Law Learning

Supreme Court of India takes a tough stand on bulldozer action, what did the Supreme Court say?

Monday, 2 September 2024

The Supreme Court of India on Monday, 2 September 2024 made a strong comment on the matter of alleged bulldozer action against the property of the accused in many states of India.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanath of the Supreme Court said that how can someone's house be demolished just because he is an accused.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanath has said that the Supreme Court will set guidelines on the basis of which whenever demolition action is needed, it will be done on that basis.

Justice BR Gavai asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the government of the state of Uttar Pradesh, "How can someone's house be demolished only on the basis that he is an accused in a case?"

Justice Gavai further said, "Even if a person is guilty, his house cannot be demolished without following the due process of law."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh government, said that the action of demolishing any building has not been taken because that person was accused of any crime.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that 'We have shown through affidavit that the notice was sent long ago.'

Tushar Mehta, while explaining in detail, said that the demolition process is an independent matter which has no connection with any crime.

On the other hand, the petitioners' lawyers Dushyant Dave and CU Singh replied that the houses were demolished because they are accused in a case.

The bench, meanwhile, verbally said that there are laws to demolish any building, but it has been seen to be 'violated more often'.

The Supreme Court bench has also clearly said that, "We will set guidelines for the whole country, but this does not mean that we will protect any unauthorized construction.''

The bench has asked both the parties to come to it with suggestions to set guidelines in this matter and the next hearing of this case has been fixed on 17 September 2024.

Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has given his opinion on the proceedings of the Supreme Court on Monday, 2 September 2024.

Rahul Gandhi posted on the social media site X, "The Supreme Court's comment on the BJP's unconstitutional and unjust bulldozer policy is welcome. The anti-constitutional face of the BJP, which has crushed humanity and justice under the bulldozer, has now been exposed in front of the country."

Rahul Gandhi said that it is often the households of the Bahujans and the poor who fall under the wheels of the bulldozer, which is being run with the intention of establishing the 'rule of fear' under the guise of 'instant justice'.

Rahul Gandhi expressed hope that the Supreme Court will issue clear guidelines on this very sensitive issue.

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan has also commented on this matter.

Prashant Bhushan wrote on X, "The Supreme Court should be praised for finally understanding this threat to the rule of law. Bulldozers are being used to demolish justice."

Former Chief Minister of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav has posted on the social media website X.

Akhilesh Yadav has written - 'The scales of justice' are bigger than the 'bulldozer of injustice'.

Congress leader and former MP Udit Raj has also given his statement on this matter.

Udit Raj said that whether there is an accused or the allegation is proved, when the bulldozer action has started, then what is the need of the court and the constitution.

Udit Raj told news agency IANS, "This reminds of the barbaric era that there is dictatorship in the country and there is no constitution. The court should decide whether the house should be demolished or not, whether to go to jail or not, whether to impose a fine or not."

Udit Raj said, "If the officials start taking decisions at the behest of the leaders or the government, then what is the need of the constitution, courts and law books?"

Supreme Court refuses to cancel NEET-UG 2024 exam results

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

The Supreme Court of India has refused to cancel the NEET-UG exam.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has said that there is no concrete evidence to prove that the question papers of the exam were leaked in a planned manner.

The Supreme Court says that the sanctity of the exam is not questioned, so the court has refused to order a re-examination.

The Supreme Court has also said that if any student is seen to be benefiting unfairly, then such students will be punished later.

The Supreme Court says that the re-examination will have a serious impact on more than 20 lakh students. This will affect the admission program for medical studies.

The Supreme Court also clarified that this order is on the purity of the NEET exam.

Justice Chandrachud said, "If a student has any personal complaint, then he is free to get his rights according to the law. Such students can go to the High Court with their demands."

The Supreme Court said that it will send some suggestions to the seven-member committee constituted by the Government of India.

The Supreme Court said, "The committee will follow the instructions of the court and ensure that the process of NEET UG and other examinations conducted by NTA is strengthened so that such mistakes do not happen in future."

Supreme Court imposes interim stay on making public the names of shopkeepers on Kanwar Yatra route in Muzaffarnagar

Monday, 22 July 2024

The Supreme Court of India has imposed an interim stay on the order of Muzaffarnagar SSP to publicly display the names of shopkeepers on the route of Kanwar Yatra in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.

This order has been given by a two-judge bench of Justice Rishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti.

Along with this, the bench has issued notice to the Government of the states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand in India regarding making public the names of shopkeepers on the route of Kanwar Yatra.

The next hearing of this case will be on Friday, 26 July 2024.

The Supreme Court has said that it is staying the implementation of the directions, in other words, food sellers are required to disclose the type of food they are serving but they cannot be forced to make public the names of the owners or staff.

