While three judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman and U U Lalit, of the five-judge Supreme Court bench agreed that the practice of triple talaq should be set aside, two others, CJI J S Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer, were of the view that the practice was part of Muslim personal law and hence the court could not interfere.
Triple Talaq verdict: The verdict by the bench comprising Chief Justice of India J S Khehar and Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer is to be pronounced at 10.30 am. The bench had reserved its verdict on May 18 after hearing it for six days starting May 11 during the summer recess.
As soon as a bench of Chief Justice of India J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud took up the matter for hearing, the counsel for the two officers told the court that they would step down today itself. The court recorded the submission.
Surender Kumar, who was a salesman at a footwear showroom in Shakthi Nagar — within the limits of Roop Nagar police station — was arrested for not complying with a police circular to install a CCTV camera in the shop.
1984 riots: Two years after its formation, the SIT has managed to file chargesheets only in a few cases taken up for further probe.
Earlier, the apex court ordered the Kerala Police to assist NIA in submitting its report in the case of a Muslim man whose marriage to a Hindu woman was annulled by the Kerala High Court.
The event was also attended by Union Law and Justice Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. The CJI said he was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. His forefathers had migrated there fleeing their home in Lahore to evade arrest by British.
The plea by Seema Razdan Bhargav and Charu Wali Khanna, which came up before a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and A M Khanwilkar, was tagged along with another petition challenging the Constitutional validity of Article 35A which has already been referred to a three-judge bench.
On Friday, a three-judge bench of the court, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, fixed December 5 for hearing cross-appeals challenging the September 2010 judgement of the Allahabad HC which divided the 2.77 acre disputed land between the deity Ramlalla, Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara
Questioning the party for not challenging this provision, which has been in force since 2014, the bench observed that many elections have since been held but “when it suited you, you did not challenge it”.
During the course of his arguments in the Supreme Court, Tushar Mehta pointed out that many countries had protected privacy via statutes without making it a fundamental right.
Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the Unique Identification Authority of India, the nodal agency for implementing Aadhaar, submitted a copy of the notification issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on Monday.
Venugopal explained that “even demographic data is protected in Aadhaar...One doesn’t have to give phone number etc if they have apprehension of misuse”. Senior counsel Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the “enrolling authority under Aadhaar were private parties and not the Government of India”.
“There is a fundamental right to privacy. But it is a wholly qualified right,” Attorney General K K Venugopal told a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar. He, however, made it clear that the submission was not intended to cover the challenge to Aadhaar, meaning that those challenging it cannot claim that it violates right to privacy.
The petitioners have challenged WhatsApp’s policy of sharing user data with its new parent company Facebook, saying it amounts to infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
“State can’t be entrusted with citizens’ data without proper oversight being there. Declaring right to privacy a fundamental right is the first step towards ensuring oversight,” he said. He also referred to app-based cab service providers like Uber collecting user information, saying it amounted to tracking.
Justice Chandrachud sought to know if the right to privacy would extend to one’s choice of family and sexual orientation. “If privacy is right to make choice, choice in what area — family, sexual orientation, gender identity, surveillance... what all?” he asked the petitioners.
Challenge to Aadhaar act: A five-judge Constitution Bench, which met to examine if the Aadhaar Act violates a person’s right to privacy, realised that the court will have to first answer if right to privacy constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution before it takes up the main question.
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court will decide whether privacy is a fundamental right. Indian Express summarises the view the Supreme Court has taken on this issue earlier
The Centre on Monday said this would “defeat the very object of demonetisation and elimination of black money”
The Supreme Court, on July 4, gave the Centre and Reserve Bank of India two weeks time to consider granting people with “genuine reasons” a new window for depositing demonetised notes. The Centre, in response, said this will “defeat the very object of demonetisation and elimination of black money”.
The CBI Director is directed to nominate a group of five officers to go through the records of the cases, lodge necessary FIRs and to complete investigations into the same by 31st December 2017 and prepare chargesheets, wherever necessary,” the bench ordered.
Chief Justice of India J S Khehar called international exchange of lawyers an opportunity to learn. “...it is not that we will also not learn when foreign lawyers and firms come to India."
Justices Chelameswar and Gogoi noted that Karnan’s conduct was controversial ever since his elevation to the bench, and attributed this to the “failure to make an assessment of his personality at the time of recommending his name for elevation”.
Venugopal answered in the negative when asked if the government was in touch with him and declined to comment whether he had conveyed his assent.
The Justice Karnan episode was a pointer to the glaring lacuanes in the scheme of selection and appointment of judges of the higher judiciary
West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee had on Monday indicated that she had barely heard of him.
Travancore royal family’s Aswathy Thirunal Gowri Lakshmi Bayi, who attended the event, expressed disappointment over the lack of interest regarding the anniversary in Kerala.
“On some issues, we have reached agreement (with the collegium),” the minister said, but declined to disclose the points on which differences remained.
Rohatgi was appointed the 14th Attorney General of India in June 2014
SC on Aadhaar card for IT return: The apex court upheld the validity of sub-section 1 but ordered a partial stay on the operation of sub-section 2.
Calls for inclusion of victims of sex abuse, trafficking under Juvenile Justice Act
In affidavit to Supreme Court, AIMPLB issued new guidelines for couples
Concluding its hearing of a clutch of petitions challenging the practice of triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala, the bench, which includes Justices Kurien Joseph, U U Lalit, R F Nariman and Abdul Nazeer, reserved its verdict.
The bench is hearing seven petitions, including five filed by Muslim women, challenging the practice of triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala.
The Supreme Court is hearing seven petitions including five filed by Muslim women challenging the practise of polygamy, nikah halala and triple talaq in the community.