All eyes are on France as National Rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a crucial verdict that could have far-reaching consequences for her political future. The decision is being closely watched by supporters, opponents, and political observers across Europe. In this edition of Race To Power, we explore the case, its significance for French politics, and what the ruling could mean for the future of the country's right-wing movement.

France's national rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a defining verdict

<p><meta charset="utf-8" />The Supreme Court of India has taken note of the controversial remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event on December 8. It put under review the whole speech, which has been widely criticised. It also&nbsp;sought details the full speech.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court has sought a detailed report from the Allahabad High Court.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court said in an official statement that it has noted the reports about the speech. "The Supreme Court has taken note of the newspaper reports of a speech given by Mr. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the High Court and the matter is under consideration," the statement read.</p>

<h2 dir="ltr"><strong>Justice Yadav's remarks: A call for Uniform Civil Code</strong></h2>

<p dir="ltr">Justice Yadav advocated strong support for the proposed Uniform Civil Code as a potential means to promote social harmony and gender equality by unifying personal laws across different religious communities. He claimed that the UCC would replace various personal laws that are currently based on religion with a uniform code from within and between communities.</p>

<p dir="ltr">However, the remarks were interpreted by some&nbsp;as an endorsement of a Hindu-majoritarian agenda, especially since they were made during a programme organised by VHP, a Hindu nationalist organisation.</p>

<h2 dir="ltr"><strong>Political and public reactions</strong></h2>

<p dir="ltr">The speech evoked sharp political reactions from political leaders like MP Asaduddin Owaisi, who has called for proceedings to remove Justice Yadav&nbsp;for going against the constitutional norms and hitting at judicial independence.&nbsp;CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat too condemned the remarks, stating they undermine the credibility of the judiciary and could very well cast a pall over public faith in the fairness of the judicial process.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, a watchdog,&nbsp;has demanded an inquiry and called for Justice Yadav to be relieved of his duties pending investigation.<br />
<br />
<b>Also Read:<a href="Sambhal violence: SC bars local court from taking further steps on mosque survey till Jan 8">&nbsp;Sambhal violence: SC bars local court from taking further steps on mosque survey till Jan 8</a></b></p>

<h2 dir="ltr"><strong>VHP's defence of Justice Yadav</strong></h2>

<p dir="ltr">The VHP defended Justice Yadav's remarks, arguing that the legal community should support the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code and other reforms. The organisation emphasised that its legal cell has been working to engage the legal fraternity on issues such as the UCC and freeing temples from government control.</p>

<p>The statements of Justice Yadav were defended by VHP, which argued that the legal community should strengthen the laws for executing the Uniform Civil Code and other reforms. It emphasised that its legal cell has been working to engage the legal fraternity on issues such as the UCC and freeing temples from government control.<br />
<br />
<strong>Watch:</strong>&nbsp;<strong>India: Supreme Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Lays Down Guidelines Against Action | WION Originals</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-supreme-court-slams-bulldozer-justice-lays-down-guidelines-against-action-wion-originals-776038/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h2>Broader implications for judicial independence</h2>

<p dir="ltr">The controversy sparks an important question: does political and religious views affect a judge’s impartiality? Legal experts stress the need for judicial independence and warn judges to avoid public comments that might harm the judiciary's reputation. The Supreme Court's decision will be important for judicial accountability and how judges balance their roles with political and religious views in India.</p>

<p dir="ltr">The Supreme Court is considering further actions on the issue.</p>


The Supreme Court of India has taken note of the controversial remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event on December 8.

