Supreme Court to hold Article 35A hearing after three months
Supreme Court amends its order, says it will hear the Article 35A case after three months, reports ANI
Supreme Court to hold Article 35A hearing after three months
Supreme Court amends its order, says it will hear the Article 35A case after three months, reports ANI
SC hearing on Article 35A case deferred by 8 weeks
Supreme Court defers hearing on by Article 35A by eight 8 weeks, reports News18. The report adds that the government has informed the apex court about appointing an interlocutor. The Attorney General seeks 6 months time for the same.
How Aadhaar Will Transform India In The Future
Video courtesy: Insight18
Mamata Banerjee to discuss Aadhaar issue
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is likely to hold a press conference today to discuss the Aadhaar issue, reports News18
The petitioners had termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as illegal and unconstitutional and strongly objected to the CBSE's move to make it mandatory for students to appear for exams.
Divan, appearing for some of the petitioners, had earlier contended that final hearing in the main Aadhaar matter, which is pending before the apex court, was necessary as the government "cannot compel" citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or mobile numbers.
Government wanted the Aadhaar hearing to take place in March
The Aadhaar matter was mentioned by Attorney-General KK Venugopal, who demanded that the case be heard in March. This was objected to by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, according to LiveLaw. Gopal Subramanian added that there should be no compulsion for linking various services with Aadhaar if the hearing is postponed.
The government will not extend the Aadhaar linkage deadline past November
The government is not willing to extend the deadline for Aadhaar. "We will argue the case," the government told the Supreme Court. The apex judicial body is likely to hear the case in the last week of November.
The deadline issue talks of an extension for people who do not have Aadhaar card as of yet and the government giving them the leeway to do so and link all services by 31 March, 2018. The petitioners are contesting why the same should not be extended to those already with Aadhaar.
On the Hadiya case, SC says there is no law stating that a person can't marry a criminal
"Marriage is a personal affair. There is no law stating that a person can't marry a criminal. Don't try to curb individual cases," said Supreme Court, while adding that it will examine parental authority can be exercised on a major, said media reports.
CJI says he will try to constitute Aadhaar bench at end of November
CJI says he will try to constitute a bench at the end of November.— Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) October 30, 2017
Article 35A was not part of the Constitution as it was adopted in 1949. It was added later by a Presidential Order in 1954. This Order was issued under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which grants special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 is the subject of another Supreme Court case in which the court on Tuesday asked the Centre for its view on the validity of Jammu and Kashmir's special status.
The Jammu and Kashmir legislature can give special rights and privileges to permanent residents only in the following four categories:
Aadhaar Case: Supreme Court seeks Centre's response on plea against linking Aadhaar with mobile phones
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response on a plea challenging the mandatory linking of mobile phones with Aadhaar. A bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan gave the Centre four-weeks time to respond.
The court also gave time to the West Bengal government to amend it's petition questioning the linking of Aadhaar for giving of subsidy by the state's Labour Department. It observed: "how could state government challenge a law passed by the Centre?"
The court said West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee could challenge the Aadhaar law as an "individual" and a "citizen". However, it also observed that "this way Centre would start challenging the laws passed by the States".
The Attorney-General will mention the Aadhaar case at 2 PM.— Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) October 30, 2017
Nothing warranted transfer of probe in Hadiya case to NIA: Kerala govt tells Supreme Court
Meanwhile, the Kerala government on 7 October had told the Supreme Court that its police had conducted a "thorough investigation" into her conversion and subsequent marriage to Jahan and did not find material warranting the transfer of probe to the NIA.
Jahan had moved the apex court after the Kerala High Court annulled his marriage, saying it was an insult to the independence of women in the country.
Hadiya's husband is a radicalised man, says Divan appearing for father
The National Investigation Agency, represented by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, said there was a well-oiled machinery working in the state and they are indulging in the indoctrination and radicalisation of the society in the state where as many as 89 cases of similar nature have been reported.
