 "Nari Shakti sets sail: 10 women officers from 3 forces on historic voyage around the world")
 "CP Radhakrishnan takes oath as Vice President of India")
A day after divisions in the Supreme Court burst out in the open on Friday when four senior most judges took an unprecedented step of addressing the media to accuse Chief Justice Dipak Misra of breaching rules in assigning cases to appropriate benches, Attorney-General KK Venugopal said the press conference held by four senior Supreme Court judges could impact public confidence in judiciary. At a hurriedly called press conference at his residence, Justice J Chelameswar and three other colleagues said the Supreme Court administration was “not in order” and their efforts to persuade Justice Misra even this morning “with a specific request” failed, forcing them to “communicate with the nation” directly. The four judges — Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Madan B Lokur besides Justice Chelameswar — released a letter they wrote to Justice Misra a couple of months ago, conceding that he was the master of roster but that was “not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues”. [caption id=“attachment_4299851” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]
The press conference held by the four Supreme Court judges. PTI[/caption] Asked specifically if they were upset over reference of the matter seeking a probe into the suspicious death of Judge Loya, Justice Gogoi said: “Yes.” Judge Loya, who was hearing a case relating to the killing of gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh in an alleged fake shootout in which BJP chief Amit Shah was named an accused (later discharged), died of cardiac arrest in 2014. His family has raised doubts over the circumstances in which Judge Loya died and have sought an independent probe into it. Pleas seeking probe came up for a hearing in the Supreme Court on Friday when the top court expressed concerns over it and said it was a “serious issue”. It asked the Maharashtra government to produce all the documents related to the case before 15 January. In a seven-page letter, the four judges said they were not mentioning details of the cases only to avoid embarrassing the institution because “such departures have already damaged the images of this institution to some extent”. The clash among the judges in the highest court also comes in the wake of a controversial order in November in which Justice Misra declared that the Chief Justice “is the master of the roster” having exclusive power to decide which case will go to which judge. The CJI had given the order a day after a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had passed an order that a five-judge bench of senior most judges in the apex court should be set up to consider an independent probe into a corruption case in which bribes were allegedly taken in the name of settling cases pending before Supreme Court judges. Holding that the Chief Justice was only the first among equals, the four judges contended that there were well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice in dealing with the strength of the bench required or the composition thereof. “A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body, including this court, would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition-wise and strength-wise with due regard to the roster fixed,” they wrote in the letter. They said any departure from the two rules would not only lead to “unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution” but would create “chaos”. The four judges also touched upon another controversial issue, the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) on appointment of judges over which the Supreme Court had locked horns with the government. The government, the letter said, had not responded to the communication and “in view of this silence it must be taken that the MoP has been accepted by the government on the basis of the order of this court”. Justice Chelameswar told the media that they were “convinced that unless this institution is protected and maintains its requirements, democracy will not survive in the country or any country… The hallmark of a democracy is independent and impartial judges.” “Since all our efforts failed… Even this (Friday) morning, on a particular issue, we went and met the Chief Justice with a specific request. Unfortunately we could not convince him that we were right.” Justice Gogoi said they were “discharging debt to the nation that has got us here”. The government appeared to distance itself from the controversy, saying the judges should sort the issue themselves. Minister of State for Law PP Chaudhary said: “Our judiciary is one of the known, recognised judiciaries in the world. It is an indepenedent judiciary. At this stage I think no agency is required to intervene or interfere. The Chief Justice and other members should sit together and resolve. There is no question of panic.” The Supreme Court split had an immediate political fallout, with CPI leader D Raja saying after meeting Justice Chelameswar that Parliament will have to device methods to sort out problems like this in the top judiciary. Two judges, Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageshwar Rao, are understood to have called on Justice Chelameswar. With inputs from IANS
Supreme Court judges' rebellion updates: No party should take undue advantage of row, says BCI
Divisions in the Supreme Court burst out in the open on Friday when four senior most judges took an unprecedented step of addressing the media to accuse Chief Justice Dipak Misra of breaching rules
)
Meanwhile… Aadhaar tweets out ‘myth busters’ intermittently; claims banking, financial data not tracked via UIDAI
United Kingdom revoked it biometric database, petitioner tells SC
Architecture that allows surveillance not permissible: Divan
Ensuring Aadhaar data is not misused not enough to grant it legality, petitioners argue in case
Justice Chandrachud asked that if the government ensures that Aadhaar data is used only for the purpose it is collected, will it address the concerns raised by the petitioners. To this the petitioner’s lawyer replied that the design in itself is bad as it allows State domination. Shyam Divan further argued that the problem is not that whether the State is actually tracking its citizens or not but the fact that the Aadhaar makes it possible.