The Supreme Court of India has taken note of the controversial remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event on December 8. It put under review the whole speech, which has been widely criticised. It also sought details the full speech. The Supreme Court has sought a detailed report from the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court said in an official statement that it has noted the reports about the speech. "The Supreme Court has taken note of the newspaper reports of a speech given by Mr. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The details and particulars have been called from the High Court and the matter is under consideration," the statement read. Justice Yadav's remarks: A call for Uniform Civil Code Justice Yadav advocated strong support for the proposed Uniform Civil Code as a potential means to promote social harmony and gender equality by unifying personal laws across different religious communities. He claimed that the UCC would replace various personal laws that are currently based on religion with a uniform code from within and between communities. However, the remarks were interpreted by some as an endorsement of a Hindu-majoritarian agenda, especially since they were made during a programme organised by VHP, a Hindu nationalist organisation. Political and public reactions The speech evoked sharp political reactions from political leaders like MP Asaduddin Owaisi, who has called for proceedings to remove Justice Yadav for going against the constitutional norms and hitting at judicial independence. CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat too condemned the remarks, stating they undermine the credibility of the judiciary and could very well cast a pall over public faith in the fairness of the judicial process. Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, a watchdog, has demanded an inquiry and called for Justice Yadav to be relieved of his duties pending investigation. Also Read: Sambhal violence: SC bars local court from taking further steps on mosque survey till Jan 8 VHP's defence of Justice Yadav The VHP defended Justice Yadav's remarks, arguing that the legal community should support the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code and other reforms. The organisation emphasised that its legal cell has been working to engage the legal fraternity on issues such as the UCC and freeing temples from government control. The statements of Justice Yadav were defended by VHP, which argued that the legal community should strengthen the laws for executing the Uniform Civil Code and other reforms. It emphasised that its legal cell has been working to engage the legal fraternity on issues such as the UCC and freeing temples from government control. Watch: India: Supreme Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Lays Down Guidelines Against Action | WION Originals Broader implications for judicial independence The controversy sparks an important question: does political and religious views affect a judge’s impartiality? Legal experts stress the need for judicial independence and warn judges to avoid public comments that might harm the judiciary's reputation. The Supreme Court's decision will be important for judicial accountability and how judges balance their roles with political and religious views in India. The Supreme Court is considering further actions on the issue.

Indian Supreme Court reviews controversial remarks on Uniform Civil Code by Justice Yadav at VHP event

<p>Ruling on US government's appeal opposing a previous order against extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is due to come on Friday.</p>

<p>Court listings for the Royal Courts of Justice in London published on Thursday said a judgment in the long-running case will be handed down at 1015 GMT on Friday.</p>

<p>USA wants to put 50-year-old Julian Assange on trial for leaking thousands of classified military documents about US war in Iraq and Afghanistan.</p>

<p>The extradition was blocked in January this year. The grounds for blocking extradition were Assange potentially being a suicide risk if he was removed to the United States and held in isolation.</p>

<p>But lawyers for the US government in October argued the original judge had not given sufficient weight to other expert testimony about Assange's mental state.</p>

<p>They have also sought to assure the court he would not be held in a federal supermax prison, and would receive appropriate treatment.</p>

<p>The case has become a cause celebre for free speech with Assange's supporters arguing WikiLeaks has the same rights as other media to publish secret material in the public interest.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Assange himself has been in custody since 2019, despite having served a previous sentence for breaching bail conditions in a separate case.</p>

<p>The maverick publisher spent seven years at Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid being removed to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations that were later dropped.</p>

<p>While at the South American country's mission, he fathered two children with his partner, Stella Moris, a member of his legal team.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>


Ruling on US government's appeal opposing a previous order against extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is due to come on Friday. Court listings for the Royal Courts of Justice in London published on Thursday said a judgment in the long-running case will be handed down at 1015 GMT on Friday.

Ruling on US government's appeal opposing a previous order against extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is due to come on Friday. Court listings for the Royal Courts of Justice in London published on Thursday said a judgment in the long-running case will be handed down at 1015 GMT on Friday. USA wants to put 50-year-old Julian Assange on trial for leaking thousands of classified military documents about US war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The extradition was blocked in January this year. The grounds for blocking extradition were Assange potentially being a suicide risk if he was removed to the United States and held in isolation. But lawyers for the US government in October argued the original judge had not given sufficient weight to other expert testimony about Assange's mental state. They have also sought to assure the court he would not be held in a federal supermax prison, and would receive appropriate treatment. The case has become a cause celebre for free speech with Assange's supporters arguing WikiLeaks has the same rights as other media to publish secret material in the public interest. Assange himself has been in custody since 2019, despite having served a previous sentence for breaching bail conditions in a separate case. The maverick publisher spent seven years at Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid being removed to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations that were later dropped. While at the South American country's mission, he fathered two children with his partner, Stella Moris, a member of his legal team. (With inputs from agencies)