Divan, appearing for woman's father K M Ashokan, claimed the alleged husband of his daughter is a radicalised man and several organisations like Popular Front of India (PFI) are involved in radicalisation of the society.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for her husband Shafin Jahan, opposed the NIA's submission and that of the woman's father.
“We are inclined to modify the order dated 16th August and is directing the presence of the daughter of the 1st respondent at 3PM on 27th November. We may further add that this court shall speak to her not in-camera but in open court.
We will be failing in our duty if we do not take on record the submission of ASG Maninder Singh and Senior Advocate Shyam Divan that in a case of present nature when there is sufficient material on record and a pattern of indoctrination the choice of the person may not be treated as absolute.”
‘It is additionally urged that going by the conduct of the petitioner her custody may not straight away be given to the husband before deciding the larger issue. They adverted on the conduct of the petitioner and his association with the People’s Front of India. We have not expressed any opinion. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the petitioner has objected to all allegations."
SC orders Hadiya to be produced to know her mind
The Supreme Court directed that Hadiya shall be produced before the top court to ascertain if she, an adult, had married Shafin Jahan out of her own free will after her conversion.
Ashokan, the father of the 24 year old woman has been asked to produce the girl at 3pm on 27 November, Live Law report said. The order by a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was given despite stiff objection by Additional Solicitor General Majumder Singh who appeared for Centre and Shyam Divan. Divan represented the woman’s father who has the custody of the girl now after the Kerala High Court quashed the marriage and gave her custody to him.
Both of them had argued that “indoctrination and psychological influence are exceptions to consent’ but the bench said all these issues will be dealt with later.
The question of the validity of the marriage is not something that can be determined by a high court in a writ. The high court’s order is respectfully erroneous to that extent. Along with that, respectfully, the order is also further erroneous to the extent that, failing a finding of illegal detention a writ of habeas corpus has been issued. Moreover, so, the writ has awarded the "custody" of the body of a major to her parents without her wishes being respected.
If Akhila/Haidya wishes like any other citizen of India, she should be permitted to travel where she likes and do as she pleases. The order directing that she stays only with her parents is one that in effect confines her making the order a prima facie incorrect exercise of the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
The case raises a few important questions of constitutional law. What is the extent of the parens patriae jurisdiction of the high court in so far as it concerns adults? What are the powers of a high court while disposing of a writ of habeas corpus and whether the power of the high court under Article 226 can extend to annulling a marriage?
The Kerala High Court in its final order on the case did three things:
a) It provides custody of the woman in question to her parents. Even though she is 24 years of age and, therefore, is a major under Indian law and, therefore, requires no guardian.
b) Annuls the marriage she had with one Shafin Jahan on the grounds that it was a sham.
c) Orders the police to inquire into the case and the organisations behind it.
NIA warns of love jihad 'machinery' in Kerala
"Consent is manipulated by indoctrination, radicalisation. In fact, people with hypnotic expertise have been employed to manipulate young women," NIA tells the Supreme Court.
CJI-led bench of Supreme Court might hear Hadiya in an open court
According to reports, the Supreme Court bench on 27 November will hear Hadiya in an open court.
Meanwhile, Hadiya's father Ashokan KM pleads in court that the case proceedings be heard in-camera but CJI Dipak Misra says it will be in open court around 3 pm. By November 27, it would have been five months since Hadiya's custody was handed over to her parents, News18 reports. Meanwhile, the NIA has told SC that there is a well-oiled machinery involving radicalisation and love jihad cases in Kerala.
CJI led bench wants to hear her in an open court @ LiveLawIndia— Prabhati N. Mishra (@Prabhati_Mishra) October 30, 2017
A new video showing 24-year-old Hadiya pleading for freedom from her parents has fuelled the raging controversy over love jihad in Kerala.
In the video, the girl, who converted from Hinduism to Islam, is speaking about a threat to her life from her father. The video was released by social activist Rahul Easwar just before the hearing in the Supreme Court on her marriage with a Muslim man.
