By Joseph Maliakan

In a major victory for the secular forces in the country the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that no Waqf property will be denotified and no appointment will be made to the Central Waqf Council or the State Waqf Boards until the matter is taken up on the next date of hearing on 5 May.
The order was issued by a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India ( CJI ) Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V.Viswanathan on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf ( Amendment ) Act, 2025.
The court also granted the Union Government one weeks time to file it’s response to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of thevcontroversial Amendment to the Waqf law which witnessed fiearce opposition in both houses of parliament.
On Wednesday’s hearing the Supreme Court scrutinized some of the key provisions of the amendment like the derecognition of the waqf- by – user category of waqf properties , the inclusion of non- Muslims in Waqf administrative bodies like the Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards and the power granted to the State to change the status of disputed waqf properties.
The petitioners have contended that WAQFS, including their creation, management and administration , CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRAL ASPECT OF THE PRACTICE OF ISLAM AND ARE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.
However , the Union Goverment has defended the amendment arguing it is intended to bring in greater transparency and accountability in the management Waqf properties. The law was notified by the Union Government after it received the assent of President Droupati Murmu on 5 April 2025. The Lok Sabha passed the Amendment Bill with a majority of 56 votes while in the Rajya sabha it was passed with a margin of 33 votes.
Giving the stay order the CJI said ” Normally , it is rare to stay a statute , but we are apprehensive that the situation could drastically change .”
Appearing on behalf the Union Goverment Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that a stay on the would statute would be a ‘ harsh step’ .However, the Chief Justice proposed a three point interim order to ” balance equities ” on all sides in the case.
Firstly , properties already declared waqf by the courts need not, for the time being be denotified or treated as non- waqf properties . These would include properties categorised as ‘ waqf-by-user ‘ or waqf by long usage without formal documentation or registration , waqf by declaration or otherwise.
Secondly the CJI suggested that the designated government officer could continue to look into whether a property was waqf or government , but a connected provison by freesing the use of the property in the meanwhile as waqf ( a property dedicated to Allah for charitable or religious purposes under Isam ) could be stayed.
Thirdly the Chief Justice proposed giving the go ahead to the appointment of non- Muslims as ex officio members in the Central Waqf Council and waqf Boards , provided the other members were Muslims.
The Supreme Court had on Wednesday taken strong note of an analogy drawn by the union in support of the inclusion of n on- Muslims in Waqf Boards and the argument that by that logic , a bench of Hindu judges should not be hearing pleas related to Waqf.
” Are you suggesting that minorities including Muslims , should also be included in boards managing Hindu religious institutions ? Please state that openly,” CJI Khanna asked. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the provisions and said if the objection to the presence of n on-Muslims in the statutory Boards is accepted ,then the present bench would also not be able to hear the matter , addig ” Then your Lordships cannot hear this matter if we go by that logic”.
The CJI replied ” No ,sorry Mr. Mehta, we are not talking just about adjudication . When we sit here we lose our religion . We are absolutely secular. For us , one side or the other is the same.”
The All India ShiaPersonalbLaw Board ( AISPLB ) General Secretary Maulana Yasoob Abbas , following SC order expressed hope in the Supreme Court and said the Court’s observations while hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Waqf Amendment Act 2025 have raised the faith in the judiciary.
Stressing the importance of resolving issues within the constitutional framework , Maulana Abbas urged people to maintain unity and brotherhood , and to ensure that peace in the country is not disrupted. ” If the judiciary does not deliver justice , then where will people go ? We are trying to resolve all matters within the framework of the Constitution.” he added.
Congress leader Pramod Tewari welcoming the initial Supreme Court order on the Waqf Amendment Act said the questions raised by the Supreme Court are the same issues the Congress Party raised on the matter in the Joint Parliamentary Committee .

The post Supreme Court stays Waqf Amendment Act appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah was hearing as many as three separate petitions of filmmaker Ali Abbas Zafar, Amazon Prime India head Aparna Purohit, producer Himanshu Mehra, the show’s writer Gaurav Solanki and actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub.

The apex court also asked the makers of the web series to approach the high court for anticipatory bail or quashing of FIRs.

“We cannot use the power under Section 482 CrPC. We are not inclined to grant interim protection,” the Bench said.

The court also issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka governments seeking their response on pleas for quashing FIRs against the makers.

Multiple FIRs were filed against the makers of Tandav in different cities of the country for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. As the controversy picked pace, the makers of Tandav said they will drop certain scenes from the web series.

