New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking SIT probe into the claims that underworld don Dawood Ibrahim wanted to return to India and face the law but previous governments did not respond to the offer.
Petitioner Kishore Samrite had sought a retired Supreme Court judge to head the SIT.
Samrite in his petition told the court that Dawood Ibrahim had two to three times approached people, expressing his desire to come back and face the law, but the government did not act on his offer.
An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu while declining the plea said that it was not for the judiciary to look into it and the issue did not require judicial interference.
Seeking a probe into government’s cold shouldering of Dawood Ibrahim’s offer, the petitioner pointed out to the claims by the former Delhi police commissioner Neeraj Kumar and veteran jurist and Rajya Sabha member Ram Jethmalani, saying that Dawood Ibrahim wanted to return to India.
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).
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.
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
The bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y.Chandrachud sought to know the time frame after Attorney General K.K.Venugopal told court that a Team of Ministers (ToM) have recommended such an amendment
The Supreme Court sought to know from the time it would require for bringing a bill allowing NRIs vote from their overseas locations
The bench sought to know why the government was taking a cumbersome route of amending the electoral act
In the last hearing on the matter, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had contended that the modalities of NRI voting can be done by amending the Rules and would not require amending the law
New Delhi, July 21, 2017: The Supreme Court on Friday sought to know from the Central government the time it would require for bringing a bill amending the Representation of People Act to allowing NRIs vote from their overseas locations.
The bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y.Chandrachud sought to know the time frame after Attorney General K.K.Venugopal told the court that a Team of Ministers (ToM) have recommended such an amendment.
The Team of Ministers in their meeting on July 20, 2017, have decided that to “facilitate external modes of voting to the overseas electors, an amendment to the Representation of People Act, 1951 would be required by way of introduction of a Bill in Parliament”, the bench was told.
At this, the bench sought to know why the government was taking a cumbersome route of amending the electoral act when same could be achieved by amending the rules.
The top court, in the last hearing of the matter, had asked the Central government to take a call whether it wanted to amend the Act or the Rules to decide on the modalities of the NRI voting from abroad.
In the last hearing of the matter, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners, had contended that the modalities of NRI voting can be done by amending the Rules and would not require amending the law.
Appearing for the Election Commission, senior counsel Meenakshi Arora told the bench that by amending the rules, that they can put in place modalities of voting by the overseas electors, but it was necessary to amend the law to create an exception for overseas voters. (IANS)
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.
Eight antique diamonds of an idol at the Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple have been missing
The crime branch of Kerala police is investigating the theft
A petition has been asked for the formation of a separate body for the management of the temple
Kerala, July 13, 2017: Eight antique diamonds of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy idol, in the eponymous temple in Thiruvananthapuram, have been missing and the alleged theft is being investigated by the crime branch of the Kerala police, the amicus curiae reported to the Supreme Court.
The issue was raised before a bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and D Y Chandrachud by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting as an amicus curiae in the matter. Gopal Subramanium informed the Supreme Court about the role of the missing diamonds as an important part of the daily rituals.
10 months ago, a special audit report by Vinod Rai committee discovered that gold worth Rs 189 crore had mysteriously disappeared from the temple’s cellars. Asked by the court to audit the temple’s famed treasures, Rai said 769 gold pots were missing. Questions over the management of the temple dedicated to Lord Padmanabha have been raised.
Subramanium told the apex court that KN Satheesh, the temple’s outgoing executive officer, reported about the missing diamonds, which according to the report, were kept in cellars near the sanctum sanctorum, in May 2017. The stones are officially valued at over Rs 21 lakh, however, Subramanium believes they were worth much more owing to their antiquity.
“The missing diamonds” were first mentioned in August 2015, the amicus came to know while checking the temple treasurer records. The same case was reported again by a priest in March 2017 and a FIR was registered in August in regard to the same.
The amicus highlighted that the Administrative Committee never pressed for an in-depth inquiry into the case of the missing stones and, instead, used “vague expressions” in order to convince that the diamonds were only “damaged”, and not lost.
A petition has been asked in the Supreme Court in favor of the formation of a separate body for the management of the temple, as its riches were being plundered.
The sprawling temple was rebuilt in its present form in the 18th century by the Travancore Royal House which ruled southern Kerala and some adjoining parts of Tamil Nadu before integration of the princely state with the Indian Union in 1947.
-by Samiksha Goel of NewsGram. Twitter: goel_samiksha