New Delhi, India
The Congress on Tuesday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and expressed hope that the apex court will help restore the "fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process.
The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-flights-trains-affected-in-delhi-due-to-dense-fog-imd-predicts-colder-days-ahead-786686">India: Flights, trains affected in Delhi due to dense fog; IMD predicts colder days ahead</a>
AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh, who filed the petition, said, "The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it."
"A writ has just been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961," he said in a post on X.
Ramesh said the Election Commission, a Constitutional body charged with the conduct of free and fair elections cannot be allowed to unilaterally, and without public consultation, amend such a vital law in such a brazen manner.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-president-droupadi-murmu-appoints-governors-of-five-states-786580">Indian President Droupadi Murmu appoints governors of five states</a>
"This is especially true when that amendment does away with public access to essential information that makes the electoral process more transparent and accountable," he said.
Based on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India, the Union law ministry on Friday amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh, who filed the petition, said, "The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it"



New Delhi, India The Congress on Tuesday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and expressed hope that the apex court will help restore the "fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process. The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Also read | India: Flights, trains affected in Delhi due to dense fog; IMD predicts colder days ahead AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh, who filed the petition, said, "The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it." "A writ has just been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961," he said in a post on X. Ramesh said the Election Commission, a Constitutional body charged with the conduct of free and fair elections cannot be allowed to unilaterally, and without public consultation, amend such a vital law in such a brazen manner. Also read | Indian President Droupadi Murmu appoints governors of five states "This is especially true when that amendment does away with public access to essential information that makes the electoral process more transparent and accountable," he said. Based on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India, the Union law ministry on Friday amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Congress files writ petition in SC against changes to election rules

The Congress on Tuesday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and expressed hope that the apex court will help restore the "fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process.

The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-flights-trains-affected-in-delhi-due-to-dense-fog-imd-predicts-colder-days-ahead-786686">India: Flights, trains affected in Delhi due to dense fog; IMD predicts colder days ahead</a>

AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh, who filed the petition, said, "The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it." 
&nbsp; 
"A writ has just been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961," he said in a post on X.

Ramesh said the Election Commission, a Constitutional body charged with the conduct of free and fair elections cannot be allowed to unilaterally, and without public consultation, amend such a vital law in such a brazen manner.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-president-droupadi-murmu-appoints-governors-of-five-states-786580">Indian President Droupadi Murmu appoints governors of five states</a>

"This is especially true when that amendment does away with public access to essential information that makes the electoral process more transparent and accountable," he said.

Based on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India, the Union law ministry on Friday amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The Congress on Tuesday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and expressed hope that the apex court will help restore the "fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process.

The Congress on Tuesday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and expressed hope that the apex court will help restore the "fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process. The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Also read | India: Flights, trains affected in Delhi due to dense fog; IMD predicts colder days ahead AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh, who filed the petition, said, "The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it." "A writ has just been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961," he said in a post on X. Ramesh said the Election Commission, a Constitutional body charged with the conduct of free and fair elections cannot be allowed to unilaterally, and without public consultation, amend such a vital law in such a brazen manner. Also read | Indian President Droupadi Murmu appoints governors of five states "This is especially true when that amendment does away with public access to essential information that makes the electoral process more transparent and accountable," he said. Based on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India, the Union law ministry on Friday amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct 24) directed Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar's NCP to use the "clock" symbol in its publicity material in the upcoming Maharashtra assembly elections with a disclaimer that the matter was sub-judice before it.

Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on a plea filed by the rival Sharad Pawar-led NCP faction as it issued a notice to the Ajit Pawar-led faction.

The top court on March 19 and April 4 had directed the Ajit Pawar-led faction to issue a public notice in the newspapers in English, Hindi and Marathi editions notifying that the allocation of "clock" symbol was sub-judice. The apex court had further said the Ajit faction was permitted to use the symbol subject to the case's final outcome.

During the proceedings on Thursday, the bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Sharad Pawar faction. Singhvi submitted that the opponent group should be restrained from using the "clock" symbol as it didn't use the disclaimer in their campaign materials and "misled" voters.

"They have been blatantly not using the disclaimer. They want to piggyback on me. Nobody should enjoy the goodwill of the symbol which is sub-judice," submitted Singhvi.

The top court directed Ajit Pawar to file a fresh undertaking over its March 19 and April 4 directions to issue a public notice&nbsp;<meta charset="utf-8" />–&nbsp;"NCP's 'clock' symbol is sub-judice" –&nbsp;was being meticulously complied with even during the process of the state assembly elections.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/tardy-paddy-procurement-indian-farmers-to-protest-and-block-roads-in-punjab-on-saturday-770423">‘Tardy’ paddy procurement: Indian farmers to protest, block roads in Punjab on Saturday</a>

"File a fresh undertaking as well that you have not violated our directions in the past and till the end of elections. If there is any violation, we will take note of it. We expect both sides to comply with our directions. Please don't create an embarrassing situation," the bench said.

Singhvi said the Ajit Pawar group should be allocated a new symbol for the assembly elections.

Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ajit Pawar, opposed Singhvi's submissions and said all pamphlets and campaign materials contained the disclaimers as directed by the apex court.

"They are showing false documents. We have given disclaimers in our publicity material. They came up with the same allegations during the Lok Sabha polls which were rejected. I am willing to file all documents and pamphlets," Singh said.

The matter has been posted for hearing on November 6.

Sharad Pawar moved the apex court against a February 6 order of the Election Commission of India (ECI) recognising Ajit Pawar-led group as the real NCP.

The ECI had allotted the NCP's "clock" symbol to the group led by Ajit Pawar. The NCP, founded by Sharad Pawar, had the "clock" as its election symbol before its split.

On March 19, the top court allowed the Sharad Pawar faction to use "Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar" as its name along with the symbol of a man blowing "turha" ahead of the Lok Sabha polls in the country.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indias-jaishankar-at-brics-says-disputes-and-differences-must-be-settled-by-dialogue-and-diplomacy-770414">India’s MEA Jaishankar at BRICS says disputes and differences must be settled by dialogue, diplomacy</a>

It had passed the order on a plea by the Sharad Pawar group seeking to restrain the Ajit Pawar faction from using the "clock" symbol for the polls, as allotted by the ECI, on the ground that it was disrupting the level playing field.

The top court had observed the name and photographs of Sharad Pawar could not be used by the Ajit Pawar faction for political gains. 
 
On February 19, the top court directed for the continuation of the ECI order allotting "Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar" as the party name for the Sharad Pawar faction.

Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar had on February 15 held the NCP faction led by Ajit Pawar to be the real NCP and said the anti-defection provisions in the Constitution couldn't be used to stifle internal dissent.

Sharad Pawar had founded the NCP with former Lok Sabha speaker Purno Sangma and Tariq Anwar in 1999 after their expulsion from Congress. 
 
Ajit Pawar had walked away with a majority of the NCP MLAs in July 2023 and supported the BJP-Shiv Sena government led by Eknath Shinde.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct 24) directed Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar's NCP to use the "clock" symbol in its publicity material in the upcoming Maharashtra assembly elections with a disclaimer that the matter was sub-judice before it.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct 24) directed Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar's NCP to use the "clock" symbol in its publicity material in the upcoming Maharashtra assembly elections with a disclaimer that the matter was sub-judice before it. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on a plea filed by the rival Sharad Pawar-led NCP faction as it issued a notice to the Ajit Pawar-led faction. The top court on March 19 and April 4 had directed the Ajit Pawar-led faction to issue a public notice in the newspapers in English, Hindi and Marathi editions notifying that the allocation of "clock" symbol was sub-judice. The apex court had further said the Ajit faction was permitted to use the symbol subject to the case's final outcome. During the proceedings on Thursday, the bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Sharad Pawar faction. Singhvi submitted that the opponent group should be restrained from using the "clock" symbol as it didn't use the disclaimer in their campaign materials and "misled" voters. "They have been blatantly not using the disclaimer. They want to piggyback on me. Nobody should enjoy the goodwill of the symbol which is sub-judice," submitted Singhvi. The top court directed Ajit Pawar to file a fresh undertaking over its March 19 and April 4 directions to issue a public notice – "NCP's 'clock' symbol is sub-judice" – was being meticulously complied with even during the process of the state assembly elections. Also Read | ‘Tardy’ paddy procurement: Indian farmers to protest, block roads in Punjab on Saturday "File a fresh undertaking as well that you have not violated our directions in the past and till the end of elections. If there is any violation, we will take note of it. We expect both sides to comply with our directions. Please don't create an embarrassing situation," the bench said. Singhvi said the Ajit Pawar group should be allocated a new symbol for the assembly elections. Senior advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ajit Pawar, opposed Singhvi's submissions and said all pamphlets and campaign materials contained the disclaimers as directed by the apex court. "They are showing false documents. We have given disclaimers in our publicity material. They came up with the same allegations during the Lok Sabha polls which were rejected. I am willing to file all documents and pamphlets," Singh said. The matter has been posted for hearing on November 6. Sharad Pawar moved the apex court against a February 6 order of the Election Commission of India (ECI) recognising Ajit Pawar-led group as the real NCP. The ECI had allotted the NCP's "clock" symbol to the group led by Ajit Pawar. The NCP, founded by Sharad Pawar, had the "clock" as its election symbol before its split. On March 19, the top court allowed the Sharad Pawar faction to use "Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar" as its name along with the symbol of a man blowing "turha" ahead of the Lok Sabha polls in the country. Also Read | India’s MEA Jaishankar at BRICS says disputes and differences must be settled by dialogue, diplomacy It had passed the order on a plea by the Sharad Pawar group seeking to restrain the Ajit Pawar faction from using the "clock" symbol for the polls, as allotted by the ECI, on the ground that it was disrupting the level playing field. The top court had observed the name and photographs of Sharad Pawar could not be used by the Ajit Pawar faction for political gains. On February 19, the top court directed for the continuation of the ECI order allotting "Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar" as the party name for the Sharad Pawar faction. Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar had on February 15 held the NCP faction led by Ajit Pawar to be the real NCP and said the anti-defection provisions in the Constitution couldn't be used to stifle internal dissent. Sharad Pawar had founded the NCP with former Lok Sabha speaker Purno Sangma and Tariq Anwar in 1999 after their expulsion from Congress. Ajit Pawar had walked away with a majority of the NCP MLAs in July 2023 and supported the BJP-Shiv Sena government led by Eknath Shinde. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India: Supreme Court allows Ajit Pawar’s NCP to use ‘clock’ symbol in Maharashtra elections, with disclaimer

Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 15) struck down as unconstitutional the controversial electoral bonds. In a landmark verdict, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that there's a danger that the financial instruments, which allow for those investing in them to stay anonymous, could lead to 'quid pro quo'.

Thursday's ruling by the apex court&nbsp;comes just ahead of the 2024 general elections.

In April 2019, the Supreme Court declined to stay the electoral bonds scheme, stressing the need to reduce the cash component in the electoral process. Last November, the court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the bonds.

But what are electoral bonds and how did they become a point of contention in the Indian electoral system and politics?

<h2>What are electoral bonds? Why were they introduced?</h2>

Indian elections are one of the largest and most complex in the world, with millions of voters and multiple political parties competing in elections at various levels of government.

However, a longstanding challenge in Indian politics has been the issue of transparency and accountability in political funding. To address this challenge, the Indian government introduced electoral&nbsp;Bonds in 2018 as part of electoral reforms aimed at bringing greater transparency to the process of political funding.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/farmers-protest-20-protesters-plan-to-block-trains-demand-pm-modi-to-intervene-690408">Farmers' protest 2.0: Protesters plan to block trains, demand PM Modi to intervene</a>

Electoral Bond is a type of financial instrument that functions like a Promissory Note and an interest-free banking tool.

Any Indian citizen or organisation registered in India can buy these bonds after fulfilling the Know Your Customer (KYC) norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the country's central bank.

Before the introduction of Electoral Bonds, political parties in India relied heavily on donations from individuals and corporate entities to fund their election campaigns and day-to-day activities.

The need for electoral reforms to address these concerns was highlighted by various stakeholders, including civil society organisations, electoral watchdogs, and the judiciary. In response, the government initiated efforts to reform the electoral system and enhance transparency in political funding.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-to-set-up-bharat-mart-in-dubai-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-warehouse-facility-690455">India to set up 'Bharat Mart' in Dubai: All you need to know about the warehouse facility</a>

Electoral Bonds were introduced in India through the Finance Act, of 2017, as a means of reforming political funding and promoting transparency.

<h2>Key Features of Electoral Bonds</h2>

Anonymity: One of the key features of Electoral Bonds is the anonymity of the donor. Unlike traditional forms of political donations, where the identity of the donor is disclosed to the public and the receiving political party, Electoral Bonds allow donors to remain anonymous. This was intended to protect the privacy and security of donors and shield them from potential retribution or harassment.

Denominations: Electoral Bonds are available in various denominations ranging from ₹1,000 to ₹1 crore (10 million). Donors can purchase these bonds from notified banks in India, with the State Bank of India (SBI), the largest public sector lender&nbsp;in the country,&nbsp;being the only authorised institution&nbsp;to issue Electoral Bonds.

Watch | India: Ahead of 2024 polls, electoral bonds in focus; bond scheme case back in headlines&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-ahead-of-2024-polls-electoral-bonds-in-focus-bond-scheme-case-back-in-headlines-wion-647646/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Validity: Electoral Bonds have a validity period within which they must be redeemed. As per the existing regulations, the bonds have a validity of 15 days from the date of issuance. This timeframe is designed to ensure that the bonds are promptly encashed by the receiving political parties.

Transparency: While the identity of the donor remains anonymous, the sale and redemption of Electoral Bonds are recorded electronically by the issuing bank. This electronic tracking system is intended to enhance transparency in the overall process of political funding and enable regulatory authorities to monitor the flow of funds.

<h2>Why did petitioners challenge Electoral bonds scheme in Supreme Court?</h2>

The electoral bonds scheme was first announced by former finance minister Arun Jaitley during the 2017 Budget Session. Later, it was notified in January 2018 as a source of political funding by way of money bills introducing amendments to the Finance Act and the Representation of the People Act.

Since their introduction, Electoral Bonds have been a subject of debate and controversy in India.

Proponents argue that they provide a legitimate channel for political funding while protecting the privacy and security of donors.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-tamil-nadu-assembly-passes-resolution-against-delimitation-one-nation-one-election-690342">India: Tamil Nadu assembly passes resolutions against delimitation, ‘One Nation One Election’</a>

However, critics raised concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the Electoral Bonds scheme.

They argued that the anonymity of donors undermines transparency in political funding, and raises questions about the influence of undisclosed donations on political decisions.&nbsp;

Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, including by the political parties like Congress, CPI (M), besides&nbsp;some NGOs, against the constitutional validity of the electoral bonds scheme.

The hearing into this matter began on October 31 last year.

According to the petitioners, the scheme violated the right to information, opened doors to shell companies, and promoted corruption.

Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal had said in the past that a political party could use the donations for any purposes other than elections.

<h2>Supreme Court’s verdict: Key points from ruling on electoral bonds</h2>

The Supreme Court on Thursday morning, while striking down the electoral bonds scheme calling it “unconstitutional”, also asked SBI to immediately stop issuing them.

The five-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra arrived at the decision unanimously.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/liquor-ban-in-indias-bengaluru-karnataka-hc-orders-to-reduce-duration-690360">Liquor ban in India's Bengaluru: Karnataka HC orders to reduce duration</a>

Below are the salient points from the judgement:

<ul>
	<li>"Information about funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting," Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed on the importance of open governance.</li>
	<li>Violation Of Article 19(1)(a): Authoring an opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Gavai, Pardiwala, and Misra, the chief justice held that the electoral bonds scheme violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.</li>
	<li>Other purposes: The court held that the restrictive means test of the doctrine of proportionality is not satisfied and that there are&nbsp;means other than electoral bonds to achieve the purpose of curbing black money, even assuming it to be a legitimate objective.</li>
</ul>

(With inputs from agencies)

Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 15) struck down as unconstitutional the controversial electoral bonds. In a landmark verdict, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that there's a danger that the financial instruments, which allow for those investing in them to stay anonymous, could lead to 'quid pro quo'.

Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 15) struck down as unconstitutional the controversial electoral bonds. In a landmark verdict, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that there's a danger that the financial instruments, which allow for those investing in them to stay anonymous, could lead to 'quid pro quo'. Thursday's ruling by the apex court comes just ahead of the 2024 general elections. In April 2019, the Supreme Court declined to stay the electoral bonds scheme, stressing the need to reduce the cash component in the electoral process. Last November, the court had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the bonds. But what are electoral bonds and how did they become a point of contention in the Indian electoral system and politics? What are electoral bonds? Why were they introduced? Indian elections are one of the largest and most complex in the world, with millions of voters and multiple political parties competing in elections at various levels of government. However, a longstanding challenge in Indian politics has been the issue of transparency and accountability in political funding. To address this challenge, the Indian government introduced electoral Bonds in 2018 as part of electoral reforms aimed at bringing greater transparency to the process of political funding. Also Read | Farmers' protest 2.0: Protesters plan to block trains, demand PM Modi to intervene Electoral Bond is a type of financial instrument that functions like a Promissory Note and an interest-free banking tool. Any Indian citizen or organisation registered in India can buy these bonds after fulfilling the Know Your Customer (KYC) norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the country's central bank. Before the introduction of Electoral Bonds, political parties in India relied heavily on donations from individuals and corporate entities to fund their election campaigns and day-to-day activities. The need for electoral reforms to address these concerns was highlighted by various stakeholders, including civil society organisations, electoral watchdogs, and the judiciary. In response, the government initiated efforts to reform the electoral system and enhance transparency in political funding. Also Read | India to set up 'Bharat Mart' in Dubai: All you need to know about the warehouse facility Electoral Bonds were introduced in India through the Finance Act, of 2017, as a means of reforming political funding and promoting transparency. Key Features of Electoral Bonds Anonymity: One of the key features of Electoral Bonds is the anonymity of the donor. Unlike traditional forms of political donations, where the identity of the donor is disclosed to the public and the receiving political party, Electoral Bonds allow donors to remain anonymous. This was intended to protect the privacy and security of donors and shield them from potential retribution or harassment. Denominations: Electoral Bonds are available in various denominations ranging from ₹1,000 to ₹1 crore (10 million). Donors can purchase these bonds from notified banks in India, with the State Bank of India (SBI), the largest public sector lender in the country, being the only authorised institution to issue Electoral Bonds. Watch | India: Ahead of 2024 polls, electoral bonds in focus; bond scheme case back in headlines × Validity: Electoral Bonds have a validity period within which they must be redeemed. As per the existing regulations, the bonds have a validity of 15 days from the date of issuance. This timeframe is designed to ensure that the bonds are promptly encashed by the receiving political parties. Transparency: While the identity of the donor remains anonymous, the sale and redemption of Electoral Bonds are recorded electronically by the issuing bank. This electronic tracking system is intended to enhance transparency in the overall process of political funding and enable regulatory authorities to monitor the flow of funds. Why did petitioners challenge Electoral bonds scheme in Supreme Court? The electoral bonds scheme was first announced by former finance minister Arun Jaitley during the 2017 Budget Session. Later, it was notified in January 2018 as a source of political funding by way of money bills introducing amendments to the Finance Act and the Representation of the People Act. Since their introduction, Electoral Bonds have been a subject of debate and controversy in India. Proponents argue that they provide a legitimate channel for political funding while protecting the privacy and security of donors. Also Read | India: Tamil Nadu assembly passes resolutions against delimitation, ‘One Nation One Election’ However, critics raised concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the Electoral Bonds scheme. They argued that the anonymity of donors undermines transparency in political funding, and raises questions about the influence of undisclosed donations on political decisions. Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, including by the political parties like Congress, CPI (M), besides some NGOs, against the constitutional validity of the electoral bonds scheme. The hearing into this matter began on October 31 last year. According to the petitioners, the scheme violated the right to information, opened doors to shell companies, and promoted corruption. Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal had said in the past that a political party could use the donations for any purposes other than elections. Supreme Court’s verdict: Key points from ruling on electoral bonds The Supreme Court on Thursday morning, while striking down the electoral bonds scheme calling it “unconstitutional”, also asked SBI to immediately stop issuing them. The five-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra arrived at the decision unanimously. Also Read | Liquor ban in India's Bengaluru: Karnataka HC orders to reduce duration Below are the salient points from the judgement: "Information about funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting," Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed on the importance of open governance. Violation Of Article 19(1)(a): Authoring an opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Gavai, Pardiwala, and Misra, the chief justice held that the electoral bonds scheme violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Other purposes: The court held that the restrictive means test of the doctrine of proportionality is not satisfied and that there are means other than electoral bonds to achieve the purpose of curbing black money, even assuming it to be a legitimate objective. (With inputs from agencies)

Explained: India Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds. Why are they controversial?

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community.&nbsp;

From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture. In spite of that, the community has long been constitutionally deprived of basic rights like marriage.&nbsp;

On Tuesday, 17th October 2023, the Indian Supreme court announced a verdict on&nbsp;LGBT rights like marriage and adoption. The top court failed to recognise gay marriage and said that the decision lies with India's legislative.&nbsp;

<h2>Supreme Court verdict and the queer community in India</h2>

The verdict has "quashed the hopes of millions," said Queering in Chandigarh (QiC), an LGBT collective based in Indian Union Territory Chandigarh.

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, had divided views on the various civil petitions before it.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-verdict-live-india-awaits-historical-judgement-647796">Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage</a>

While the bench concurred that queerness as a concept is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elite, it said the court can't make law, but only interpret it.&nbsp;

The justices also said that it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act.&nbsp;

Talking to WION, QiC questioned the bench's insistence over separation of power, and said: "It is said that separation of powers is the best safeguard for human liberty in a liberal democracy, but what happens when that separation of powers argument comes to hinder the growth and development of a section of the populace of the democracy?"

As per the queer collective, "CJI D Y Chandrachud, while having positivity in his views on the matter, shielded himself and his bench’s decision of not recognising same-sex marriage in India, behind separation of power principle."

They said that "despite the various arguments that the CJI came up with to show support and solidarity with the community, he failed to bring about a change in the laws of the land."

<h2>'Hope is not lost'</h2>

"In some form or the other (the judgement), quashed the hopes of millions," said Pranav Puri, a core member of QiC. However, he added that "while today is not the day we get our rights, all hope is not lost."

"By recognising that homosexuality is not an urban and elite concept, the five judge bench went in direct contradiction to the stand of the union government, who have been in stern opposition of the case," he added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/he-said-she-said-outlandish-arguments-groundbreaking-statements-from-indias-same-sex-marriage-hearing-586946">'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial</a>

Simran Chawla, founder of QiC noted that "while everybody in the community hoped that the decision would be positive, there was a hint of negativity that was harboured seeing the environment of our social-polity."

However, Chawla acknowledged the merit of CJI Chandrachud's judgement regarding section 4 of the Special Marriage Act - which deals with polygamy, minimum age of marriage, soundness of mind of the two parties, etc.

"On the aspect of annulment of section 4 of the SMA, I have to stand with the learned CJI, where he said that if we strike down that section, it would send India back to the pre-independence age."

She said, "while we want our rights to be added to the pre-existing jurisprudence of the country, any action that gives me my right, but infringes upon the right of the other (which is already in place) should not be done so."

Hemakshi (he/him), who is part of India's queer community and an active&nbsp;member&nbsp;of QiC emphasised that the journey ahead would be challenging but affirmed the ongoing commitment to the "fight."

"We appreciate the efforts of the queer activists, lawyers and visionaries who have paved the way for us to reach here. We're grateful for them, and we'll continue to join them&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;fight," he said.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community. From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture.

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community. From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture. In spite of that, the community has long been constitutionally deprived of basic rights like marriage. On Tuesday, 17th October 2023, the Indian Supreme court announced a verdict on LGBT rights like marriage and adoption. The top court failed to recognise gay marriage and said that the decision lies with India's legislative. Supreme Court verdict and the queer community in India The verdict has "quashed the hopes of millions," said Queering in Chandigarh (QiC), an LGBT collective based in Indian Union Territory Chandigarh. A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, had divided views on the various civil petitions before it. Also read | Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage While the bench concurred that queerness as a concept is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elite, it said the court can't make law, but only interpret it. The justices also said that it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act. Talking to WION, QiC questioned the bench's insistence over separation of power, and said: "It is said that separation of powers is the best safeguard for human liberty in a liberal democracy, but what happens when that separation of powers argument comes to hinder the growth and development of a section of the populace of the democracy?" As per the queer collective, "CJI D Y Chandrachud, while having positivity in his views on the matter, shielded himself and his bench’s decision of not recognising same-sex marriage in India, behind separation of power principle." They said that "despite the various arguments that the CJI came up with to show support and solidarity with the community, he failed to bring about a change in the laws of the land." 'Hope is not lost' "In some form or the other (the judgement), quashed the hopes of millions," said Pranav Puri, a core member of QiC. However, he added that "while today is not the day we get our rights, all hope is not lost." "By recognising that homosexuality is not an urban and elite concept, the five judge bench went in direct contradiction to the stand of the union government, who have been in stern opposition of the case," he added. Also read | 'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial Simran Chawla, founder of QiC noted that "while everybody in the community hoped that the decision would be positive, there was a hint of negativity that was harboured seeing the environment of our social-polity." However, Chawla acknowledged the merit of CJI Chandrachud's judgement regarding section 4 of the Special Marriage Act - which deals with polygamy, minimum age of marriage, soundness of mind of the two parties, etc. "On the aspect of annulment of section 4 of the SMA, I have to stand with the learned CJI, where he said that if we strike down that section, it would send India back to the pre-independence age." She said, "while we want our rights to be added to the pre-existing jurisprudence of the country, any action that gives me my right, but infringes upon the right of the other (which is already in place) should not be done so." Hemakshi (he/him), who is part of India's queer community and an active member of QiC emphasised that the journey ahead would be challenging but affirmed the ongoing commitment to the "fight." "We appreciate the efforts of the queer activists, lawyers and visionaries who have paved the way for us to reach here. We're grateful for them, and we'll continue to join them in this fight," he said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Exclusive | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists

The Indian Supreme Court provided temporary relief to the president of the Editors Guild of India and three journalists from the impending arrest by the Manipur Police in connection with a case filed against them that claimed “bias” on their part in reporting the ethnic clashes, and thereby promoting enmity between different groups.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday (Sept 6) scheduled the matter for hearing on September 11 (Monday).

