Can Hindu law cover Sikhs, Jains, asks SC

November 13, 2012

supreme_court

New Delhi, November 13: If Sikhism, Jainism andBuddhism are separate and distinct religions, can followers of these faiths be bracketed as Hindus under the Constitution and be governed by Hindu personal law, the Supreme Court asked before issuing notice to the Centre and attorney general G E Vahanvati.

Sikh scholar Birendra Kaur in her petition questioned the constitutional and past legislative attempts to obliterate identities of separate faiths by recognizing them under the broad religious connotation of Hindus. She said this negated the constitutional guarantee to each individual to practise and propagate the religion of his/her choice.

'Kaur's petition an expression of frustration'

The Punjab and Haryana high court had dismissed with caustic observations a petition by Sikh scholar Birendra Kaur questioning the constitutional and past legislative attempts to obliterate identities of separate faiths by recognizing them under the broad religious connotation of Hindus, but an SC bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices S S Nijjar and J Chelameswar not only entertained her appeal but also framed the question for adjudication.

"This petition is seeking to express and make clear the frustration and disappointment of a large part of the Sikh community which feels its identity as Sikh is undermined by certain clauses and titles of certain statutes which club Sikhs under the definition of Hindu," senior advocate Colin Gonsalves argued.

The SC said, "Issue notice on the question as to whether the inclusion of people professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist faiths could be included in the enactments relating exclusively to persons professing the Hindu religion, within the ambit of Explanation II to Article 25(2) of the Constitution. Let notice be issued separately to the AG also, to be served both through the ministry of minority affairs as also through the central agency, returnable six weeks hence." However, the petitioners said a constitutional mischief arose through Explanation II, which said, "The reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly." The petition said making a law applicable to all religions was one thing but it would be discriminatory to refer different religions by the name of a religion.

The petitioner added, "The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, use the word Hindu to include Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and others, even though it is clarified that these are separate religions." Would it be acceptable if the name of the Hindu Marriage Act was changed to Buddhist Marriage Act and made applicable to all four religions, the petitioner asked.


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.
Agencies
May 14,2020

Mumbai, May 14: The Shiv Sena on Thursday raised questions over the Centre's Rs 20 lakh crore stimulus package announced to revive the COVID-hit economy, and asked if India is not a "self-reliant" country at present.

An editorial in Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' wondered how Rs 20 lakh crore will be raised, and opined that an environment needs to be created where industrialists, trade and business sectors are encouraged to invest.

On the path of new self-reliance, India cannot afford industrialists running away, and for that "political institutions like the ED and CBI need to be put in lockdown for some time," it said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday announced new financial incentives on top of the previously announced packages for a combined stimulus of Rs 20 lakh crore, saying the COVID-19 crisis has provided India an opportunity to become self-reliant and emerge as the best in the world.

The Sena said the country is being told that the package will be beneficial for MSMEs (micro, small and medium enterprises), poor labourers, farmers and the tax-paying middle class.

"The package (as per the Centre) will reach 130 crore Indians and the country will become self-reliant. Does this mean India is not a self-reliant country at present?" the Marathi daily asked.

It is good that PPE kits and N95 masks are now being manufactured in India, it said.

"Any country progresses ahead while learning from crisis and through struggle. Before Independence, not even a needle was manufactured in India but in 60 years, India became self-reliant in science, technology, agro business, defence, manufacturing and atomic science," it said.

An institution like the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which is helping in the manufacturing of PPE kits, is part of the self-reliant India, it noted.

Wondering how Rs 20 lakh crore, as announced in the central package, will be raised, the Sena said an "environment needs to be created where industrialists, trade and business sectors will be encouraged to invest".

"India, on path of new self-reliance, cannot afford industrialists running away, and for that political institutions like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) need to be put in lockdown for some time," the paper said.

Despite announcing the 'lockdown-4' and the economic package, why its impact has not been reflected in the share market? it asked.

"Investors are in a dilemma. The prime minister and chief ministers must show them trust and support," it said.

"Earlier it was Pandit Nehru and now it is Modi. If (former prime minister) Rajiv Gandhi had not laid the foundation of a digital India, there wouldn't be video conference of PM, CMs and bureaucracy in times of coronavirus," the Uddhav Thackeray-led party said.

It agreed with Modi that coronavirus will stay for long, and lives need not revolve around it.

"We need to get back on our feet again," the Sena 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
February 4,2020

New Delhi, Feb 4: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Monday accused Arvind Kejriwal of having a "partnership" with Pakistan and appealed to the people in Delhi to not vote for the AAP chief as it will make Pakistan happy.

Ramping up his attack on the Shaheen Bagh protest, Adityanath said that the protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is merely an excuse for people to vent their anger against the scrapping of Article 370.

"You must have seen their partnership on 370. Arvind Kejriwal used to speak in the same voice as Imran Khan on Article 370. You must have heard it.

"Now when elections are taking place in Delhi, who is speaking in favour of Arvind Kejriwal? It is the ministers of Pakistan. They are aware that Kejriwal is feeding 'biryani to protesters at Shaheen Bagh'," he said, referring to Pakistan minister Fawad Chaudhry's tweet asking Indians to defeat Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Adityanath addressed three rallies on Monday in the national capital ahead of assembly elections.

"Will Pakistan decide who Indians should vote for. If voting for Kejriwal will make Pakistan happy, should it be done," he asked at a rally in Mehrauli.

Adityanath said his Delhi counterpart Kejriwal has become a "toy in the hands of anti-social and anti-India elements".

Addressing a rally in Vikaspuri in west Delhi, he said that Kejriwal is not bothered about key issues such as providing clean drinking water but is concerned about Shaheen Bagh, the anti-citizenship amendment act protest site.

At another rally in Uttam Nagar in west Delhi, Adityanath said Kejriwal has played with the emotions of the people of Delhi for the last five years.

"He obstructed the development of Delhi. And knowingly and unknowingly, he became a toy in the hands of anti-social and anti-India elements," Adityanath said.

The protest at Shaheen Bagh, he said, has disrupted traffic across the capital.

"A guest with an appointment to meet him at 9.30 am could only reach at 11. He told me he had left as early as 7 am but got stuck because of the traffic in Shaheen Bagh," he said.

The Uttar Pradesh chief minister also slammed Kejriwal for "sympathising" with elements who he said gave anti-India slogans in Jawaharlal Nehru University.

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 8,2020

New Delhi, May 8: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that states should consider indirect sale and home delivery of liquor as per its statute and law to avoid crowding at liquor shops amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan refused to pass any orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing while it is being sold in liquor shops during the lockdown.

"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards," Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing of the petition.

The PIL, filed by one Sai Deepak, sought directions for closure of liquor shops for failing to enforce social distancing, which is essential to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The petitioner told the apex court that he only wants that the life of common people is not affected because of crowding at liquor shops during COVID-19.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, another judge in the bench, said that discussion on home delivery is already going on.

The top court, after hearing the petition complaining about flouting of safety norms at liquor shops, observed that it cannot pass any orders to different states but they should consider online sale and home delivery of liquor.

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.