CJI sets up 5-judge constitution bench to hear major issues

Agencies
January 16, 2018

New Delhi, Jan 16: Amid a virtual rift between the Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior-most judges over assignment of important cases, the Supreme Court on Monday announced the composition of a 5-judge constitution bench headed by the CJI, which does not include them.

None of the four judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, feature in the list of members of the 5-judge constitution bench.

As per official information, the 5-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A K Sikri, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan, will commence the hearing on a range of crucial matters from January 17.

Meanwhile, court sources said it was not confirmed whether the CJI on Monday met the four judges who had hurled accusations against him at their controversial press conference on January 12.

As per the list of business for Tuesday, the 5-judge bench will hear major cases such as those challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and its 2013 judgment re-criminalising gay sex between consenting adults.

The same combination of judges had last year heard various constitution bench matters from October 10, including the power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government over administrative jurisdiction and a matter relating to passive euthanasia.

This bench would also hear the contentious issue of the ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age in Kerala's Sabarimala temple and resume hearing a legal query on whether a Parsi woman would lose her religious identity if she marries a man from a different religion.

Another contentious matter relates to the challenge to the validity of a penal law on adultery, which only punishes a married man for having an extra-marital sexual relationship with a woman married to someone else.

The other issues to be dealt with by constitution bench include the pleas, which have raised a question as to when will a lawmaker, facing criminal trial, stand disqualified.

All these matters were earlier referred to larger benches for adjudication by different benches of the apex court.

The daily list of business for tomorrow shows that the two PILs seeking probe into Loya's death are listed before a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, against whom aspersions were cast by a senior advocate in public.

In their unprecedented press conference on Friday, the four senior judges of the apex court had mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI, listing a litany of problems, including the assignment of cases. They had also raised questions over listing of PILs concerning Loya's death.

An office bearer of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) said a copy of their resolution was submitted by its president Vikas Singh to the CJI yesterday, but have not heard anything from the top court as yet.

Singh had expressed hope that all judges of the apex court would consider the SCBA resolution seeking a full court discussion to defuse the crisis plaguing the higher judiciary.

The SCBA, at an emergency meeting on Saturday, had passed the resolution expressing grave concern over the differences of four senior-most judges with the CJI.

It had said that all public interest litigation (PIL) matters, including the pending PILs, should be either taken up by the CJI or be assigned for adjudication to four senior judges who are part of the apex court collegium.

Comments

s
 - 
Tuesday, 16 Jan 2018

what about triple talaq that also looks like handiwork of BJP/RSS

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 28,2020

New Delhi, Feb 28: The Congress on Friday reacted sharply to the petition in the court seeking registration of a First Information Report against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra for alleged hate speeches. It said the petition was to save BJP leaders Pravesh Verma, Anurag Thakur and Kapil Mishra, referring to the trio as "PAK".

Congress leader Jaiveer Shergil told news agency, "It is political interest litigation to hide the failure of the government and to put a lid on the BJP's involvement in fuelling the fire in Delhi riots.

"This is to hide and save BJP's PAK -- Pravesh, Anurag and Kapil," said Shergil.

The BJP has two parameters, the laws for the common man and citizens of the country are different from those for the BJP leaders, added Mr Shergil.

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notices on a petition for the registration of an FIR against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and others on charges of delivering hate speeches.

Congress said that the PIL was politically motivated and the inaction on the hate speeches made by the BJP leaders, which led to the riots, was shocking.

"When there are 48 cases registered, why three cases against the BJP leaders are not registered," asked Mr Shergil.

A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel sought responses from the Central and Delhi governments apart from Delhi Police on a petition filed by Lawyers Voice. The matter will again be heard on April 13.

The petition also sought a case against Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Amanatullah Khan, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leaders Akbaruddin Owaisi and Waris Pathan, and lawyer Mehmood Paracha.

"Issue directions to constitute an SIT to look into these hate speeches and take appropriate action. Issue direction to register an FIR against those named in the petition," the petition said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 6,2020

New Delhi, Apr 6: With an increase of 490 cases in the last 12 hours, the total number of COVID-19 positive cases in India climbed to 4067, said Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Monday.

As many as 109 deaths have been reported across the country due to the deadly disease.
There are 3666 active cases in the country while 292 people have been cured/discharged/migrated.

Maharashtra has reported the highest number of COVID-19 cases so far, standing at 690, followed by Tamil Nadu and Delhi with 571 and 503 cases respectively. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 14,2020

London, May 14: Vijay Mallya on Thursday lost his application seeking leave to appeal in the UK Supreme Court, in a setback for the embattled liquor tycoon who last month lost his High Court appeal against an extradition order to India on charges of fraud and money laundering related to unrecovered loans to his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

The 64-year-old businessman had 14 days to file this application to seek permission to move the higher court on the High Court judgment from April 20, which dismissed his appeal against a Westminster Magistrates' Court's extradition order certified by the UK Home Secretary.

The latest ruling will now go back for re-certification and the process of extradition should be triggered within 28 days.

The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said Mallya's appeal to certify a point of law was rejected on all three counts, of hearing oral submissions, grant a certificate on the questions as drafted, and grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Indian government's response to the appeal application had been submitted earlier this week.

The leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is on a point of law of general public importance, which according to experts is a very high threshold that is not often met.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.