Aadhaar alters the relationship between the citizen and the State
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan today submitted in court that Aadhaar seems too alter the relationship between the citizen and the State, while diminishing the status of the citizen. All rights, a citizen could earlier freely assert have now been made part of a “compulsory barter”, averring, “The barter compels the citizen to give up his biometrics ‘voluntarily’, unless the number is seeded in databases of the service provider, the citizen is denied access to these most essential facilities. “Inalienable and natural rights are dependent on a compulsory exaction.”
As reported by Live and Law‘People’s Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State’s Constitution’
Aadhaar act cannot be used to deny basic amenities, rights or benefits, says petitioner’s lawyer Shyam Divan
Collection of crucial biometric data for 7 years illegal, passing Aadhaar act doesn’t cure illegality, petitioner tells court
Aadhaar a giant electronic leash, says petitioner in court
Hearing resumes, final arguments in Aadhaar case begins
The final arguments in Aadhaar case begin before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court. At the start of the arguments, Attorney General sought time bound arguments. A-G reminded the Bench that Ramjanmabhoomi land title dispute case is also scheduled to be taken up from 8 February.
Retired High Court judge and accused IM Quddusi moves CBI court against leak of phone records
Since Supreme Court’s 2013 verdict on homosexuality, at least 10 countries have legalised homosexuality
A total of five countries — Uruguay, New Zealand, France, Brazil, and England and Wales — legalised gay sex in 2013. Here is the full report on how the world has changed its views on homosexuality since 2013.
What two recent SC judgments tell us about court’s altered view on sexuality and privacy in India
Ajay Kumar writing for Firstpost details that two judgments, one regarding rights of transgender people and the other about the Right to Privacy show that the court’s view has changed considerably on sexuality and privacy.
Judges meeting for lunch
India Today reported that the CJI is meeting the judges for lunch. Three of the dissenting judges are present at the meeting. Justice Chelameswar is absent. Justice Bobde and Justice Goel are not present as well.
Petitioners’ profiles
Hearing to resume at 2.30 pm
Shyam Divan explains the different aspects of the project
Meanwhile companies are unable to stop themselves from sending informative messages
Shyam Divan takes Court through work of the petitioners to counter the State’s claims that there are only elitist concerns against Aadhaar
The petitioners include ex-servicemen, social workers, Magsaysay award winners among others.
Shyam Divan for the petitioners: Aadhaar a system of exclusion
Shyam Divan for the petitioners: You cannot live as a citizen of India without an Aadhaar
Shyam Divan is taking the court through the history of the case
Link to Shyam Divan’s opening statement
The petitioners’ alternative argument
Petitioners: The State is empowered with a ‘switch’ by which it can cause the civil death of an individual
Shyam Divan lays out the scope of the constitutional challenge
Petitioners: The case at hand is unique. There are few judicial precedents to guide us
Petitioners argue that if the Aadhaar programme is allowed to continue unimpeded, it will hollow out the Constitution
Attorney-General KK Venugopal asks for time allotment for arguments
The Aadhaar bench has assembled in Courtroom 1
“Tuesday was a sunny day at the Supreme Court after days of clouds over its cohesiveness and probity”
“A new day seems to be in order in the Supreme Court after clouds over its cohesiveness and probity. The CJI should now show the light and redeem the institution’s glory by getting all his brother and sister judges along, to end this crisis and convert it into a chance to bring about all necessary institutional reforms,” writes Utkarsh Anand on News18 .
Main arguments before the court
Livelaw reported that the petitioners argue that details for Aadhaar are collected by private contractors and NGOs hired by UIDAI without any safeguard. This makes them prone to misuse. They claimed that empirical research shows that the biometric identification denoted for UID, namely the the iris scan and fingerprint identification, is faulty and is could be abused.
Five-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra will start hearing the Aadhaar case at 11.30 am
#AadharMythBuster being used on Twitter to promote Aadhaar
Union ministers including Ravi Shankar Prasad and Rajyavardhan Rathore are using #AadharMythBuster to extol the virtues of Aadhaar.
Some policy experts are not impressed with those efforts.
Justice J Chelameswar is not in the Supreme Court today
Why the Chief Justice’s power must be kept in check
The Chief Justice is largely sheltered from public view while exercising his administrative powers, according to Business Standard . The authors write, “This creates an administrative authority, free of many of the constraints imposed on other agencies. The administrative powers of the Chief Justice have grown with time. However, the Court has failed to devise a parallel mechanism to keep a check on these powers… A slew of corrective measures are now required.”
Court to take up 29 pleas against Aadhaar
The court will take up 29 pleas against Aadhaar. The final hearing on the pleas challenging Aadhaar comes five years since the first was filed.