Julian Assange extradition appeal ruling to come on Friday

<p>The long awaited triple talaq verdict is finally out. And it has been hailed as a historical verdict by all concerned - the lawyers who argued the case, the petitioners who had approached the court to challenge their arbitrary and instant triple talaq, to various Muslim women&rsquo;s groups who had intervened in the matter, and political leaders of various hues. It has secured the rights of Muslim women and brought gender parity within Islamic law of divorce.</p>

<p>This was an expected outcome of this marathon litigation. No one was going to hold triple talaq as valid or gender just. What was under contest was the best or the most appropriate manner of bringing reforms within Muslim Personal Law &ndash; the legislature, the courts or the Muslim religious leadership. On this important issue, the verdict is split. &nbsp;</p>

<p>The&nbsp;Chief Justice of India, Justice Khehar, who presided over the five judge bench, held that though triple talaq is undesired,&nbsp;the courts could not declare the law or strike down triple talaq. So, he gave a six-month window for the Parliament to declare the law. The only Muslim judge on the bench Justice Abdul Nazeer concurred.</p>

<p>This set out a flutter among the journalists and lawyers waiting on tether-hooks in the packed court room. But just as a sense of gloom was beginning to descend, the other three judges on the bench - Justices Rohinton Nariman, Kurien Joseph, and U.U. Lalit gave their verdict. They spoke more decisively and held triple talaq invalid. So, it was a 3:2 verdict with the majority view holding triple talaq invalid.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But again their ground for holding so differed. While Justice Nariman and Lalit held that as the Sharia Application Act, since 1937, has been mentioning the word &lsquo;Talaq&rsquo;, talaq forms part of a statute and becomes &ldquo;law in force&rdquo;. Hence, there was no difficulty in declaring this practice unconstitutional.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Supreme Court in its earlier ruling in Shamim Ara in 2002 had already held this practice invalid and also laid down the procedure for pronouncing talaq.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Supreme Court in its earlier ruling in Shamim Ara in 2002 had already held this practice invalid and also laid down the procedure for pronouncing talaq." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>But&nbsp;Justice Kurien Joseph differed. He did not agree that this provision could be tested against the fundamental rights as the court was dealing with personal laws. He stayed within the realm of Islam and examined whether it forms an essential core of the religious practice. Since the Supreme Court in its earlier ruling in Shamim Ara in 2002 had already held the practice of triple talaq invalid, and also laid down the procedure for pronouncing talaq, he had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that triple talaq is not a valid practice under Islamic law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Where does this leave the Muslim Personal Law Board? Mr. Kapil Sibal who argued the matter for the Board has given a statement that he is happy with the verdict as the court has upheld the validity of personal laws. The AIMPLB has adopted a cautious approach and called for a meeting to discuss the implications of this judgment and decide the future course of action.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Earlier, the Board had issued an advisory that triple talaq is sinful and laying down the correct procedure for pronouncing talaq.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Earlier, the Board had issued an advisory that triple talaq is sinful and laying down the correct procedure for pronouncing talaq." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Earlier, the Board had issued an advisory that triple talaq is sinful and had laid&nbsp;down the correct procedure for pronouncing talaq. But they were not willing to walk the last mile and hold it invalid. Now, the courts have come to the rescue of Muslim women by declaring it as invalid under Muslim law as well as unconstitutional.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Will the government still go ahead and enact a law for Muslims as stated by the Advocate General Mukul Rohatgi during the arguments. It appears unlikely. But there are some, who have already started the clamor for enforcing a Uniform Civil Code. We need to wait and watch as to how this debate will now proceed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The important question is &ndash; &nbsp;where does this judgment leave Muslim women, who were aggrieved by the pronouncement of arbitrary triple talaq? Well, this was a public interest litigation for deciding legal principles and not for deciding individual rights. But for the moment they can be content that their struggle has yielded positive results for all Muslim women.</p>