“Issue notice…. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the FIRs registered,” ordered the judges.

The judges were informed that at least two FIRs were registered against them after their fact-finding report was released on September 2.

<h2>Two FIRs registered&nbsp;</h2>

The complaints registered against them accused EGI president Seema Mustafa, Sanjay Kapoor, Seema Guha and Bharat Bhushan of offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including promoting enmity between different groups.

The complaints, based on which the FIRs were registered, accused the EGI report of “incorrect and false statements”.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the members of the fact-finding committee formed by EGI, said that the Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had himself announced during a press conference that the state police has filed complaints, alleging their report to be “incorrect”.

"The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur," Singh said at the time.

"...I also give a warning to the members of the Editors Guild, if you want to do something, then do visit the spot, see the ground reality, meet the representatives of all communities and then publish what you found. Otherwise, meeting some sections only and coming to a conclusion is highly condemnable. The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur...," he added.

<h2>SC seeks status report from Manipur govt</h2>

Meanwhile, the apex sought a categorical status report from the Manipur government on the recovery of arms and ammunition stolen from the police and state armoury during the ethnic clashes between the Meiti and Kuki communities since early May.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/republic-of-bharat-chorus-grows-for-india-to-be-renamed-as-bharat-632507">'Republic of Bharat': Chorus grows to rename India as it was known in ancient times</a>

It observed that the issue was “sensitive” and said it must be looked into seriously irrespective of which side is involved.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jaishankar-stresses-g20-summit-to-be-defined-by-positions-taken-not-leaders-attendance-632671">Jaishankar says G20 Summit to be defined by positions taken, not leaders' attendance</a>

“You can submit a report to us, we can examine. I don’t believe in court seeing something others don’t know, it’s not my philosophy but if you feel like this is a matter about recovery of arms and court should be apprised, at least tell us what steps have been taken. We are dealing with it objectively. State has to take actions about illegal arms irrespective of which side has done it,” the CJI told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Manipur government and the Centre in the clutch of petitions relating to the violence in the northeastern state. 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Indian Supreme Court provided temporary relief to the president of the Editors Guild of India and three journalists from the impending arrest by the Manipur Police in connection with a case filed against them that claimed “bias” on their part in reporting the ethnic clashes, and thereby promoting enmity between different groups.

The Indian Supreme Court provided temporary relief to the president of the Editors Guild of India and three journalists from the impending arrest by the Manipur Police in connection with a case filed against them that claimed “bias” on their part in reporting the ethnic clashes, and thereby promoting enmity between different groups. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday (Sept 6) scheduled the matter for hearing on September 11 (Monday). “Issue notice…. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the FIRs registered,” ordered the judges. The judges were informed that at least two FIRs were registered against them after their fact-finding report was released on September 2. Two FIRs registered The complaints registered against them accused EGI president Seema Mustafa, Sanjay Kapoor, Seema Guha and Bharat Bhushan of offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including promoting enmity between different groups. The complaints, based on which the FIRs were registered, accused the EGI report of “incorrect and false statements”. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the members of the fact-finding committee formed by EGI, said that the Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had himself announced during a press conference that the state police has filed complaints, alleging their report to be “incorrect”. "The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur," Singh said at the time. "...I also give a warning to the members of the Editors Guild, if you want to do something, then do visit the spot, see the ground reality, meet the representatives of all communities and then publish what you found. Otherwise, meeting some sections only and coming to a conclusion is highly condemnable. The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur...," he added. SC seeks status report from Manipur govt Meanwhile, the apex sought a categorical status report from the Manipur government on the recovery of arms and ammunition stolen from the police and state armoury during the ethnic clashes between the Meiti and Kuki communities since early May. Also read | 'Republic of Bharat': Chorus grows to rename India as it was known in ancient times It observed that the issue was “sensitive” and said it must be looked into seriously irrespective of which side is involved. Also read | Jaishankar says G20 Summit to be defined by positions taken, not leaders' attendance “You can submit a report to us, we can examine. I don’t believe in court seeing something others don’t know, it’s not my philosophy but if you feel like this is a matter about recovery of arms and court should be apprised, at least tell us what steps have been taken. We are dealing with it objectively. State has to take actions about illegal arms irrespective of which side has done it,” the CJI told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Manipur government and the Centre in the clutch of petitions relating to the violence in the northeastern state. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Indian Supreme Court temporarily stays arrest of senior journalists over Manipur clashes reporting

An Indian parliamentary committee has proposed that the judges of the country's top court and high court should declare their assets. It says this would bring more trust and credibility into the system. Will the judges agree? Molly Gambhir tells you more.

Gravitas: Will Indian court judges have to declare assets?

A petition seeking direction to all Indian states to frame rules for menstrual paid leaves for female students and working women at their respective workplaces was on Friday (February 24) dismissed by the Supreme Court. The issue falls under the policy domain of the government, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench said during the hearing, news agency PTI reported. Acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, he suggested that the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development can be urged to consider the matter. Filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the plea was mentioned for an urgent listing last week. The Chief Justice then informed that it will be listed for February 24.

'Period pain as painful as heart attack'

India's southern state of Kerala recently announced the decision to grant menstrual leaves to women. In his petition, the advocate mentioned the Section 14 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, stressing that all states should follow such policies. "It is accordingly a violation of Article 14 in as much as this Act differentiates women in the name of federalism and state policies. Despite that women suffer from similar physiological and health issues during their menstrual cycles, they are being treated differently in different states of India," the petition read. It also referred to a study by the University of London that highlighted that "period pain could be as painful as a heart attack".

Also watch| Spain: First European country to offer paid menstrual leave

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/spain-first-european-country-to-offer-menstrual-paid-leave-479989/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Menstrual leave issue gaining wide attention

Last week, Spain drew praise worldwide as it became the first country in Europe to offer paid menstrual leave for three-five days. Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Zambia are among the few countries that offer paid menstrual leaves.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-indias-southern-kerala-state-many-universities-grant-menstrual-leave-to-students-553623">In India’s southern Kerala state, many universities grant menstrual leave to students</a>

The corporate sector is also increasingly acknowledging the issue. In India, Swiggy, Zomato, Byju's among other firms have accommodated such leaves officially for their female staff.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A petition seeking direction to all Indian states to frame rules for menstrual paid leaves for female students and working women at their respective workplaces was on Friday (February 24) dismissed by the Supreme Court.

A petition seeking direction to all Indian states to frame rules for menstrual paid leaves for female students and working women at their respective workplaces was on Friday (February 24) dismissed by the Supreme Court. The issue falls under the policy domain of the government, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench said during the hearing, news agency PTI reported. Acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, he suggested that the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development can be urged to consider the matter. Filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the plea was mentioned for an urgent listing last week. The Chief Justice then informed that it will be listed for February 24. 'Period pain as painful as heart attack' India's southern state of Kerala recently announced the decision to grant menstrual leaves to women. In his petition, the advocate mentioned the Section 14 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, stressing that all states should follow such policies. "It is accordingly a violation of Article 14 in as much as this Act differentiates women in the name of federalism and state policies. Despite that women suffer from similar physiological and health issues during their menstrual cycles, they are being treated differently in different states of India," the petition read. It also referred to a study by the University of London that highlighted that "period pain could be as painful as a heart attack". Also watch| Spain: First European country to offer paid menstrual leave × Menstrual leave issue gaining wide attention Last week, Spain drew praise worldwide as it became the first country in Europe to offer paid menstrual leave for three-five days. Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Zambia are among the few countries that offer paid menstrual leaves. Also read: In India’s southern Kerala state, many universities grant menstrual leave to students The corporate sector is also increasingly acknowledging the issue. In India, Swiggy, Zomato, Byju's among other firms have accommodated such leaves officially for their female staff. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India's Supreme Court dismisses plea on menstrual leave with a caveat

India's Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement, which reiterated that all women have the right to get an abortion.

WION Fineprint: India's Supreme Court delivers a landmark judgement on abortion rights

India's apex court has ruled that judgements should not confuse readers by using complex language because it “speaks to the present and to the future.”

Emphasing that each judgment is a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said they are instrumental “in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.”

From providing headings to a table of contents for long judgements, the format laid down by the top court is called the “Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion” (IRAC) structure.

While rules connote the lawyers’ submissions on the pertinent problems,&nbsp;issues refer to the question of law that the court is deciding.

According to the bench, ''The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language.''

