This situation came up as the result of the undue haste in which the judiciary exercised its right to file cases voluntarily on the basis of media reports. Prashant Bhushan’s remarks were not, in fact, personal criticisms of judges. In two of his tweets, he pointed to the damage done to the credibility of the Supreme Court and the dignity of the Chief Justice. His critique was of the devaluation of the title of Chief Justice. But the apex court erred in seeing it as an allegation against a person holding the post of Chief Justice. Then we witnessed the Supreme Court continuing to err.

The bench, which had criticised Prashant Bhushan for insulting the judiciary in the country, later changed its stance several times. Justice Arun Mishra ruled that the case should be transferred to another bench as he did not have time to hear it. The Supreme Court has said it will close the case if Prashant Bhushan apologises. With Prashant Bhushan making it amply clear that he was not ready to apologise, the Supreme Court was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Despite the court allowing Prashant Bhushan time to apologise, he stood firm on his stand. Prashant Bhushan had unequivocally stated that an apology was tantamount to backtracking on his views and therefore there was no question of apologising even if he was given the maximum punishment. The question by the Supreme Court bench of whether an apology was a mistake was greeted by trolls on social media. In the end, the Supreme Court saved its skin by handing out the ridiculous verdict of Re.1 fine.

The bench had said that the reason for filing the case voluntarily was that Prashant Bhushan’s questioning the dignity and credibility of the Supreme Court could not be accepted. But the dramatic twists and turns during the trial of the case have further shaken the prestige and credibility of the Supreme Court. The case will be remembered as an outburst of narrow-mindedness and intolerance by the apex court.

Prashant Bhushan’s stand in defence of freedom of expression is commendable. He succeeded in showing the judiciary how tainted it was. Unwilling to water down his stance, he garnered the support of those who argue for democracy across the country.

The post Supreme Court’s hollowness exposed appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was answering a reference based on conflicting decision given by past verdicts of the top court. “Daughters must be given equal rights as sons. Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not,” Justice Mishra said.

A coparcener is the one who shares equally in the inheritance of an undivided property.
The Hindu Succession Act, which was amended in 2005, gives daughters equal rights in their ancestral assets.

The judgment holds significance as the SC held that rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters.

The apex court’s clarification is significant since it set aside a clutch of previous decisions by the top court that she would have the coparcenary right only if both the father and the daughter were alive as on September 9, 2005 when the amendment was notified to the Hindu Succession Act.

The post Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, says Supreme Court appeared first on The Gulf Indians.