India summons Irish envoy, hopes for independent probe

Jan 1: The ban on the practice of instant triple talaq, making it a penal offence and the increase in the strength of Supreme Court judges were two of the major achievements of the law ministry in 2019.

In July, Parliament gave its nod to The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019. The new law makes talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband void and illegal.

It makes it illegal to pronounce talaq three times in spoken, written or through SMS or WhatsApp or any other electronic chat in one sitting.

According to the new law, any Muslim who pronounces the illegal form of talaq upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

During the year, four new judges were appointed to the Supreme Court in September, taking its strength to 34, the highest-ever.

However, vacancies in high courts and lower courts are on the rise and convincing state governments and the 25 high courts to come on board to create an all-India judicial service to recruit judges for the subordinate courts tops the agenda of the Law Ministry in 2020.

Besides creating a consensus on setting up the All-India Judicial Services, the ministry will also have to focus on filling up vacancies in the high court. On an average, the vacancies stood at 400 throughout this year.

With more than 5,000 positions of judicial officers in district and subordinate courts lying vacant, the Law Ministry has pitched for setting up all-India judicial services.

The sanctioned strength of the judicial officers in district and subordinate courts was 22,644. The number of judicial officers in position and vacant posts is 17,509 and 5,135, respectively.

The government has proposed that while states and high courts can recruit judicial officers, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) can hold pan-India entrance tests.

The ministry has made it clear that such services would not encroach on the powers of the states.

As of now, the selection and appointment of judges in subordinate courts is the responsibility of the high courts and state governments concerned.

The Narendra Modi government has given a fresh push to the long-pending proposal to set up the new service to have a separate cadre for the lower judiciary in the country.

But there is a divergence of opinion among state governments and respective high courts on the constitution of the All India Judicial Service (AIJS).

One of the problems cited is that since several states have used powers under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to declare that the local language would be used in lower courts even for writing orders, a person say selected from Tamil Nadu may find it difficult to hold proceedings in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The other point of opposition is that an all India service may hamper the career progression of state judicial services officers.

Another key issue the ministry has to handle in 2020 is vacancies in the 25 high courts.

Throughout 2019, on an average, the high courts faced a shortage of 400 judges.

According to Law Ministry data, as on September 1, the high courts had 414 vacant positions as compared to the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges. The figure was 409 in August and 403 in July, as per the data.

A three-member Supreme Court collegium recommends the names of candidates for appointment as high court judges. In case of appointments to the Supreme Court, the collegium consists of five top judges of the top court.

High court collegiums shortlist candidates for their respective high courts and send the names to the law ministry.

The ministry, along with background check reports by the Intelligence Bureau, forwards it to the Supreme Court collegium for a final call.

The government has maintained that appointment of judges in the high courts is a "continuous collaborative process" between the Executive and the Judiciary, as it requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional authorities.

Vacancies keep arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of judges and increase in judges' strength. In June last year, the vacancy position stood at 399, while it was 396 in May.

In April, 399 posts of judges were vacant, while the figure was 394 in March. The vacancy position in February stood at 400 and in January, it was 392, according to the data collated by the Department of Justice.

Over 43 lakh cases are pending in the 25 high courts.

Another priority would be the finalisation of the memorandum of the procedure to guide the appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and high court judges. The issue had now been pending for over two years now with the SC collegium and the government failing to reach a consensus.

Successive governments have also been working on making India a hub of international arbitration. It has taken several steps to change laws dealing with commercial disputes.

New Delhi, Jul 24: The Delhi High Court on Friday asked the ICMR to come out with a clarification that mobile number, government-issued identity card, photographs or even a residential proof ought not to be insisted upon for Covid-19 test of mentally ill homeless persons.

According to an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) advisory of June 19, every person who was to be tested for Covid-19 has to provide a government-issued identity proof and should have a valid phone number for tracing and tracking the individual and his/her contacts.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan said that ICMR should issue a clarification by way of a circular or an official order that the identity proof, address proof and mobile number are not required for testing mentally ill homeless persons.

The high court said a camp can be organised for testing such persons as is being done across Delhi for others.

"Guidelines have to be given by you (ICMR). You put it in black and white for the states'' benefit. You only need to clarify in two-three lines that mobile number, address proof and identity cards are not required for testing mentally ill homeless persons," it said.

"Use your powers for the public at large. Once you do so (issue the clarification), all states will comply," the bench added.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for ICMR, sought time to take instructions from the government regarding the observations made by the bench.

The high court, thereafter, listed the matter for further hearing on August 7.

The bench was hearing a PIL moved by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal seeking directions to ICMR and Delhi government to issue guidelines for Covid-19 testing of mentally ill homeless persons in the national capital.

Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths on July 24

The high court on July 9 had asked the ICMR to consider the plight of the mentally ill homeless persons and see whether they can be tested without insisting upon a mobile number, government issue identity card and residential address proof.

The bench had said to ICMR that many homeless mentally ill persons are institutionalised or in shelter homes and therefore, traceable, so there was no need for their identity proof or phone numbers to test them for Covid-19.

In response to the court''s query, ICMR has filed an affidavit stating that the purpose behind the submission of government identity card and telephone number was to ensure proper tracking and treatment of positive cases and their contacts as ''Test/Track/Treat'' is the best strategy for control of Covid-19 pandemic. 

It further said that since health was a state subject, the concerned state health authority may consider adopting a suitable protocol to ensure that the strategy of ''Test/Track/Treat'' is followed and the grievance raised in the PIL is also addressed.

ICMR, in its affidavit, has said that it has only advised facilitating contact tracing as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients.

"The modalities regarding the contact tracing as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients completely falls under the domain of IDSP. NCDC and state health authorities. 

"ICMR is a research organization and the contact tracing, as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients, is not under the domain of ICMR," it has said in its affidavit.

Bansal has claimed in his petition that the Delhi government has not taken seriously the lack of guidelines with respect to Covid-19 testing of mentally ill homeless persons.

Coronavirus Worldometer | 15 countries with the highest number of cases, deaths due to the Covid-19 pandemic

He has said the high court had on June 9 directed it to address the grievances raised by him in another PIL with regard to mentally ill homeless persons in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policy.

He said that on June 13 he also sent a representation to the Chief Secretary of Delhi government for providing treatment to mentally ill homeless persons in the national capital who have no residence proof. 

However, nothing was done by the Delhi government, he had told the court.

New Delhi, Jan 15: The Delhi government Wednesday told the high court that execution of the death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case will not take place on January 22 as a mercy plea has been filed by one of them.

The four convicts -- Vinay Sharma (26), Mukesh Kumar (32), Akshay Kumar Singh (31) and Pawan Gupta (25) -- are to be hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail. A Delhi court had issued their death warrants on January 7.

Justices Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal were told by the Delhi government and the Centre that the petition filed by convict Mukesh, challenging his death warrant, was premature.

The Delhi government and the prison authorities informed the court that under the rules, it will have to wait for the mercy plea to be decided before executing the death warrant.

They also said that none of the four convicts can be executed on January 22 unless the present mercy plea is decided.

The Supreme Court had on Tuesday dismissed the curative pleas of Mukesh and Vinay.

The mercy plea hearing began Wednesday morning and will continue in the afternoon.