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-supreme-court-bats-for-same-abortion-limits-for-married-unmarried-women-509696" hreflang="en">India: Supreme Court bats for same abortion limits for married &amp; unmarried women</a>

''The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact, which arise for decision...While a judgment is read by those as well who have training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of discourse,'' it added.

“If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded... Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal dialogue,” &nbsp;said Justice Chandrachud.

“Judgment writing is a layered exercise. In one layer, a judgment addresses the concerns and arguments of parties to a forensic contest. In another layer, a judgment addresses stakeholders beyond the conflict. It speaks to those in society who are impacted by the discourse. In the layered formulation of analysis, a judgment speaks to the present and to the future.”

“Courts are as much engaged in the slow yet not so silent process of bringing about a social transformation. How good or deficient they are in that quest is tested by the quality of the reasons as much as by the manner in which the judicial process is structured,” it said.

“Equally significant is the fact that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public institutions committed to governance under law,” added the bench. 
&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

India's apex court has ruled that judgements should not confuse readers by using complex language because it “speaks to the present and to the future.” Emphasing that each judgment is a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said they are instrumental “in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.

India's apex court has ruled that judgements should not confuse readers by using complex language because it “speaks to the present and to the future.” Emphasing that each judgment is a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said they are instrumental “in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.” From providing headings to a table of contents for long judgements, the format laid down by the top court is called the “Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion” (IRAC) structure. While rules connote the lawyers’ submissions on the pertinent problems, issues refer to the question of law that the court is deciding. According to the bench, ''The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language.'' Also read | India: Supreme Court bats for same abortion limits for married & unmarried women ''The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact, which arise for decision...While a judgment is read by those as well who have training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of discourse,'' it added. “If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded... Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal dialogue,” said Justice Chandrachud. “Judgment writing is a layered exercise. In one layer, a judgment addresses the concerns and arguments of parties to a forensic contest. In another layer, a judgment addresses stakeholders beyond the conflict. It speaks to those in society who are impacted by the discourse. In the layered formulation of analysis, a judgment speaks to the present and to the future.” “Courts are as much engaged in the slow yet not so silent process of bringing about a social transformation. How good or deficient they are in that quest is tested by the quality of the reasons as much as by the manner in which the judicial process is structured,” it said. “Equally significant is the fact that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public institutions committed to governance under law,” added the bench. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV here: ×

Don't confuse readers: Supreme Court of India issues judgement on writing judgements

Putting on hold the sedition law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

In its significant order on the law that has been under intense public scrutiny, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said there was a need to balance the interest of civil liberties and interests of citizens with that of the state.

Taking note of the concerns of the Centre, the apex court said the "rigours of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu"&nbsp;and permitted reconsideration of the provision.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohil, directed the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking sedition charges until the sedition law is "under reconsideration".

The court listed the matter in the third week of July and said its directions shall continue till further orders.

Any affected party is at liberty to approach concerned courts that are requested to examine the reliefs sought taking into the consideration the present order, the apex court said.

"We hope and expect that the states and the Centre will restrain (themselves) from registering any FIR, continue any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking section 124A of the IPC till the aforesaid provision of law is under re-consideration,"&nbsp;ordered the bench.

"The attorney general, on previous date of hearing, had given some glaring examples of misuse of the sedition law like in a case of recital of&nbsp;Hanuman Chalisa'...Therefore, we expect that till the re-examination of the law is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue with the usage of the aforesaid provision of the law by the governments,"&nbsp;the chief justice of India said in the order.

The bench did not agree to the Centre's suggestion that a superintendent of police ranked officer be made responsible for monitoring the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition.

The Centre had also said the registration of FIRs on the matter cannot be prevented as the provision dealt with a cognisable offence and was upheld by a Constitution bench in 1962.

The bench, which rose for a few minutes to discuss the orders after taking note of the Centre's response, came back to pronounce the directions and said it has considered the issues elaborately.

Referring to the Central government's view, it said the Union of India also agreed with its prima facie views on the penal provision which can be reviewed by the competent forum.

It extended interim orders granting relief to those accused of sedition.

All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect the provision of sedition would be kept at abeyance and the adjudication of other offences, if any, could proceed, the order said.

In addition, it permitted the Centre to issue directives to the states to prevent misuse of the provision.

Earlier, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, apprised the bench of the views of the Centre and opposed the plea to stay the operation of the law.

With regard to pending sedition cases, the Centre suggested that hearing on bail pleas in such matters may be expedited as the government did not know the gravity of the offence in all the cases and they may have terror or money laundering angles.

"Ultimately, pending cases are before judicial forum and we need to trust courts," the law officer told the bench.

On Tuesday, the bench had asked the Centre make clear within 24 hours its stand on keeping pending sedition cases in abeyance to protect the interests of citizens already booked and not registering fresh cases till the government's re-examination of the colonial-era penal law is over.

Asking the Centre to take a clear stand after it had posed the two specific queries, the top court had agreed that a re-look of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code be left to the government.

Between 2015 and 2020, 356 cases of sedition -- as defined under Section 124A of the IPC--were registered and 548 persons arrested, according to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period.

The top court, in 1962, upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse.

The bench has been hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the law on sedition, an issue of intense debate for its alleged misuse to settle political scores by various governments.

"Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine,? reads section 124A (sedition) of the IPC.&nbsp;

Putting on hold the sedition law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

Putting on hold the sedition law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law. In its significant order on the law that has been under intense public scrutiny, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said there was a need to balance the interest of civil liberties and interests of citizens with that of the state. Taking note of the concerns of the Centre, the apex court said the "rigours of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu" and permitted reconsideration of the provision. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohil, directed the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking sedition charges until the sedition law is "under reconsideration". The court listed the matter in the third week of July and said its directions shall continue till further orders. Any affected party is at liberty to approach concerned courts that are requested to examine the reliefs sought taking into the consideration the present order, the apex court said. "We hope and expect that the states and the Centre will restrain (themselves) from registering any FIR, continue any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking section 124A of the IPC till the aforesaid provision of law is under re-consideration," ordered the bench. "The attorney general, on previous date of hearing, had given some glaring examples of misuse of the sedition law like in a case of recital of Hanuman Chalisa'...Therefore, we expect that till the re-examination of the law is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue with the usage of the aforesaid provision of the law by the governments," the chief justice of India said in the order. The bench did not agree to the Centre's suggestion that a superintendent of police ranked officer be made responsible for monitoring the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition. The Centre had also said the registration of FIRs on the matter cannot be prevented as the provision dealt with a cognisable offence and was upheld by a Constitution bench in 1962. The bench, which rose for a few minutes to discuss the orders after taking note of the Centre's response, came back to pronounce the directions and said it has considered the issues elaborately. Referring to the Central government's view, it said the Union of India also agreed with its prima facie views on the penal provision which can be reviewed by the competent forum. It extended interim orders granting relief to those accused of sedition. All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect the provision of sedition would be kept at abeyance and the adjudication of other offences, if any, could proceed, the order said. In addition, it permitted the Centre to issue directives to the states to prevent misuse of the provision. Earlier, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, apprised the bench of the views of the Centre and opposed the plea to stay the operation of the law. With regard to pending sedition cases, the Centre suggested that hearing on bail pleas in such matters may be expedited as the government did not know the gravity of the offence in all the cases and they may have terror or money laundering angles. "Ultimately, pending cases are before judicial forum and we need to trust courts," the law officer told the bench. On Tuesday, the bench had asked the Centre make clear within 24 hours its stand on keeping pending sedition cases in abeyance to protect the interests of citizens already booked and not registering fresh cases till the government's re-examination of the colonial-era penal law is over. Asking the Centre to take a clear stand after it had posed the two specific queries, the top court had agreed that a re-look of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code be left to the government. Between 2015 and 2020, 356 cases of sedition -- as defined under Section 124A of the IPC--were registered and 548 persons arrested, according to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period. The top court, in 1962, upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse. The bench has been hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the law on sedition, an issue of intense debate for its alleged misuse to settle political scores by various governments. "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine,? reads section 124A (sedition) of the IPC.

Indian Supreme Court pauses colonial-era sedition law temporarily

The Supreme Court Monday granted three weeks time to the owner of the fishing vessel to respond to a plea of some Kerala fishermen seeking shares from Rs two crore compensation, to be paid to him for the 2012 incident in which his boat 'St Antony' was fired at by the Italian marines killing two fishermen.

A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari took note of the submission of lawyer A Karthik, appearing for the boat owner Freddy, that he be granted some time to respond to the plea of the surviving fishermen who wanted shares from his portion of Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) compensation&nbsp;yet to be disbursed.

"Three weeks time has been granted to file the counter affidavit (reply). One week thereafter (granted) for filing rejoinder. List after six weeks,"&nbsp;the bench said, adding that the state government can also file its response to the plea.