A nine-episode political thriller that started streaming earlier this month in Amazon Prime Video, Tandav stars Bollywood A-listers Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Mohd Zeeshan Ayyub.

The post SC refuses to grand interim protection to ‘Tandav’ makers appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

In his letter, Tomar claimed that several farmers’ unions in the country have “welcomed” the new farm laws, but there are some farmers’ unions camping outside Delhi who have created “confusions” regarding these laws. He also said the government is ready to give a written assurance regarding MSP.

Meanwhile, The Supreme Court postponed the hearing and advised the government to consider putting the farm reform laws on hold. The court once again suggested forming a committee to resolve the deadlock. Also, a bench of the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking removal of agitating farmers from Delhi’s borders.

Farmers’ leaders — Balbir Singh rajewal, JS Dallellwal, Bhangu, Kiranjit Sikh will meet lawyers — HS Phoolka, Prashant Bhushan, Dushyant Dave, Colin Gonsalves — today. During the hearing of a plea in the Supreme Court farmers were represented by lawyers Vineet Parikh, Prashant Bhushan, Colin Gonsalves and Dushyant Dave, while the central government was represented in court by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve and OP Parihar appeared for the petitioner.

The post Farmers prepare for longer stay in Delhi border appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

But the top court also said Ayush doctors cannot advertise anything as a cure, it added.

The post SC allows Ayush doctors to prescribe drugs for Covid treatment appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The Election Commission had on October 30 taken note of an alleged breach of “ethical and dignified behaviour” and revoked Kamal Nath as the star campaigner in Madhya Pradesh.

The Election Commission lawyer said since the election is tomorrow, the plea is infructuous.

However, since the plea also seeks Supreme Court verdict on law to be laid down on whether ECI can decide on who can be leader of party under Section 77 RP Act, Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter.

The CJI asked Election Commission, “Where do you get the power to determine who will be the leader of a political party under Section 77? You have no power.”

While hearing the matter on Monday, Supreme Court said prima facie EC didn’t have the power remove a star campaigner. In turn, EC argued that it acted under the Model Code of Conduct.

Supreme Court has asked EC to file a reply to Kamal Nath’s petition. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibil appeared for Kamal Nath.

The poll panel had said in its order, “…for repeated violation of Model Code of Conduct and for completely disregarding the advisory issued to him, the Commission hereby revokes the status of leader of political party (Star Campaigner) of Kamal Nath, Ex-Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh, with immediate effect for the current Bye-elections of Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh.”

Kamal Nath moved Supreme Court against the EC order and apart from revoking of the order, he also sought framing of appropriate guidelines for speeches during campaigning by star campaigners or campaigners, “keeping in mind the right to freedom of speech and expression and concept of democratic elections”.

The EC’s order against Nath concerned two comments. He made a comment against Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan on October 13 and then on October 18, Nath had said at a rally in Gwalior the Congress candidate was a simple man, unlike his opponent who is an ‘item’. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has Imarti Devi as candidate from the Darba seat in Gwalior in the by-elections.

Congress had submitted a list of 28 star campaigners to the Election Commission for MP by-elections on October 19.

The post SC stays EC order on Kamal Nath appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

It was around a few days back that the Mumbai Police named Arnab Goswami’s Republic TV among two other television channels for allegedly manipulating TRP ratings and using it to spread fake narratives, thus using it to generate revenues from advertisements. As the Mumbai Police started a probe against the television channel, Republic TV challenged the decision of the police at the Supreme Court.

However, on Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to admit Republic TV’s petition and made it clear that the channel should initially approach the High Court.

“You have already filed a petition in the High Court. Entertaining this petition without high court sends a message that we don’t have faith in high courts. Like any other citizens faces predicament of probe under Cr.P.C (Criminal Procedure Code) must go to the High Court,” said the top court after refusing to hear the plea of Republic TV.

The top court’s bench comprised of Justice D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed that the High Court has been working regularly, amid the coronavirus outbreak, and the channel should approach the High Court in the state like ‘any other ordinary citizen’ before moving the plea to the supreme court.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the media house revealed that the petition has been withdrawn to move High Court.

In the meantime, in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court claimed that Republic TV is abusing law of the land, and is intimidating witnesses.

“Arnab Goswami (Republic TV’s editor-in-chief) is holding programs where this case is debated at length and contacting witnesses and interfering and intimidating the witnesses. Freedom of speech right cannot be invoked into an alleged crime. Right under Article 19(1) freedom of speech cannot be a shield against probe,” Mumbai Police said in the affidavit.

