<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/iuml-to-file-plea-in-supreme-court-against-citizenship-amendment-bill-267775">Indian Union Muslim League</a> (IUML) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the question of legality of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-one-can-take-away-your-rights-unique-identity-prime-minister-assures-assam-on-citizenship-amendment-bill-267780">Citizenship (Amendment) Bill</a>, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

IUML, in its petition, requested the apex court to stay the Bill and its operation. The Muslim League also pleaded to declare it "illegal and void" for violating Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

In a copy made available to ANI, the league requested the court to pass and grant an interim stay on the operation of the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015; and decision arising from the aforesaid rules.

"Kapil Sibal will be representing us in the court. We are confident that we will win the case as it is strong both legally and morally. The Bill violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution," said Mohammad Bashir, IUML member and Lok Sabha lawmaker from Ponnani.

The lawmaker said the Constitution of India is being "ruthlessly ignored" by the government.

The Bill, which was passed by Parliament on Wednesday, faced its first legal challenge with the filing of the petition.

IUML national secretary <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-chaired-all-party-meeting-over-one-nation-one-election-underway-at-parliament-228677">P K Kunhalikutty </a>also said that since the Bill discriminates on the grounds of religion, it will not stand any ground in the top court.

The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favor of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week.

The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. 
&nbsp;

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the question of legality of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the question of legality of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament. IUML, in its petition, requested the apex court to stay the Bill and its operation. The Muslim League also pleaded to declare it "illegal and void" for violating Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In a copy made available to ANI, the league requested the court to pass and grant an interim stay on the operation of the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015; and decision arising from the aforesaid rules. "Kapil Sibal will be representing us in the court. We are confident that we will win the case as it is strong both legally and morally. The Bill violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution," said Mohammad Bashir, IUML member and Lok Sabha lawmaker from Ponnani. The lawmaker said the Constitution of India is being "ruthlessly ignored" by the government. The Bill, which was passed by Parliament on Wednesday, faced its first legal challenge with the filing of the petition. IUML national secretary P K Kunhalikutty also said that since the Bill discriminates on the grounds of religion, it will not stand any ground in the top court. The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favor of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week. The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Indian Union Muslim League moves Supreme Court against Citizenship Amendment Bill

Indian Government & Facebook Spar Over Decryption Debate The decryption debate at India's Apex Court has brought to fore - the privacy versus security debate.

Gravitas: 'Decryption' & The 'privacy Vs Security' Debate In India

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-mediation-panel-submits-report-to-supreme-court-240004">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case</a> would require deliberation and institutional decision making.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case.

Singh submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered.

Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public is being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The live streaming of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-mediation-failed-to-yield-results-daily-hearing-from-august-6-240161">the Ayodhya case</a> is required because in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public is also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea, filed through advocate Virag Gupta, stated.

"This Court has already held that `right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people," it stated.

The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77 acres disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making. A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. Singh submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public is being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. The live streaming of the Ayodhya case is required because in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public is also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea, filed through advocate Virag Gupta, stated. "This Court has already held that `right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people," it stated. The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77 acres disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya case: Live streaming of proceeding will require deliberation and institutional decision making, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouris-sole-abortion-clinic-awaits-ruling-on-whether-it-can-stay-open-231189">abortion</a>.

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.&nbsp;

The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother.&nbsp;

It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights.&nbsp;

The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea.

The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-put-stay-on-installation-of-cctv-cameras-in-government-schools-235310/amp&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjgsZCs5LbjAhXH6XMBHdOZCskQFjAFegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Vb-uvNezOp0z2buIMxZU8">Article 21</a> of the Constitution.

Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities.&nbsp;

The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea.

"The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added.

The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea.

"The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences.&nbsp;

Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats. The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother. It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights. The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea. The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities. The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea. "The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added. The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea. "The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences. Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on plea seeking to decriminalise abortion

article-21

Article 21, News on Article 21, stories on Article 21, articles on Article 21, Article 21 stories at Wion, Article 21 news, Article 21 latest news

article 21

Indian Union Muslim League moves Supreme Court against Citizenship Amendment Bill

Gravitas: 'Decryption' & The 'privacy Vs Security' Debate In India

Ayodhya case: Live streaming of proceeding will require deliberation and institutional decision making, says Supreme Court

Ayodhya case: Live streaming of proceeding will require deliberation and institutional decision making, says Supreme Court

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on plea seeking to decriminalise abortion