Earlier, the apex court had directed the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount from Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) earmarked for the owner of the fishing vessel.

The plea filed by seven, out of ten surviving fishermen who were also on the boat, said that they too were eligible for the compensation from Rs 2 crore&nbsp;( 20 million rupees) earmarked by the apex court for the boat owner.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had suggested that the fishermen's plea can be sent to the Kerala High Court which is entrusted with the task of disbursing the compensation, to which the bench had said a notice to vessel owner Freddy was necessary as any modification in the order will reduce his share.

"The notice of this application be given to the boat owner and in the meanwhile, we request the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount to the boat owner in terms of the June 15, 2021 order,"&nbsp;the bench had said in its order.

Freddy, for whom Rs two crore out of total Rs 10 crore compensation has been earmarked, was also paid Rs 17 lakh (1.7 million rupees) ex-gratia earlier for the damage to the vessel which was worth Rs 10 lakh only, the counsel for the fishermen had said.

Urging the top court to modify its June 15 order by providing some compensation to the surviving fishermen, the lawyer had said that one of the four grounds for seeking damages in the case was injuries, including mental, which were also sustained by his clients.

"Kerala government has now said no compensation will be given to us on account of the latest order of the Supreme Court and we just want that the Rs 2 crore compensation, payable to the boat owner, be stayed,"&nbsp;he had said.

The bench had said Freddy should be made party instead of the Centre as only he can oppose this plea.

On June 15, the top court had brought the curtains down on the 9-year old pending criminal proceedings in India against two Italian marines, Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, who were accused of killing the two fishermen, after Rs 10 crore in compensation was paid by Italy to the heirs of the deceased and the boat owner.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-closes-case-against-italian-marines-for-killing-indian-fishermen-compensation-announced-391718">Supreme Court closes case against Italian marines for killing Indian fishermen; compensation announced</a>

It had directed Rs 4 crore each be given to the dependents of two deceased fishermen and the rest Rs 2 crore would be given to the vessel owner.

The top court had referred the matter to the Kerala High Court to oversee the disbursement.

In the fresh plea, the fishermen said they were also injured in the incident and hence, entitled to compensation. They have sought a stay on the disbursement till their claims are determined.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/deposit-compensation-for-indian-fishermen-killed-by-italian-marines-sc-tells-centre-376270">Deposit compensation for Indian fishermen killed by Italian marines, SC tells Centre</a>

The top court had also said earlier that as per the international arbitral award accepted by India, Italy shall resume further investigation in the case against the two marines and quashed the FIR, registered at Coastal Police Station of Neendakara, Kollam in Kerala and re-registered by NIA in 2013, and all the proceedings in the case.

It had closed the case after the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS delivered its award on May 21, 2020, under which Italy agreed to pay Rs 10 crore compensation, over the ex-gratia amount already paid.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/indias-top-court-allows-italian-marine-to-stay-in-italy-6903">India's top court allows Italian marine to stay in Italy</a>

"We also further direct that the amount of Rs 10 crore (100 million rupees) now lying with the Registry of this Court be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, out of which Rs 4 crore be paid to the heirs of each deceased and Rs 2 crores ( 2 million rupees) be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony,"&nbsp;the bench had said.

It had requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the amount to the heirs and ensure the compensation is duly received by them and not diverted/ misappropriated.

"The remaining amount of Rs two crore be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony by an account payee cheque,"&nbsp;the bench had said.

The top court noted that Kerala, the heirs of the deceased fishermen and the owner of the boat have agreed to accept the award.

In February 2012, India had accused the two marines on board the MV Enrica Lexie -- an Italian flagged oil tanker -- of killing two Indian fishermen who were on a fishing vessel in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Latorre, who had suffered a brain stroke on August 31, 2014, was first granted bail and allowed by the apex court on September 12, 2014, to go to Italy for four months and after that, extensions have been granted to him.

In Italy, Latorre underwent heart surgery after which the top court granted him an extension of his stay in his native country.

The complaint against the marines was lodged by Freddy on whose vessel two Kerala fishermen were killed when marines opened fire on them under the misconception that they were pirates.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday granted three weeks time to the owner of the fishing vessel to respond to a plea of some Kerala fishermen seeking shares from Rs two crore compensation, to be paid to him for the 2012 incident in which his boat 'St Antony' was fired at by the Italian marines killing two fishermen.

The Supreme Court Monday granted three weeks time to the owner of the fishing vessel to respond to a plea of some Kerala fishermen seeking shares from Rs two crore compensation, to be paid to him for the 2012 incident in which his boat 'St Antony' was fired at by the Italian marines killing two fishermen. A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari took note of the submission of lawyer A Karthik, appearing for the boat owner Freddy, that he be granted some time to respond to the plea of the surviving fishermen who wanted shares from his portion of Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) compensation yet to be disbursed. "Three weeks time has been granted to file the counter affidavit (reply). One week thereafter (granted) for filing rejoinder. List after six weeks," the bench said, adding that the state government can also file its response to the plea. Earlier, the apex court had directed the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount from Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) earmarked for the owner of the fishing vessel. The plea filed by seven, out of ten surviving fishermen who were also on the boat, said that they too were eligible for the compensation from Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) earmarked by the apex court for the boat owner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had suggested that the fishermen's plea can be sent to the Kerala High Court which is entrusted with the task of disbursing the compensation, to which the bench had said a notice to vessel owner Freddy was necessary as any modification in the order will reduce his share. "The notice of this application be given to the boat owner and in the meanwhile, we request the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount to the boat owner in terms of the June 15, 2021 order," the bench had said in its order. Freddy, for whom Rs two crore out of total Rs 10 crore compensation has been earmarked, was also paid Rs 17 lakh (1.7 million rupees) ex-gratia earlier for the damage to the vessel which was worth Rs 10 lakh only, the counsel for the fishermen had said. Urging the top court to modify its June 15 order by providing some compensation to the surviving fishermen, the lawyer had said that one of the four grounds for seeking damages in the case was injuries, including mental, which were also sustained by his clients. "Kerala government has now said no compensation will be given to us on account of the latest order of the Supreme Court and we just want that the Rs 2 crore compensation, payable to the boat owner, be stayed," he had said. The bench had said Freddy should be made party instead of the Centre as only he can oppose this plea. On June 15, the top court had brought the curtains down on the 9-year old pending criminal proceedings in India against two Italian marines, Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, who were accused of killing the two fishermen, after Rs 10 crore in compensation was paid by Italy to the heirs of the deceased and the boat owner. Also read | Supreme Court closes case against Italian marines for killing Indian fishermen; compensation announced It had directed Rs 4 crore each be given to the dependents of two deceased fishermen and the rest Rs 2 crore would be given to the vessel owner. The top court had referred the matter to the Kerala High Court to oversee the disbursement. In the fresh plea, the fishermen said they were also injured in the incident and hence, entitled to compensation. They have sought a stay on the disbursement till their claims are determined. Also read | Deposit compensation for Indian fishermen killed by Italian marines, SC tells Centre The top court had also said earlier that as per the international arbitral award accepted by India, Italy shall resume further investigation in the case against the two marines and quashed the FIR, registered at Coastal Police Station of Neendakara, Kollam in Kerala and re-registered by NIA in 2013, and all the proceedings in the case. It had closed the case after the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS delivered its award on May 21, 2020, under which Italy agreed to pay Rs 10 crore compensation, over the ex-gratia amount already paid. Also read | India's top court allows Italian marine to stay in Italy "We also further direct that the amount of Rs 10 crore (100 million rupees) now lying with the Registry of this Court be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, out of which Rs 4 crore be paid to the heirs of each deceased and Rs 2 crores ( 2 million rupees) be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony," the bench had said. It had requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the amount to the heirs and ensure the compensation is duly received by them and not diverted/ misappropriated. "The remaining amount of Rs two crore be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony by an account payee cheque," the bench had said. The top court noted that Kerala, the heirs of the deceased fishermen and the owner of the boat have agreed to accept the award. In February 2012, India had accused the two marines on board the MV Enrica Lexie -- an Italian flagged oil tanker -- of killing two Indian fishermen who were on a fishing vessel in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Latorre, who had suffered a brain stroke on August 31, 2014, was first granted bail and allowed by the apex court on September 12, 2014, to go to Italy for four months and after that, extensions have been granted to him. In Italy, Latorre underwent heart surgery after which the top court granted him an extension of his stay in his native country. The complaint against the marines was lodged by Freddy on whose vessel two Kerala fishermen were killed when marines opened fire on them under the misconception that they were pirates.

Italian marines: India's Supreme Court grants 3 weeks to vessel owner to reply to plea of fishermen for compensation

Former BCCI president Anurag Thakur has tendered an &quot;unconditional&quot; apology to the Supreme Court. &nbsp;

Thakur&#39;s &quot;unequivocal&quot; apology, PTI reported, stated that it was never his intention to undermine the majesty of the court.