Supreme Court's decision: Divorced Muslim women are also entitled to alimony

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, July 10, 2024, gave a decision saying that a Muslim woman can demand alimony under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna gave this decision while hearing the case of a Muslim woman seeking alimony under this section.

A Muslim man had challenged the Telangana High Court's order to grant alimony of ten thousand rupees.

His lawyer argued that since the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights in Divorce Cases) Act 1986 is in force, he cannot get alimony under Section 125.

Both the judges have given this decision unanimously. The order is yet to be written.

In 1985, the Supreme Court had said that Section 125 is a secular law that applies to all women.

After which large-scale protests started.

After this, in 1986, the Government of India passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights in Divorce Cases) Act.

What has the Muslim religious leader said on the issue of giving alimony to divorced Muslim women?

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

The Supreme Court of India gave a verdict on Wednesday, July 10, 2024, saying that a Muslim woman can demand alimony under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mohammad Suleman, founding member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, has reacted to this.

Mohammad Suleman said that "The decision given by the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case in 1985. The Personal Board launched a movement against it. After this a law came into existence. The Supreme Court interprets that law."

"At that time itself the Supreme Court had said that those who want relief under Section 125 will be given relief. This includes the Muslim community as well."

Mohammad Suleman said, "The Supreme Court has believed that the religious guarantee for women's rights is not enough."

"On the recent decision, I have to say that if our sisters, after divorce or separation due to any reason, want justice according to Islamic law, then this is better for them. Those sisters who feel that they should get maintenance under section 125 can go to court.''

"But there is a problem in this that even after separation, the relationship does not end and the woman cannot marry again because due to maintenance, the relationship between the two remains intact. Therefore, this is an unnatural practice."

The Supreme Court of India on Friday, 18 February 2022 ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to refund crores of rupees collected from anti-CAA protesters in 2019.

The Uttar Pradesh government had collected crores of rupees from the protesters of the Citizenship Amendment Act.

This direction of the Supreme Court came at a time when the Uttar Pradesh government had argued before the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn the notice issued against the protesters protesting against the CAA in the year 2019 for causing damage to public and private property. have taken.

Under this 274 notices were issued.

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant ordered that the state government should return crores of rupees collected from the alleged protesters.

However, as per the order of the Supreme Court, the Uttar Pradesh government will be able to take action under the new law.

The court allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to take fresh action and notice under the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damage to Public and Private Property Bill, 2020.

Under this new law, if protesters are found guilty of causing damage to public and private property, they can be jailed or fined up to one lakh rupees.

In an important decision, the Allahabad High Court in an order dated 11 November 2020 stated that the right to live with the person of their choice, whatever their religion, is a natural element of the right to life and personal liberty.

It has been 15 days since the order, but its copy has been available this week, after which it is being discussed a lot. The bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agrawal of Allahabad High Court has given this important decision.

On the orders given in Priyanshi alias Samreen and others, vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, and Noor Jahan Begum alias Anjali Mishra and others vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court stated in its remarks, "Any of these Even the order has not seen the right of two mature people to choose their own freedom. "

The court ordered, "We do not consider the decisions given in the cases of Noor Jahan and Priyanshi to be good law".

Let us see what important things the Allahabad High Court has done in its decision…

- The court said in its order, "We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindus and Muslims. Instead we see them as two adult people who are living together peacefully and happily by their will and choice. ''
- "The right to live with the person of their choice, whatever their religion, is rooted in the right to life and personal liberty. Interference in personal relations will be a serious violation of the freedom of two people to make choices."
- The court has said, "The decision of an adult person to live with a person of his choice is tied to the right of a person and when this right is violated, then it is a fundamental right of the person to live life and the fundamental right to personal liberty." Violates because it contains Article 21 principles of the Constitution of freedom of election, choice of partner and living with dignity. ''
- The court in its judgment referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shafeen Jahan vs. Ashokan KM. The Allahabad High Court said that the Supreme Court has consistently respected the freedom of an adult person.
- Allahabad High Court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Government of India. Apart from this, the court also cited the decision in Nand Kumar v. Government of Kerala and said that it is clear in these decisions that the adult person has the freedom to make his choice.
- The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in KS Puttaswamy vs Government of India regarding the right to privacy and said that the right to choose a partner has nothing to do with caste, creed or religion and this article-21 The integral part lies in living life and personal freedom.
- Commenting on the decisions in Nur Jahan and other similar cases, the court said that ignoring the will of an adult person would not only be contrary to the freedom of elections, but it would also threaten the principle of unity in diversity.
- On the decisions in the Priyanshi and Nur Jahan cases, the court said that in any of these decisions, two mature people have to choose their partner or whom they want to live with. The issue of freedom to choose it and the issue related to freedom has not been taken into consideration. The court further said that the decisions in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi cases are not good in terms of law.
- The bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agrawal of Allahabad High Court remarked in this same order, "We are unable to understand that if the law allows two gay people to live together peacefully, neither can any person Neither any family or even the state has the right to object to two adult people living together at their will. ''

Allahabad High Court's decision and background

Advocate Arvind Kumar Tripathi in Allahabad High Court says, "The FIR dismissed in the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court is based on whether two adults can live together under Article-21?"