Hadiya — Akhila before her conversion — has been confined to her house at Vaikom for the last four months after the Kerala High Court annulled her marriage. Easwar said that she had revealed the threat she perceived from her father when he visited her on 17 August.
Hadiya is heard saying in the video made available to Firstpost, "You have to get me out fast. I am sure I will be killed tomorrow or day after. My father is getting angry, I know. When I walk, he is pushing and kicking me."
The matter had been adjourned at the last hearing after opposing lawyers got into a high-pitched war of words.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had got irked when senior lawyer Dushayant Dave, appearing for the husband Shafin Jahan, referred to statement by BJP president Amit Shah and Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath and imputed political motive. "Yogi Adityanath spoke of 'love jihad' in Kerala... this court should know the ground realities," Dave had said, adding that Shah had also visited Kerala.
WATCH: 'I am sure I will die tomorrow...': Kerala love jihad victim Hadiya
In a video, shot on 17 August, released on Thursday, 24-year-old Hadiya, has alleged that her life was under threat and that she was being tortured by her father, said media reports. Hadiya converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim man.
"You need to get me out. I will be killed anytime, tomorrow or the day after, I am sure. I know my father is getting angry. When I walk, he is hitting and kicking me. If my head or any other part of my body hits somewhere and I die," said Hadiya in the video which was shot on 17 August by activist Rahul Easwar.
Hours after the video was released, Shefin Jahan, Hadiya's husband has requested Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan to intervene, said an India Today report.
Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, moved the Supreme Court opposing a plea seeking to reopen the 70-year-old assassination case of the Mahatma.
A bench of Justice SA Bobde and Justice MM Shantanagoudar questioned the locus of Tushar Gandhi in the case. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Gandhi, said she will explain the locus if the court moves ahead with issuing of notice. The bench said there were several ifs and buts in the case and will like to wait for the amicus curiae (friend of the court) Amrender Sharan's report.
RSS will be closely watching hearing on Article 35(A)
The court will also take up petitions which challenge the constitutional validity of Article 35A of the Constitution.
The Sangh Parivar would be closely watching the Centre's stand on the Article 35A hearing in the Supreme Court. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had called for "necessary Constitutional amendments" in his annual Vijayadashmi speech late last month. Bhagwat, while lauding the government's muscular policy in Kashmir, had broached the subject to assimilate “the residents of Jammu & Kashmir, with rest of Bharat”.
Is there any law prohibiting a woman marrying a criminal: Supreme Court asks ASG
Is there any law prohibiting a woman marrying a criminal: CJI asks ASG— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 30, 2017
Bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra started hearing #Hadiya Case— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 30, 2017
In a habeas Corpus matter, the consent of the girl is the most important aspect :CJI— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 30, 2017
Kerala Hadiya's love jihad case: Supreme Court observes that the consent of the girl is prime
Kerala 'Love Jihad' Case: Supreme Court observed that the consent of the girl is prime. She is a major; Hearing underway— ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2017
The Supreme Court questioned the West Bengal government for filing a plea challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes. The top court asked how a state can challenge the mandate of Parliament.
"How can a state file such a plea. In a federal structure, how can a state file a plea challenging Parliament's mandate," a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, told the court that the plea has been filed by the labour department of the state as subsidies under these schemes have to be given by them.
"You satisfy us how the state has challenged it. We know it is a matter which needs consideration," PTI quoted the bench saying, adding the Centre's move can be challenged by an individual but not by states.
"Let Mamata Banerjee come and file a plea as individual. We will entertain it as she will be an individual," the top court said. However, Sibal maintained that the state was entitled to file such a plea but said that they would amend the prayer in the petition.
Linking Aadhaar with mobile numbers: SC issues notice to Centre, asks it to file response within 4 weeks
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear fresh petitions against linking Aadhaar with mobile phone numbers. Thus opening the door for Mamata Banerjee, in an individual capacity, to challenge the move that she has vehemently opposed.