The post Supreme Court lashes out at Republic TV in TRP scam, refuses to hear plea appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

According to a circular issued by the Reserve Bank on March 27, 2020, the moratorium would be applicable for a period of three months from March 1 to May 31. It was later extended to a three-month period until August 31. The only advantage of a moratorium is that the loan will not be declared non-performing if the EMI is not repaid during this period. Banking rules allow interest to be charged on non-performing EMIs. As a result, those who adopt the moratorium will have to pay a large amount of extra interest. The need before the Supreme Court is to avoid imposing such additional interest on those who are experiencing financial hardship.

On September 10, the Supreme Court allowed the central government, which had not taken a clear stand on the issue, two weeks to decide on the moratorium interest. The Center is expected to state its position on the petition again on September 28.

Banks that take a stand against these petitions see this as a case in point that could determine how the banks’ lending business will proceed. In fact, banks contend that the Supreme Court’s consideration of such a petition is tantamount to questioning the fundamentals of the banking system and that it is up to the Reserve Bank to take a final stand on the matter. Proponents of the case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.

This argument would have seemed correct if it had been stated during another situation. If the basic structure of the credit business is questioned, the credit supply itself will be in crisis. At the same time, banks need to realise that the moratorium on loans across the country is during an extraordinary situation. Those who lost their jobs and saw their incomes plummeting when the COVID scare and lockdown hit the economy, adopted the moratorium as they could not pay the EMI. Banks should not be penalised for giving such temporary relief. It is an inhumane approach for banks to insist on levying fines and interest on interest. Banking experts, who talk endlessly about the basic structure of the credit business, need to keep in mind that during the Covid era, many resolutions would have to be relaxed and a liberal approach would have to be adopted.

Banks struggling to recover corporates’ debts argue that interest should be charged on top of the moratorium on interest rates allowed to the general public. Banks that are not hesitant to relax the terms and conditions when granting loans to corporates are later overwhelmed by the burden of bad credit. It is not appropriate for such banking institutions to adopt a different parameter when dealing with ordinary people in this country. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will intervene in this matter in a rational and humane manner.

The post Obstinacy of banks don’t bode well during COVID appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The president said this week that he will announce his pick to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and various US media said it would be the 48-year-old conservative judge. If Amy Coney is confirmed the court would shift to a 6-3 conservative majority.

Asked by journalists if Barrett will indeed be nominated, Trump responded: “I haven’t said that.”
But he added that he had already made a decision “in my own mind” and that Barrett is “outstanding.”

Democratic opponents, led by presidential candidate Joe Biden, have demanded that Republicans back off on replacing liberal icon Ginsburg — who died last week — until after the November 3 election, after it’s determined whether Trump will get a second term.

Leaders of the Republican majority in the Senate, which is tasked with confirming Supreme Court nominees, said they have enough support to hold a vote on the nomination either before the election or at worst during the “lame duck” session between the election and the inauguration of the next president in January.

“We will certainly do that this year,” Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said.

Barrett, a law professor, was only appointed to the bench for the first time in 2017. A deeply conservative Catholic, she is considered hostile to abortion rights — a key issue for many Republicans.

The post Trump likely to nominate Amy Coney Barret as new Supreme Court Judge appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The Sensex ended 171 points lower at 38,194 points. Similarly, Nifty declined by 39 points to close at 11,278 points. The Nifty was down by 11,185 points during the day.

The Indian stock market started with a loss following the fall in the US stock market on September 8. At no point in the trade did the indices returned a profit.

Whiles 25 shares in Nifty were up 24 shares were down. There was no change in the share price. Tata Steel, Zee Limited, Cipla, Reliance Industries and Grasim Industries were the top five gainers in the Nifty. Tata Steel rose 3.57 per cent. Pharma and metal stocks were the main gainers of the day. The decline was visible in other areas. Bank stocks fell sharply.

SBI, GAIL, Bajaj Finserv, Axis Bank and IOC were the biggest losers in the Nifty. SBI fell 4.90 per cent. Shares of GAIL, Bajaj Finserv, Axis Bank and IOC lost more than 2 per cent each.

The Nifty Bank Index lost 2.1 per cent. The market is mainly looking at a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a waiver of interest during the moratorium period. Concerns over whether the verdict in the case would be adverse led to a fall in bank shares.