Tripathi says that "As far as marriage is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion." It is related to desire. And desire is related to article-21 Liberty. In this case, there is more clarity in this decision compared to earlier decisions.

Supreme Court Advocate Shashwat Anand says that the Allahabad High Court has a very good judgment and it has made the basis of freedom of privacy and freedom of will.

The background of the case is that a petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court on behalf of Salamat Ansari and three others. Salamat Ansari and his wife Priyanka Kharwar alias Aaliya along with two others had sought the dismissal of the FIR lodged against them in the High Court.

In this case Priyanka had converted to Alia and converted and married Salamat Ansari. In protest, Priyanka's father had filed an FIR. Sections 7 and 8 of the Poxo Act were also imposed in this FIR, including 363, 366, 352. Salamat, his brother and his mother were accused in this.

The court observed the birth date of Priyanka aka Alia and it was found that she is an adult. Anand says that in such a situation all the acts of Poxo were dismissed. At the same time, the court admitted that the forced sections have been imposed to trap them.

It was argued in the High Court on behalf of Salamat Ansari that Salamat Ansari and Priyanka Kharwar aka Alia are adults and are eligible to marry. This side said that after Priyanka left her Hindu identity and converted to Islam, both of them married Muslim customs on 19.8.2019.

Both people have been living together as husband and wife for the past one year. They both said that Priyanka's father had lodged this FIR to end her marriage with the wrong intention and since both of them have not committed any crime, this FIR should be dismissed.

The other side said that conversion to marriage was prohibited and there was no legal recognition of such marriage. In such a situation, the court should not give any relief to these people.

Anand says that the government had demanded not to give relief to Salamat based on the last two decisions. Anand says, "The court said that when these two adult people have decided to live together, then we should respect article-21." With this, the court dismissed this FIR.

Nur Jahan and Priyanshi cases

In the case of Priyanshi in September 2020, the single bench referred to the case of Nur Jahan Begum alias Anjali Mishra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh in 2014, stating that mere conversion to marriage was unacceptable.

In the Nur Jahan Begum case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitions filed for the need of protection as a married couple. In this case too, the girl left Hinduism and converted to Islam and then married.

Four other similar cases also came before the court.

In these cases women were unable to prove their alleged conversion because they failed to prove their understanding of Islam. In such a situation, the court ordered that these alleged marriages are illegal because it was done after a conversion that cannot be justified according to the law.

Anand says, "But, the Allahabad High Court has said in its judgment that once it was proved that both the people getting married are adults, the court should not have gone to their denomination."

In its recent decision, Allahabad High Court has referred to similar decisions in its previous cases.

Yogi government's ordinance to stop forced conversion

However, in spite of the Allahabad High Court order, the Yogi Adityanath government of Uttar Pradesh has approved the 'Uttar Pradesh Law Against Religion Transformation Prohibition Ordinance, 2020' on 24 November 2020.

According to this law, 'forced conversion' will be punishable in Uttar Pradesh. It can be imprisoned from one year to 10 years and a fine ranging from 15 thousand to 50 thousand rupees.

According to this ordinance of the Yogi government, if 'illegal conversion' happens to a minor or women belonging to a scheduled caste or tribe, then there will be a fine of three to 10 years and a fine of Rs 25,000.

Advocate in the Allahabad High Court, Vinod Mishra, says, "The government has tried to curb forced conversions or other illegal activities through this law. The government wants to curb the alleged 'love jihad'".

Will a confrontation arise?

Can a conflict situation arise in the coming days between the Uttar Pradesh government's law to stop 'illegal conversion' and the Allahabad High Court's decision?

Advocate Arvind Kumar Tripathi in the High Court on this issue says, "It would not be right to say that because the ordinance passed by the government which has not yet become the subject of judicial review. It did not say until the case is filed on it." It is possible that these two decisions may hit each other or not. "

Tripathi says, "The interesting thing is that the alleged love jihad created by the Uttar Pradesh government has introduced this ordinance will not survive the judicial review. But, when it is challenged, the situation will be clear."

Advocate Shashwat Anand in the Supreme Court says that the law brought by the Yogi government is actually on forced conversion and it would not be right to call it the law of 'Love Jihad'.

