AIR and are outside the ambit of private FM radio stations”, the MHA said in case of a policy departure, there are several pitfalls to guard against, bearing in mind the sensitive nature of such broadcast.

“It is believed that news and current affairs, with their inherent capability to manipulate the minds of the people have been advisedly kept beyond the limits of private radio stations. Any shift in this policy would necessitate to an adherence to a rigorous code of conduct; a proper monitoring mechanism and penal provisions of violation of such a broadcast code”, said the MHA.

Common Cause contended that the government’s policy guidelines and grant of permission agreements under which the private FM and community radio stations are prohibited from broadcasting their own news and current affairs programmes on the same footing as television and print media, was illegal and violative of Article 19 (1) (a) (right to free speech and expression) of the Constitution.

Bhushan challenged the validity of the policy guidelines and grant of permission agreements framed by the Centre, saying that while these norms allow broadcasting of information, including news on sports, traffic, weather, etc. What is not allowed is broadcast of political news and current affairs.

India is perhaps the lone democracy where the dissemination of news and current affairs programmes on radio remains a monopoly of the Government-owned broadcaster, the PIL added.

This article has been made possible because of financial support fromIndependent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.


Surrender Immediately: SC to Sasikala

The Supreme Court today ordered Jayalalithaa aide Sasikala Natarajan whose conviction in the disproportionate assets case was restored yesterday, to surrender immediately after rejecting her plea for more time on health grounds.

“We don’t intend to change a word of that order, We intend to pass no further orders after directing her to surrender immediately. Hope you understand the meaning of immediately Mr Tulsi?” Justice P C Ghose told senior lawyer K T S Tulsi who represented Sasikala.

In a massive setback to late Jayalalitha’s aide Sasikala, the Supreme Court yesterday restored her conviction and the sentence of four years awarded by a Bangalore court in September 2014 and ordered that she be taken back back to jail immediately to serve out the remaining three years, 10 months and 27 days.

In a unanimous judgment on a 21-year-old case of disproportionate assets, which also bars her from holding public office for 10 years, a two-judge SC bench “unhesitatingly“ set aside the Karnataka HC’s judgment “erroneously“ acquitting Jayalalithaa, Sasikala and two others in May 2015 and upheld the conviction of the trial court, which it found to be “flawless“. She now stands disqualified from contesting elections for 10 years.


Why Are Pvt FM Stations Refused Permission To Air News? SC Asks Centre

Supreme Court has questioned the Centre’s refusal to allow private FM stations and community radio service operators to air news and current affairs programme.

A bench headed by chief justice J S Khehar yesterday asked the government to consider permitting them to broadcast news and current affairs programme based on the information already available in public domain.
The bench however agreed to the extent that it may not be feasible to give a free hand to private radio stations to broadcast their own news as it might create “havoc” in sensitive areas like the north-east and J and K they should be permitted to take the contents of newspapers and TV channels to broadcast them.

Appearing for the petitioner NGO Common Cause, senior lawyer Jayant Bhushan said “government could not control flow of information and its decision was unconstitutional and violative of right to freedom of speech and expression”. Countering the centre’s argument that they cannot monitor all the FM stations and community radio services as most are owned by NGOs, Bhushan asked then in the first place how and why was the Centre granting licenses to them ?

“There is no pre-censorship of news in TV and the government is allowed to cancel licence in case of any violation. The same policy should be made for radio also. Government cannot have monopoly over radio news,” Bhushan said.

Earlier in an affidavit filed on the direction by the Supreme Court in a PIL on the issue, the Centre has said it was not possible to grant FM stations and community radio service operators permission to air news as several anti- national radical elements within the country and also abroad can misuse it for propagating their own agenda.

The PIL argues radio is a more accessible medium for the masses, particularly the poor.

“MHA is of the view that Community Radio Service operators and Private FM operators may not be allowed to broadcast news and current affairs programmes. Broadcast of news by these stations/channel may pose a possible security risk as there is no mechanism to monitor the contents of the news bulletins of very such station”, an MHA affidavit filed in the court said.