The Nifty Pharma Index gained 1.9 per cent. Shares of Biocon, Cipla, Arbindo Pharma, Lupine and Torrent Pharma gained more than 2 per cent each.

The post Stock market falls again appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

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.

“Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed,” said the Supreme Court while handing down the sentence, referring to “sane advice” from Attorney General KK Venugopal to the court and to Prashant Bhushan.

The judgment drew instant reactions from members of the legal fraternity and politicians, most of whom praised the top court for letting off the lawyer-activist with a “token punishment”.

“Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court has shown maturity. It would have been better if he had been forgiven. Court could have given him warning also but this is the best scenario. But this is a symbolic punishment, the minimum prescribed in the law. Court wanted to show majesty of law is Supreme and some punishment had to be given once found guilty. The punishment of Re 1 is token punishment and the rest are default clauses,” former Chief Justice of India Justice RM Lodha said.

The post Prashant Bhushan fined Re. 1 for contempt of court appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

While hearing a petition seeking a direction for waiver of interest on the loan repayment during the moratorium period, the Apex Court observed that the government is hiding behind the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and why it has still not filed its reply.

“You cannot be interested only in business and not about sufferings of people,” said a bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan and fixed the matter for further hearing on September 1.

The Apex Court observed that the matter has been hanging for a long time.
“The problem has been created by your (Centre’s) lockdown. This is also not the time to consider about the business. The plight of people has to be considered also,” the bench said.

A petition has also been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to all the banks to extend the moratorium period till December 31 to ensure helping the borrowers in deferring their EMI payment on term loans.

In June, the Supreme Court pulled up the Central government and asked it to step up and take a stand over the issue related to charging interest on EMIs during the six month moratorium period granted in view of COVID-19 pandemic.

The post SC slams Centre on lockdown, loan moratorium appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Attorney General KK Venugopal reiterated his appeal to the apex court to take a “compassionate view” and forgive Bhushan. However the court said the lawyer has not apologised yet and has even made unfavourable remarks in the affidavit filed in his defence.

Venugopal had urged the top court last week as well to spare Bhushan from any harsh punishment.
The bench then sought views of senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, counsel for Bhushan, on punishment to be awarded in the contempt case. Dhavan said judgment convicting Bhushan should be recalled, no sentence be imposed on him.

“Please do not make Prashant Bhushan a martyr. After Babri Masjid was demolished, there were crowds to welcome Kalyan Singh. So don’t make him a martyr,” he said.

“Not only the Bhushan contempt case be closed, the controversy should be put to end. SC should give statesman like message,” he added.

To this, Justice Mishra replied, “I am not criticising Mr Bhushan…There is a difference between a court officer and a politician…if you are going to press for everything, you are identifying with the former more.”

Meanwhile, a new Supreme Court bench will hear the 2009 contempt case against Bhushan from next month as Justice Arun Mishra retires in the first week of September. The bench headed by Justice Mishra said the matter will be listed before an appropriate bench on September 10 as they are ‘short of time’.

The post Prashant Bhushan: SC reserves verdict on quantum of sentence appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The High Court while dismissing the government’s plea had observed that the dispute between was between the state and the Union government. Only the Supreme Court and not high courts, had jurisdiction in such Centre-State disputes.

Considering an application by the Kerala Government seeking the stay, the court adjourned the case for detailed hearing on September 15.The government also directed the parties in the case to produce the documents and wrap up their arguments before September 9.

In its application, the state government said unless the stay is granted, it will be put to irreparable injury and hardship.

The state government filed the application in the court, after an all-party-meeting in the state demanded withdrawal of the Union Cabinet’s decision last week to lease out the airport to Adani Enterprises.

Last year, the high court had dismissed the petition challenging the decision, terming it as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The state government then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the high court order.

The apex court set aside the judgement of the high court and the matter was remanded back to it for a decision on merit.

Referring to the top court directive, the state government said, “all further proceedings in relation to grant of lease with regard to operation, management and development of Thiruvananthapuram international airport to Adani Enterprises Ltd, is to be stayed pending disposal of the aforementioned writ petition.”

The state argued that Airport Authority of India’s decision to grant the right of operation, management and development of the airport to Adani Enterprises Limiter, which has no previous experience in managing airports, was not in the public interest.

The post Kerala HC refuses to stay privatisation of Thiruvananthapuram airport appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Bhushan said, in a statement submitted to the apex court, that his tweets represented his bona fide beliefs which he still continues to hold.