&quot;I humbly submit that it was never the intention of the deponent to undermine the majesty of this court and since unintentionally some kind of misinformation and miscommunication has occured, I unhesitatingly tender my unconditional and unequivocal apology to this court,&quot; PTI quoted the affidavit as saying.

The court has asked Thakur for the apology on July 7.

And it had asked him to tender the apology in person on July 14.

In return, the court had hinted, it would close the contempt of court case against him.&nbsp;

The court had charged Thakur with contempt because he had written to the ICC -- after the Supreme Court had removed him as BCCI president -- saying the BCCI&#39;s autonomy was being undermined. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Thakur's 'unequivocal' apology stated that it was never his intention to undermine the majesty of the court.

Former BCCI president Anurag Thakur has tendered an "unconditional" apology to the Supreme Court. Thakur's "unequivocal" apology, PTI reported, stated that it was never his intention to undermine the majesty of the court. "I humbly submit that it was never the intention of the deponent to undermine the majesty of this court and since unintentionally some kind of misinformation and miscommunication has occured, I unhesitatingly tender my unconditional and unequivocal apology to this court," PTI quoted the affidavit as saying. The court has asked Thakur for the apology on July 7. And it had asked him to tender the apology in person on July 14. In return, the court had hinted, it would close the contempt of court case against him. The court had charged Thakur with contempt because he had written to the ICC -- after the Supreme Court had removed him as BCCI president -- saying the BCCI's autonomy was being undermined.

Ex-BCCI president Anurag Thakur tenders 'unconditional' apology to SC

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has told the Supreme Court that the pleas challenging the practices of triple talaq, &#39;nikah halala&#39;, and polygamy among Muslims are not maintainable as the issues fall outside the realm of the judiciary.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is likely to hear the petitions against the practices on March 30.&nbsp;

The Board said the validity of Mohammedan Law, founded essentially on the Holy Quran and sources based on it, cannot be tested on the particular provisions of the Constitution. It said there was a need for &quot;judicial restraint&quot; before going into constitutional interpretation of these unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable.

It said the issues, raised through a batch of petitions, fell within the legislative domain, and since divorce was an issue of private nature, it cannot be enforced by bringing it under the ambit of fundamental rights.&nbsp;Eight aggrieved Muslim women wanted the court to scrap the practice of triple talaq and polygamy.&nbsp;

The AIMPLB claimed the petitions were &quot;misconceived&quot; and the challenge was based on incorrect understanding of the Muslim Personal law, contending the Constitution grants freedom to every religious section to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

&quot;At the outset, it is submitted that the present petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners seek to enforce fundamental rights against private parties. It is submitted that the protection guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 is intended to be available against the Legislature and the Executive and not against private individuals.

&quot;It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioners are seeking judicial orders which are completely outside the purview of Article 32. Private rights cannot be enforced against individual citizens under Article 32(1),&quot; AIMPLB said in its written submissions filed in the apex court.

While opposing the pleas on issues, including alleged gender discrimination faced by Muslim women in divorce cases, the board said the points raised in the petitions are matters of legislative policy and fall outside the sphere of the judiciary.

<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>While opposing the pleas on issues, including alleged gender discrimination faced by Muslim women in divorce cases, the board said the points raised in the petitions are matters of legislative policy and fall outside the sphere of the judiciary.</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=While opposing the pleas on issues, including alleged gender discrimination faced by Muslim women in divorce cases, the board said the points raised in the petitions are matters of legislative policy and fall outside the sphere of the judiciary." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;The preamble of the Constitution clearly enshrines values of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Further, Article 25 of the Constitution, guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion.

&quot;Article 25 guarantees individual freedom of conscience subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of the third part of the Constitution. Article 26 of the Constitution grants freedom to every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion,&quot; it said.

The Board told the court that personal laws do not derive their validity on the ground that they have been passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority and the foundational sources of personal law are their respective scriptural texts.

&quot;The Mohammedan Law is founded essentially on the Holy Quran and sources based on the Holy Quran and thus it cannot fall within the purview of the expression &#39;laws in force&#39;, as mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution of India, and hence its validity cannot be tested on a challenge based on Part III of the Constitution,&quot; it said.

AIMPLB said that the courts should apply the principle of judicial restraint and not deal with the issue of constitutional interpretation unless such an exercise is unavoidable. &quot;It is humbly submitted that this court ought not to venture into the area of changing personal laws by following the trend in several other countries. It is pertinent to note that any change or reform that comes with the backing of legislature takes due care of diverse cultural background, sensitivity and sensibility of the stakeholder community and thus in spirit adheres to both the principles ie. the principle of democracy and principle of separation of powers.

&quot;It is important to note that changes in other countries, with a distinct socio-cultural and even legal background, must not be applied in Indian context without appreciating the distinct nature of the Indian society as doing so shall not only destroy the democratic legislative process underlined in the Constitution of India but it shall also be great injustice to the followers of Islam in our nation,&quot; the AIMPLB said.

It had earlier said that personal laws of a community cannot be &quot;re-written&quot; in the name of social reforms and contended that the contentious issue relating to Muslim practices of polygamy, triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat) and nikah halala are not matters of &quot;legislative policy&quot; and hence cannot be interfered with.

The apex court had earlier said it would decide issues pertaining to &quot;legal&quot; aspects of the practices of triple talaq, &#39;nikah halala&#39; 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 apex court had taken suo motu cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands.

(PTI)

The court is likely to hear petitions against the practice, and those of nikah halala and polygamy, on March 30

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has told the Supreme Court that the pleas challenging the practices of triple talaq, 'nikah halala', and polygamy among Muslims are not maintainable as the issues fall outside the realm of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is likely to hear the petitions against the practices on March 30. The Board said the validity of Mohammedan Law, founded essentially on the Holy Quran and sources based on it, cannot be tested on the particular provisions of the Constitution. It said there was a need for "judicial restraint" before going into constitutional interpretation of these unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable. It said the issues, raised through a batch of petitions, fell within the legislative domain, and since divorce was an issue of private nature, it cannot be enforced by bringing it under the ambit of fundamental rights. Eight aggrieved Muslim women wanted the court to scrap the practice of triple talaq and polygamy. The AIMPLB claimed the petitions were "misconceived" and the challenge was based on incorrect understanding of the Muslim Personal law, contending the Constitution grants freedom to every religious section to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. "At the outset, it is submitted that the present petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners seek to enforce fundamental rights against private parties. It is submitted that the protection guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 is intended to be available against the Legislature and the Executive and not against private individuals. "It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioners are seeking judicial orders which are completely outside the purview of Article 32. Private rights cannot be enforced against individual citizens under Article 32(1)," AIMPLB said in its written submissions filed in the apex court. While opposing the pleas on issues, including alleged gender discrimination faced by Muslim women in divorce cases, the board said the points raised in the petitions are matters of legislative policy and fall outside the sphere of the judiciary. While opposing the pleas on issues, including alleged gender discrimination faced by Muslim women in divorce cases, the board said the points raised in the petitions are matters of legislative policy and fall outside the sphere of the judiciary. × "The preamble of the Constitution clearly enshrines values of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Further, Article 25 of the Constitution, guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion. "Article 25 guarantees individual freedom of conscience subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of the third part of the Constitution. Article 26 of the Constitution grants freedom to every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion," it said. The Board told the court that personal laws do not derive their validity on the ground that they have been passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority and the foundational sources of personal law are their respective scriptural texts. "The Mohammedan Law is founded essentially on the Holy Quran and sources based on the Holy Quran and thus it cannot fall within the purview of the expression 'laws in force', as mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution of India, and hence its validity cannot be tested on a challenge based on Part III of the Constitution," it said. AIMPLB said that the courts should apply the principle of judicial restraint and not deal with the issue of constitutional interpretation unless such an exercise is unavoidable. "It is humbly submitted that this court ought not to venture into the area of changing personal laws by following the trend in several other countries. It is pertinent to note that any change or reform that comes with the backing of legislature takes due care of diverse cultural background, sensitivity and sensibility of the stakeholder community and thus in spirit adheres to both the principles ie. the principle of democracy and principle of separation of powers. "It is important to note that changes in other countries, with a distinct socio-cultural and even legal background, must not be applied in Indian context without appreciating the distinct nature of the Indian society as doing so shall not only destroy the democratic legislative process underlined in the Constitution of India but it shall also be great injustice to the followers of Islam in our nation," the AIMPLB said. It had earlier said that personal laws of a community cannot be "re-written" in the name of social reforms and contended that the contentious issue relating to Muslim practices of polygamy, triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat) and nikah halala are not matters of "legislative policy" and hence cannot be interfered with. The apex court had earlier 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 apex court had taken suo motu cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands. (PTI)

Triple talaq outside realm of judiciary: Muslim Personal Law Board to Supreme Court

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Mohammad Shahabuddin is to be moved to Tihar jail in Delhi from Siwan in Bihar, the Supreme Court ordered on Wednesday.

