The Supreme Court on September 18, 2017, decided to hear the plea filed by Rohingya Muslims on October 3. Two Rohingya immigrants, who filed the plea, asked for apex court’s intervention in regards with the deportation of the Rohingyas to Myanmar.
According to the media reports, the Union home ministry has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in which it called Rohingya Muslims a security threat to the country, reported Firstpost. The centre also added that the right to move and settle in the country can only be enjoyed by the citizens of India and any illegal immigrant will face the jurisdiction.
According to a report in the Times of India, the centre will present all the intelligence inputs before the court on October 3.
The Supreme Court has also refused to issue any notice to the National Human Rights Commission, which supports the Rohingyas and is ready to argue against the deportation.
Minister of State for Home Affairs, Kiren RIjiju, said, “It is a sensitive matter. Whatever government will do, will be in nation’s interest.”, reported the Statesman.
The apex court has ordered the formation of a five-judge bench to hear all pleas relating to the government’s demonetization move. It will test the constitutional validity of its decision of banning Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes. A three-judge bench passed this order. It included Chief Justice of India TS Thakur, Justice A.M.Khanwilkar, and D.Y.Chandrachud.
The bench ordered that all proceedings relating to demonetization be withdrawn from the High Courts and be transferred to the Supreme Court. It has also directed the lower courts to stop accepting any new petitions. The court refused to give any extension on the use of old currency notes for essential services. However, left it to the government to decide whether it wants to make any exceptions or not. According to the Hindu, the Supreme Court said that it trusted the government to be the best judge of its policies.
It will further look into a number of issues after the winter vacations of the Parliament. These include topics such as the inconvenience caused to the general public by this notification and whether it violated article 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution.
NEW DELHI: Starting April 1 2017, no liquor shops will be seen on national or state highways according to Supreme Court’s orders passed today.
TS Thakur Chief Justice of India headed the Supreme Court bench along with Justices DY Chandrachud and LN Rao that ordered a ban on the liquor sale on the state and national highways. No more licenses for new liquor shops are to be issued in and around the highways according to the Apex Court. However, the Supreme Court in the order mentioned that the already running liquor shops can continue till the license period. The court said that the liquor shops should at least be 500 meters away from the highway. The step has been taken to avoid drunk driving on the highways.
The orders were issued because of a public interest litigation filed by an NGO called ‘Arrive Safe’. According to reports provided by ‘Arrive Safe’, almost 1.5 lakh people lose their lives annually in road accidents. The NGO blamed the easy access of liquor on highways for these numbers.
As reported by The Indian Express, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that cases pertaining to matrimonial disputes can be transferred out of Jammu and Kashmir. This move will ensure timely justice to litigants.
The fact that the local laws of Jammu and Kashmir do not allow the cases to be transferred out of the state at the request of the litigant was taken into consideration by the 5- judge Constitution Panel lead by Justice T S Thakur.
The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code which deal with transfer of cases are not applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
To ensure the access to justice which is a right of every litigant, the apex court can exercise its Constitutional powers while transferring the case out of the state, said the bench which also comprised of justices FMI Kalifulla, A K Sikri, S A Bobde and R Banumati.
The judgment came as a result of a number of petitions filed by litigants, including that of Anita Kushwaha, that sought transfer of matrimonial dispute cases outside the state.
The Supreme Court on Monday passed a historical judgement and accepted all the major recommendations of the Lodha panel to bring structural reforms in the Board of Cricket Control in India ( BCCI).
According to a report by The Hindu, one of the major reforms suggested by the panel include a bar on civil servants and ministers and those above the age of 70 from becoming members of the BCCI.
However, the court left two major issues- whether the BCCI should come under RTI or not and if betting on the game of cricket should be legalised or not, to the decision of the Parliament.
BCCI’s objection against one-state-one-vote was rejected by a panel of judges comprising Justice T S Thakur and Justice F M I Kalifulla. It accepted that there should be a player’s association in the BCCI and the funding of the same should be accepted. The acceptable limit for funding is left to the board.
Further, the bench stated that one person will hold only one position, in order to avoid conflict of interest. Also, it said that all other committees of the BCCI be scrapped once the CAG nominees come in.
The bench also requested a 3 member panel to oversee the transition of administrative structure of BCCI, which should include an apex court judge.
The Apex court on Wednesday asked the Law Commission to examine the issue of hate speeches by politicians and religious parties and whether there could be a legal framework to prohibit them. It also wants the Commission to consider framing guidelines to regulate such provocative statements.
The top court bench, headed by Justice B.S. Chauhan, also asked the Law Commission to lay down the definition of hate speech and to submit it to the Center.
The court passed the order on a PIL by NGO Pravasi Bhalai Sanghatan alleging that there was a need for guidelines as hate speeches destroy the fabric of democracy and violate the provisions of the Constitution. The PIL had named Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh as respondents as the two states witnessed incidents of alleged hate speeches.
On March 3, on a different petition, the top court had said it will not intervene to stop politicians from delivering hate speeches as crores of people meant crores of opinions. “We are a country of 128 crore people and there may be 128 crore views. This is the maturity of a democracy. For a person making such a speech, it may not be a hate speech,” said the judges who heard the case.