“An apology has to be sincerely made. If I retract a statement that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology that in my eyes would amount to contempt of my conscience and of an institution (Supreme Court) that I hold in the highest esteem,” the statement said. “An apology for expression of beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere,” Bhushan said.

Bhushan said that as an officer of apex court it is his duty to speak up when he believes there is a deviation from the court’s sterling record.

“Therefore I expressed myself in good faith, not to malign the Supreme Court or any particular Chief Justice, but to offer constructive criticism so that the court can arrest any drift away from its long-standing role as a guardian of the Constitution and custodian of peoples’ rights,” he said.

Bhushan added “My tweets represented this bona fide belief that I continue to hold. Public expression of these beliefs was I believe, in line with my higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of this court.”

At the last hearing on Thursday, the court had sought an unconditional apology and gave the 63-year-old a few days to “reconsider” his statement.

“Don’t just apply legal brain here,” Justice Arun Kumar Mishra, who led the bench, had told Mr. Bhushan, commenting that he had not convicted anyone of contempt in 24 years as a judge. But freedom of speech is not absolute, Justice Mishra said, adding, “You may do hundreds of good things, but that doesn’t give you a license to do ten crimes”.

The tweet in question accused Chief Justice SA Bobde of riding a motorcycle- he was photographed on a Harley Davidson in Nagpur last month- without a helmet and face mask while keeping the court in lockdown and denying citizens the right to justice.

The other tweet was about four previous Chief Justices of India whom he accused of having a role in “destroying democracy”.

He might face simple imprisonment for six months or with a fine of up to Rs 2000 or with both as punishment.

The post Prashant Bhushan refuses to apologise to SC appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

True, the constitutional right to freedom of speech would not prevent the courts to punish contempt of themselves. However, as explained by constitutional expert V.N. Shukla,  “Judges have no general immunity from criticism of their judicial conduct, provided that it is made in good faith and does not impute any private motive to those taking part in the administration of justice. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue,” said the Privy Council in Ambard v. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tabago, “She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, though outspoken comments of ordinary men”. (Constitution of India, by V.N. Shukla  7^th edition  published by Eastern Book Company. page 82.)

Shukla further pointed out the summary jurisdiction exercised by superior courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice. This is certainly an extraordinary power which must be sparingly exercised but where the public interest demands it, the court will not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment even by way of imprisonment in cases where a fine may not be adequate. This jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as substantial interference with due course of justice as distinguished from a mere question of propriety.

In C.K.Daphtary v.O.P.Gupta (AIR 1971 SC 1132) the Supreme Court in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court. A distinction should be made between defamatory attacks on a judge and the contempt of court.

Now, what did Prashant Bhushan do? He made two tweets one on 27 June 2020 in which he said, “When historians in future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal emergency ,they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction , and more particularly the role of the last four Chief Justices of India.”

In the second tweet on 29 June Bhushan put out a photograph of the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde sitting on a motorcycle and said “CJI rides Rs.50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhawan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice”.

The Supreme Court held that the two tweets have the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy. It took umbrage at Bhushan linking the Supreme Court to an Emergency like situation and held his tweets false, malicious and scandalous.

As pointed out by the Citizens for Democracy the tweets made by Prashant Bhushan were expressions of anguish felt by thousands of victimized citizens who are at the receiving end of state power and who cry for judicial protection. Holding him guilty and punishing him will in no way promote administration of justice or enhance the majesty of law.

What is the way out? In both the suo-motu contempt cases, as suggested by Justice (Rtd) Kurian Joseph, in view of the substantial questions of law on the interpretation of the Constitution of India and having serious repercussions on the fundamental rights, the matter is required to be heard by a Constitution Bench.  It should also deliberate, whether a person convicted by the Supreme Court of India in a suo-motu case should get an opportunity for an intra-court appeal since in all other situations of conviction in criminal matters, the convicted person is entitled to have a second opportunity by way of an appeal.

The post Judging the Judges appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The plea was in favour of conducting key entrance examinations only after normalcy is restored post-COVID-19 crisis. Ahead of the hearing, advocate Srivastava exuded confidence in getting justice for young JEE and NEET aspirants. India Wide Parents’ Association chief Anubha Shrivastava Sahai too appeared optimistic ahead of the crucial hearing. “We are quite confident that the honorable Supreme Court will give justice to lakhs of students and government will support them.”

Union Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal has said that the JEE Main Examination for Engineering will be held from September 1 to 6. The JEE Advanced exam is scheduled to be held on September 27. The Central Government announced the dates of NEET and JEE examinations after a series of postponements in the wake of the COVID pandemic.