The court has given the authorities a week to carry out its order, and said that any pending trials in the cases against Shahabuddin can be carried out via video conferencing.&nbsp;

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said: &quot;It is the obligation and duty of this court to ensure free and fair trial&quot;.

The court order came on the pleas of the Siwan-based Chandrakeshwar Prasad, whose three sons were killed in two separate incidents, and Asha Ranjan, the wife of journalist Rajdeo Ranjan who was murdered in Siwan, who had asked that the RJD leader be moved out of Siwan jail.

The petitioners had told the Supreme Court that Shahabuddin should be moved out of the state, so that a free and fair trial can be carried out against him.

The court agreed with the petitioners. turning down Shahabuddin&#39;s plea that moving him out of the state would be violative of his fundamental rights.&nbsp;

Society is much more important than you, the court told Shahabuddin.&nbsp;

&quot;We direct the state of Bihar to transfer Mohammad Shahabuddin from district jail Siwan to Tihar jail Delhi,&quot; the bench said.

The Bihar government had earlier told the apex court that it is not &quot;averse&quot; to shifting Shahabuddin from Siwan prison to Tihar Jail here.

The state government had told the apex court that Shahabuddin is facing trial in 45 cases, including one in Jharkhand.&nbsp;

(WiON with inputs from PTII)

He is currently lodged in Bihar's Siwan Jail. The court said trials pending in the cases against him would be conducted via video conference

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Mohammad Shahabuddin is to be moved to Tihar jail in Delhi from Siwan in Bihar, the Supreme Court ordered on Wednesday. The court has given the authorities a week to carry out its order, and said that any pending trials in the cases against Shahabuddin can be carried out via video conferencing. A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said: "It is the obligation and duty of this court to ensure free and fair trial". The court order came on the pleas of the Siwan-based Chandrakeshwar Prasad, whose three sons were killed in two separate incidents, and Asha Ranjan, the wife of journalist Rajdeo Ranjan who was murdered in Siwan, who had asked that the RJD leader be moved out of Siwan jail. The petitioners had told the Supreme Court that Shahabuddin should be moved out of the state, so that a free and fair trial can be carried out against him. The court agreed with the petitioners. turning down Shahabuddin's plea that moving him out of the state would be violative of his fundamental rights. Society is much more important than you, the court told Shahabuddin. "We direct the state of Bihar to transfer Mohammad Shahabuddin from district jail Siwan to Tihar jail Delhi," the bench said. The Bihar government had earlier told the apex court that it is not "averse" to shifting Shahabuddin from Siwan prison to Tihar Jail here. The state government had told the apex court that Shahabuddin is facing trial in 45 cases, including one in Jharkhand. (WiON with inputs from PTII)

Supreme Court orders RJD leader Shahabuddin be moved to Delhi's Tihar Jail

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ruled the Indian national anthem must be played in movie theatres before movie screenings.

All exits will remain locked during that time so that no one can create any kind of disturbance that will amount to disrespect to the national anthem, a bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said.

&quot;It is the duty of every citizen to abide by the ideals ingrained in the Constitution and as such show respect to the national anthem and the national flag,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland,&quot; the bench said. &quot;At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism,&quot; the bench added.

The order also states that everyone present in the hall must rise and &quot;pay respect&quot; to the national anthem.

(WION with inputs from agencies)

The order also states that all exits will remain locked during that time and that everyone in the hall must rise

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday ruled the Indian national anthem must be played in movie theatres before movie screenings. All exits will remain locked during that time so that no one can create any kind of disturbance that will amount to disrespect to the national anthem, a bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said. "It is the duty of every citizen to abide by the ideals ingrained in the Constitution and as such show respect to the national anthem and the national flag," the bench said. "People must feel this is my country and this is my motherland," the bench said. "At the root of protocol for national anthem, is respect for national identity, integrity and constitutional patriotism," the bench added. The order also states that everyone present in the hall must rise and "pay respect" to the national anthem. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India: National anthem to be played before movies, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted a plea seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the alleged suicide of senior Indian official B K Bansal, but warned against politicising the &quot;sensitive&quot; case in which the officer had come under the scanner of the central investigating agency, CBI, for allegedly accepting a bribe.

&quot;Don&#39;t politicise the case. It&#39;s a sensitive matter,&quot; a bench comprising Justices J S Khehar and Arun Misra told the senior counsel who had appeared in the matter.

Bansal, a former director general of corporate affairs, was facing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in a corruption case.&nbsp;He and his son allegedly committed suicide at their East Delhi residence on September 27.

Two months before Bansal&#39;s death, his wife and daughter were also found hanging from ceiling fans at their residence.

Former bureaucrat E A S Sarma filed the plea with the apex court seeking the setting up of an SIT&nbsp;to probe the incident admitting which notices&nbsp;were served to the central government and the CBI.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Sarma, said that an SIT probe was needed in the matter as there were serious allegations of torture against CBI officials.

He also sought the prosecution of those allegedly involved in the allaged suicide of Bansal and his family.

Separate suicide notes, ostensibly from Bansal&#39;s wife and daughter,&nbsp;were also recovered, saying that the &quot;CBI raid&quot; caused them &quot;great humiliation&quot;, and they did not want to live after that.

No one was held responsible for their death in these &quot;suicide notes&quot;.

Bansal, an additional secretary-rank officer in the ministry of corporate affairs, was arrested by CBI on July 16 for allegedly accepting a&nbsp;bribe from a prominent pharmaceutical company.

CBI had carried out searches at eight locations in connection with the case during which the agency had claimed to have made cash recoveries. He was later arrested, but released on bail.&nbsp; 
 
(WION with inputs from PTI)

BK Bansal's wife and daughter also left separate suicide notes, saying the "CBI raid" caused them "great humiliation"

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted a plea seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the alleged suicide of senior Indian official B K Bansal, but warned against politicising the "sensitive" case in which the officer had come under the scanner of the central investigating agency, CBI, for allegedly accepting a bribe. "Don't politicise the case. It's a sensitive matter," a bench comprising Justices J S Khehar and Arun Misra told the senior counsel who had appeared in the matter. Bansal, a former director general of corporate affairs, was facing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in a corruption case. He and his son allegedly committed suicide at their East Delhi residence on September 27. Two months before Bansal's death, his wife and daughter were also found hanging from ceiling fans at their residence. Former bureaucrat E A S Sarma filed the plea with the apex court seeking the setting up of an SIT to probe the incident admitting which notices were served to the central government and the CBI. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Sarma, said that an SIT probe was needed in the matter as there were serious allegations of torture against CBI officials. He also sought the prosecution of those allegedly involved in the allaged suicide of Bansal and his family. Separate suicide notes, ostensibly from Bansal's wife and daughter, were also recovered, saying that the "CBI raid" caused them "great humiliation", and they did not want to live after that. No one was held responsible for their death in these "suicide notes". Bansal, an additional secretary-rank officer in the ministry of corporate affairs, was arrested by CBI on July 16 for allegedly accepting a bribe from a prominent pharmaceutical company. CBI had carried out searches at eight locations in connection with the case during which the agency had claimed to have made cash recoveries. He was later arrested, but released on bail. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India bureaucrat suicide: Top court considers special probe team, warns against politicising issue

india-supreme-court

India Supreme Court, News on India Supreme Court, stories on India Supreme Court, articles on India Supreme Court, India Supreme Court stories at Wion, India Supreme Court news, India Supreme Court latest news

india supreme-court

Congress files writ petition in SC against changes to election rules

Congress files writ petition in SC against changes to election rules

India: Supreme Court allows Ajit Pawar’s NCP to use ‘clock’ symbol in Maharashtra elections, with disclaimer

Explained: India Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds. Why are they controversial?

Exclusive | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists

Indian Supreme Court temporarily stays arrest of senior journalists over Manipur clashes reporting

Gravitas: Will Indian court judges have to declare assets?

India's Supreme Court dismisses plea on menstrual leave with a caveat

WION Fineprint: India's Supreme Court delivers a landmark judgement on abortion rights

Don't confuse readers: Supreme Court of India issues judgement on writing judgements

Indian Supreme Court pauses colonial-era sedition law temporarily

Italian marines: India's Supreme Court grants 3 weeks to vessel owner to reply to plea of fishermen for compensation

Ex-BCCI president Anurag Thakur tenders 'unconditional' apology to SC

Triple talaq outside realm of judiciary: Muslim Personal Law Board to Supreme Court

Supreme Court orders RJD leader Shahabuddin be moved to Delhi's Tihar Jail

India: National anthem to be played before movies, rules Supreme Court

India bureaucrat suicide: Top court considers special probe team, warns against politicising issue