The top court also issued notice to Centre and asked it to file response within 4 weeks, ANI reported.
Plea challenging linking Aadhar with mobile numbers: SC also sent notice to telecom companies— ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2017
Plea challenging linking Aadhar with mobile numbers: SC issues notice to Centre, asks it to file response within 4 weeks.— ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2017
Plea challenging linking Aadhar with mobile numbers: SC issues notice to Centre, asks it to file response within 4 weeks-ANI— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 30, 2017
Earlier, Mamata Banerjee had opposed linking of Aadhaar with mobile phone number, and had said she will not comply with it even if her phone connection is snapped.
She accused the Union government of "autocratic" rule and said her party will "have to play a role so that BJP is removed from power" at the centre. "They (Centre) are interfering in the people's rights and privacy. Aadhaar number should not be linked with one's mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhaar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped," she said at the extended core committee meeting of the TMC.
Supreme Court slams Mamata govt during Aadhaar hearing
Coming down heavily on the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress government in Bengal, the Supreme Court questioned state government's locus standi to challenge Aadhaar. The Supreme Court asked how can a state challenge the law passed by the Parliament.
SC says @MamataOfficial as an individual can challenge the law— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 30, 2017
West Bengal chief minister Mamata Bannerjee-led Trinamool government filed a plea in the top court against the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.
Hindustan Times reported that the court will also hear a plea challenging a move to make Aadhaar-mobile number linkage mandatory.
On 25 October, the Centre had told the top court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till 31 March next year for those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number.
Attorney-General KK Venugopal had told a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the deadline extension from December end this year till 31 March, 2018, would apply only to those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enroll for it. However, Venugopal had told the bench that he would take instructions on certain issues on Aadhaar after which the court had asked him to mention the matter again on 30 October.
The Supreme Court is set for a busy Monday with high-profile cases such as Aadhaar, the Kerala Love Jihad issue and Article 35A expected to come up for hearing. The Aadhaar case relates to the mandatory linking of the biometric ID to government welfare schemes, while in the Kerala Love Jihad case, the top court will open sealed envelopes handed over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The hearing on Article 35A relates to special rights and privileges of the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Supreme Court questioned the West Bengal government for filing a plea challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of various social welfare schemes.
The top court asked how a state can challenge the mandate of Parliament. "How can a state file such a plea. In a federal structure, how can a state file a plea challenging Parliament's mandate," a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, told the court that the plea has been filed by the labour department of the state as subsidies under these schemes have to be given by them.
"You satisfy us how the state has challenged it. We know it is a matter which needs consideration," the bench said adding the Centre's move can be challenged by an individual but not by states.
"Let Mamata Banerjee come and file a plea as individual. We will entertain it as she will be an individual," the top court said. However, Sibal maintained that the state was entitled to file such a plea but said that they would amend the prayer in the petition. Meanwhile, the bench issued notice to the Centre on a separate plea filed by an individual challenging the linking of mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar.
The court has asked the Centre to file its response on the plea in four weeks. The West Bengal government challenged the provision which says that without Aadhaar, the benefits of social welfare schemes would not be extended.
Earlier, the Centre had told the apex court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail benefits of various government schemes has been extended till March 31 next year for those who do not have the 12-digit biometric identification number.
It had said that the deadline extension from December end till March 31, 2018, would apply only to those who do not have Aadhaar and are willing to enrol for it.
Several petitions, challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for welfare schemes and notifications to link it with mobile numbers and bank accounts, are pending in the apex court.
Updated Date: Oct 30, 2017 17:15 PM
SC to hear plea challenging constitutional validity of Article 370 in April after request from J&K, Centre
National Conference open to Assembly polls in Jammu and Kashmir if fresh election declared, says Omar Abdullah
Voting begins in first phase of Jammu and Kashmir Panchayat Election: 6,378 candidates in fray; NC, PDP, CPM boycott polls
Trupti Desai's bid to enter Sabarimala a grave provocation: Activist poses challenge to basic tenets of faith