Solicitor General Thushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that all necessary security precautions would be taken for the examination. Not everything can be closed in during this period. Life needs to move forward. It is imperative to proceed with all security arrangements. Arun Mishra asked the students if they were ready to waste a whole year.

The post NEET, JEE exams in September appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The members, who had assembled at the church for a fasting prayer, were arrested and removed from the church premises. Many, including priests are believed to be injured in the incident.

The members who had assembled at the church for a fasting prayer, were arrested and removed from the church premises. The devotees made a blockade inorder to stop the police from entering inside. They also locked the gates.

When the devotees refused to cooperate, the police broke open the gate and entered. The police were wearing PPE kits while arresting the devotees because of the COVID-19 threat.

The Kerala High Court had ordered the Jacobite faction to hand over the church located at Mulanthuruthy in Ernakulam district of Kerala to the Orthodox faction in line with the Supreme Court directives.

Earlier this month, the court also issued an order for contempt of court when the authorities showed no signs of complying with the order.

In July 3,2017, the Supreme Court had held that 1,100 parishes and their churches under the Malankara Church should be controlled by the Orthodox faction according to the 1934 Malankara Church guidelines. With this judgment, the Jacobite faction lost its legal status as the Malankara Syrian Church.

Last year, the Piravom Church was also taken over by the Ernakulam collector in a similar manner, following the HC directives.

The post Police takes over Mulanthuruthy Church amid massive protests 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.

When the Center in response to the direction, placed the onus on state governments, the apex court ordered it to take steps under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan asked Center to ensure that by August 10, the doctors and healthcare workers are paid their salaries.

The court’s direction came after the Center informed the court that four states – Punjab, Maharashtra, Tripura and Karnataka – have not paid timely payments to the frontline workers.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Center told the bench that it had issued directions to the state.

“You are not helpless. You have to see to it that your order is implemented. You have power under the DM Act. You can take steps also,” Justice M R Shah said, expressing discontentment with the Centre’s stand.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for doctors, healthcare workers complained to the apex court that quarantine period after duty is being cut as leave. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that quarantine cannot be taken as leave. The bench asked Mehta to clarify the issue.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Dr Arushi Jain who was seeking timely payment of salaries to the frontline COVID-19 healthcare workers and doctors.

On June 17, Supreme Court had asked the Center to issue orders in 24-hours to all states and Union Territories for payment of salaries to doctors and healthcare workers and also ensure suitable quarantine facilities for those who are directly engaged in treatment in covid-19 patients.

Earlier the top court had observed, “In war, you do not make soldiers unhappy travel an extra mile and channel some extra money to address their grievances.”

The post Ensure timely payment of salaries to frontline workers: SC appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

The top court had asked the state government to consider adding a former Supreme Court judge and a retired police officer in the probe committee, saying it has ‘appalled’ that the gangster was out on bail.

“We are appalled at the fact that such a person was released on bail. This is a failure of an institution where he was released on bail and did this. We need a report on such bail orders,” Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde said, while hearing petitions for a Central Bureau of Investigation or the National Investigation Agency probe into his death and that of the killing of eight police by Vikas Dubey’s gang members, and for the top court to monitor the probe. The top court has sought a report from the UP government.

The reconstituted panel will now include a retired Supreme Court judge and retired police officer, along with the existing retired high court judge, the UP government said.

“We cannot spare a sitting top court judge to become part of inquiry committee,” the top court bench, headed by the Chief Justice, said during today’s hearing.

Chief Justice Bobde also asked the UP government’s lawyer to look into statements made by the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister. “If they have made certain statements and then something has followed, you should look into this,” the Chief Justice said.

Vikas Dubey was shot dead while trying to escape after a car accident, the UP Police had announced on July 10, a day after his dramatic arrest in Madhya Pradesh. Vikas Dubey snatched the gun of a policeman and opened fire, the police said, asserting that they had tried to catch him alive.

On July 3, eight policemen were killed in a village Kanpur in an ambush set up after Vikas Dubey was tipped off by a local police inspector. Vikas Dubey escaped with many of his men after the massacre. A large team of policemen were on their way to arrest him in an attempted murder case.

The Supreme Court will take up the case next Wednesday after Uttar Pradesh submits the draft notification of the reconstituted probe panel.

The post SC asks UP government to reconstitute Dubey probe team appeared first on The Gulf Indians.