The Supreme Court has declared triple talaq unconstitutional but no consensus has yet been reached on the best way of reforming Muslim Personal Law

The long awaited triple talaq verdict is finally out. And it has been hailed as a historical verdict by all concerned - the lawyers who argued the case, the petitioners who had approached the court to challenge their arbitrary and instant triple talaq, to various Muslim women’s groups who had intervened in the matter, and political leaders of various hues. It has secured the rights of Muslim women and brought gender parity within Islamic law of divorce. This was an expected outcome of this marathon litigation. No one was going to hold triple talaq as valid or gender just. What was under contest was the best or the most appropriate manner of bringing reforms within Muslim Personal Law – the legislature, the courts or the Muslim religious leadership. On this important issue, the verdict is split. The Chief Justice of India, Justice Khehar, who presided over the five judge bench, held that though triple talaq is undesired, the courts could not declare the law or strike down triple talaq. So, he gave a six-month window for the Parliament to declare the law. The only Muslim judge on the bench Justice Abdul Nazeer concurred. This set out a flutter among the journalists and lawyers waiting on tether-hooks in the packed court room. But just as a sense of gloom was beginning to descend, the other three judges on the bench - Justices Rohinton Nariman, Kurien Joseph, and U.U. Lalit gave their verdict. They spoke more decisively and held triple talaq invalid. So, it was a 3:2 verdict with the majority view holding triple talaq invalid. But again their ground for holding so differed. While Justice Nariman and Lalit held that as the Sharia Application Act, since 1937, has been mentioning the word ‘Talaq’, talaq forms part of a statute and becomes “law in force”. Hence, there was no difficulty in declaring this practice unconstitutional. Supreme Court in its earlier ruling in Shamim Ara in 2002 had already held this practice invalid and also laid down the procedure for pronouncing talaq. × But Justice Kurien Joseph differed. He did not agree that this provision could be tested against the fundamental rights as the court was dealing with personal laws. He stayed within the realm of Islam and examined whether it forms an essential core of the religious practice. Since the Supreme Court in its earlier ruling in Shamim Ara in 2002 had already held the practice of triple talaq invalid, and also laid down the procedure for pronouncing talaq, he had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that triple talaq is not a valid practice under Islamic law. Where does this leave the Muslim Personal Law Board? Mr. Kapil Sibal who argued the matter for the Board has given a statement that he is happy with the verdict as the court has upheld the validity of personal laws. The AIMPLB has adopted a cautious approach and called for a meeting to discuss the implications of this judgment and decide the future course of action. Earlier, the Board had issued an advisory that triple talaq is sinful and laying down the correct procedure for pronouncing talaq. × Earlier, the Board had issued an advisory that triple talaq is sinful and had laid down the correct procedure for pronouncing talaq. But they were not willing to walk the last mile and hold it invalid. Now, the courts have come to the rescue of Muslim women by declaring it as invalid under Muslim law as well as unconstitutional. Will the government still go ahead and enact a law for Muslims as stated by the Advocate General Mukul Rohatgi during the arguments. It appears unlikely. But there are some, who have already started the clamor for enforcing a Uniform Civil Code. We need to wait and watch as to how this debate will now proceed. The important question is – where does this judgment leave Muslim women, who were aggrieved by the pronouncement of arbitrary triple talaq? Well, this was a public interest litigation for deciding legal principles and not for deciding individual rights. But for the moment they can be content that their struggle has yielded positive results for all Muslim women.

Will doing away with Triple Talaq help to bring about changes in the Muslim Personal Law?

court-verdict

Court Verdict, News on Court Verdict, stories on Court Verdict, articles on Court Verdict, Court Verdict stories at Wion, Court Verdict news, Court Verdict latest news

court verdict

France's national rally leader Marine Le Pen awaits a defining verdict

Indian Supreme Court reviews controversial remarks on Uniform Civil Code by Justice Yadav at VHP event

Julian Assange extradition appeal ruling to come on Friday

Will doing away with Triple Talaq help to bring about changes in the Muslim Personal Law?