Monday February 19, 2018
Home Uncategorized SC dismisses ...

SC dismisses plea for beef ban case to be heard in Jammu

0
//
27
Republish
Reprint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking that the hearing on the beef ban in Jammu and Kashmir be heard by a three-judge bench of the high court at Jammu.

An apex court bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra dismissed the plea, which contended that there was an apprehension of a law and order situation if the hearing was held in Srinagar.

Chief Justice Dattu while rejecting the plea, said that he had spoken to Justice N Paul Vasanta Kumar, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice, Tuesday night and he had said that there was no apprehension of a law and order problem if the hearing took place in Srinagar.

The petitioner, Parimoksh Seth, had sought the hearing be either held at Jammu or outside the state.

In view of the conflicting orders on the beef ban passed by the Jammu and Srinagar benches of the high court, the Supreme Court had on October 7 asked its chief justice to constitute a three judges bench to decide the issue.

(IANS)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

Supreme Court to hear Pleas challenging Article 35A after Diwali, which talks about Special Rights and privileges of Permanent Residents of Jammu and Kashmir

Article 35A talks about special rights and privileges given to only permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir

0
//
46
The Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India. Wikimedia
  • The plea said that the special status which people of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys should be canceled
  • In 1954 by a Presidential Order, Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution
  • The Plea has also challenged a particular provision of the Constitution which denies the right over the property to a woman who marries someone who is from outside the state 

New Delhi (India), August 25, 2017: After Diwali, the Supreme Court of India will hear pleas which challenge the Article 35A, the article talks about special rights and privileges given to people who are permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

Supposedly, the date decided for the hearing of pleas was August 29 but both the Centre and state government of Jammu and Kashmir wanted 4 weeks’ time in order to file their replies respectively, due to this reason the hearing has been postponed to a later date.

The plea said that the special status which people of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys should be canceled.

The Supreme Court was earlier in favor of hearing the case by a constitution bench consisting of 5 judges if the Article 35A is ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power or authority) of the Indian Constitution or if there is any sort of procedural lapse (defective execution of work).

Also Read: Landmark Judgement: Right to Privacy Becomes Fundamental Right of India, Rules Supreme Court

The meaning of Article 35A as per Constitution is that the article gives the right to the state legislature of Jammu and Kashmir to call them permanent residents of that state and also give those (permanent residents) some special rights and privileges whereas by article 370 a special status is given to the state- Jammu and Kashmir.

In 1954 by a Presidential Order, Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution. According to ANI report, “It also empowers the state’s legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on grounds of violating the Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution.” This is the kind of power that this Article holds.

This Article was dragged into controversy after a 2nd plea, was filed by a lawyer and former member of the National Commission for Women Charu Wali Khanna. In her plea, she challenged Article 35A of the Indian Constitution and also Section 6 (talks of permanent residents of the state) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution.

Also Read: Long pending injustice to Muslim Women! Supreme Court Hearing in India to Decide Validity of Muslim Divorce Practice “Triple Talaq”

The Plea has also challenged a particular provision of the Constitution which denies the right over the property to a woman who marries someone who is from outside the state. This provision which leads the woman to lose rights over property is also applied to her son.


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.
Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate

 

 

Next Story