“All these stations, channels are run mainly by NGO/other small organizations and private operators, several anti national radical elements within the country can misuse it for propagating their own agenda. Community radio stations also air programmes involving chats with NRIs and local population settled abroad. These stations may be exploited by foreign / radical organizations to broadcast radical views of some of these NRIs, as due to paucity of funds, the radio stations would not be able to afford authentic news sources”, it said.

Bhushan challenged the validity of the policy guidelines and grant of permission agreements framed by the Centre, saying that while these norms allow broadcasting of information, including news on sports, traffic, weather, etc. What is not allowed is broadcast of political news and current affairs.

India is perhaps the lone democracy where the dissemination of news and current affairs programmes on radioremains a monopoly of the Government-owned broadcaster, the PIL added.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from


SC Dismisses Centre’s Last-ditch Attempt To Reverse 2014 Judgment On Commutation Of Death Sentence

The Supreme Court’s four Judges bench comprising the Chief Justice, J.S.Khehar, and justices Dipak Misra, J.Chelameswar, and Ranjan Gogoi, on Friday dismissed the Central Government’s last legal remedy of Curative Petition in seeking the reversal of the Court’s landmark judgment in Shatrughan Chauan v Union of India.

The judgment, delivered by a three-Judge bench in January 2014, secured the commutation of as many as 15 death row convicts at one go, and is a source of hope for several convicts, whose mercy petitions are still languishing for decisions in the hands of the Governor, and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

The judgment not only considered the ground of delay in disposal of mercy petitions, but other supervening factors like mental illness during the prolonged incarceration, as grounds for commuting the death sentence of a convict.

The President, Pranab Mukherjee, at present has no pending mercy petitions with him, having commuted death sentences of four convicts in Bara Massacre case on January 1 this year. The President reportedly cited Shatrughan Chauhan judgment, while setting aside the MHA recommendation to reject the mercy petitions of these four convicts.

Curiously, the Curative Petition was filed by the Centre only in January this year, giving rise to doubt whether the Centre, was irked by the President’s decision to reject its recommendation, while deciding the mercy petitions on the basis of this judgment.

Read the Order here


SC To Frame Issues On Triple Talaq; Will Not Touch UCC

Taking ahead its hearing on batch of petitions, one of them taken suo motu by it on the contentious issue and recurring complaints of gender discrimination suffered by muslim women arising out of several rules in its personal laws, the Supreme Court today said it would decide issues pertaining to legal aspects of the practices of triple talaq, ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy among Muslims and would not deal with the question whether divorce under Muslim law needs to be supervised by courts as it falls under the legislative domain.

The bench, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with the issue of Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which is currently being examined by the Law Commission of India.

“You (lawyers for parties) sit together and finalise the issues to be deliberated upon by us. We are listing it day after tomorrow for deciding the issues”, a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud said.

It is to be noted that on June 29 the Supreme Court had asked all parties including the Centre and All India Muslim Personal Board to frame legal propositions requiring consideration.

“It is a very important issue. Everyone needs to be heard. We will hold a preliminary hearing if there is need for deeper consultation we might even refer it to larger bench.Frame issues on what is the scope of judicial review in this matter at the same time if we feel that the law is settled we will not interfere Legal propositions which call for consideration have to be framed first. Do it within six weeks”, a bench headed by then chief justice T S Thakur told lawyers of all parties.

Today the bench made it clear to the parties concerned that it would not deal with the factual aspects of the particular case and would rather decide the legal issue.

“We are not interested with facts at all. We are only interested in dealing with the legal issue”, the bench said.

The apex court said that the question whether divorce under Muslim Personal Law needs to be supervised by either courts or by a court-supervised institutional arbitration falls under the legislative domain.

The court, meanwhile, allowed the lawyers to file small synopsis of cases pertaining to alleged victims of triple talaq.

The Centre had earlier opposed the practice of triple talaq, ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy among Muslims and favoured a relook on grounds like gender equality and secularism.

This article has been made possible because of financial support fromIndependent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29 30   Next »