He says, "The ordinance of the Uttar Pradesh government is linked to forced conversions. Now, if this law is misused, this decision of the Allahabad High Court will work as a wall."

He says that in such cases one side will say that it is forcible conversion while the other party will say it by consent. In such a situation, the Yogi will act as a decision of the High Court on the wrong use of the law of the government.

In the coming time, it will be clear that how will the Allahabad High Court's decision affect the ordinance brought by the Yogi government?

Disclaimer: ''The current law of India does not define the word 'love jihad'. No case of 'Love Jihad' has been reported by any central agency.''

There is a special reference to such disclaimers at the beginning of the report. Many political leaders are using the term, but the above sentence is part of the reply to a starred question in the Lok Sabha on 4 February 2020 from the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri Kishan Reddy.

The Yogi Adityanath government of Uttar Pradesh has approved an ordinance against inter-religious marriage. Four other state governments of the Bharatiya Janata Party have spoken of bringing similar ordinances.

There is a strong debate on this issue in India.

The international media has also placed on its pages the opposition to the ordinance of this alleged forced inter-religious marriage (which the BJP calls Love Jihad).

The Strat Times newspaper in Singapore has underlined in one of its reports that the five states that talk of bringing "love jihad" are those where the BJP has governments. According to the newspaper, the ordinance brought in Uttar Pradesh and the proposal on it in other four states will give rise to the issue of "Love Jihad".

The newspaper has given a lot of space to the statements of Yogi Adityanath in his report. An ordinance on this has been approved in Uttar Pradesh on 24 November 2020.

The newspaper prominently featured a statement dated 31 October 2020 of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. The newspaper wrote, "Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu priest who is the Chief Minister of India's largest populous state Uttar Pradesh, says in an election meeting on 31 October 2020 that the government should take a decision to stop 'Love Jihad'". Has been We give warning to those who hide their identity and insult our sisters. If you do not hawk, your funeral will be done soon. ''

A US media outlet named 'US News' wrote in its report on the latest ordinance from the Lucknow Dateline, "The Indian state blamed forced conversions for marriage".

Citing critics, the report reads, "Critics say that the unlawful proselytizing ordinance approved by the Yogi's cabinet is aimed at separating India's 17 crore Muslims from the mainstream."

The newspaper has also included a statement by Trinamool Congress MP Nusrat Jahan in this report in which he has said that there is no such thing as "Love Jihad" and this is only a political ploy of BJP.

Al-Jazeera has given it a place on its website and many newspapers of western countries have also published this news.

Most media outlets are also sharing issues related to this in India. Al-Jazeera cited an incident in October 2020 in which the Tanishq jewelry store had to remove an advertisement showing a Hindu daughter-in-law with her Muslim husband.

The firstpost website reported on the growing intolerance in India by linking the controversy over a kiss scene inside a temple with the ordinance of "Love Jihad" in Mira Nair's film A Suitable Boy, which was shown on Netflix.

In this kissing scene, a Muslim youth is seen kissing his Hindu girlfriend inside a temple against which some Hindu organizations have filed a police complaint. An FIR has been registered against some Netflix officials in Madhya Pradesh.

what is love jihad?

Hindu right-wing organizations call 'Love Jihad' a love marriage in which a Muslim man marries a Hindu woman and forces her to convert to Islam. If the opposite is true, if a Muslim woman marries a Hindu man, then some Hindu institutions are silent on this, some organizations strongly support such marriages.

The Indian government and private social institutions do not have figures for these marriages, but according to one estimate, such marriages are less than three percent.

In several reports of government agencies, the allegations of 'jihad' in marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man have been found to be wrong, but in spite of this the five state governments of BJP are resorting to the law to stop it.

Where and when was the word first used? It is difficult to say, but around 2009, Karnataka and Kerala find an example of the use of the term, where some Hindu and Christian institutions refer to the conspiracy by Muslim men to cheat and marry Hindu or Christian women to convert to Islam. has been done.

In India, inter-religious marriages are held under the Special Marriage Act, which requires the court to register a marriage and before that the court issues a month's notice so that anyone can object to this marriage and tell the court.

For years before the term "love jihad" was practiced, right-wing Hindu institutions had been protesting such marriages in courts in which couples were given dhamikas, but this was not done so publicly.

Hindu-Muslim marriages began to be openly opposed to the campaign against "Love Jihad", especially in Uttar Pradesh, which human rights institutions and the media have described as an attack on the fundamental rights of a citizen.

The Allahabad High Court in India has said that the citizens of the country have the constitutional right to choose a partner of their choice irrespective of caste, religion or creed.

According to the English Daily News Paper Hindustan Times, the court also said that the last two decisions objecting to conversion to get married were not good according to the law.

The two-judge bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agrawal of Allahabad High Court said this while hearing the plea of ​​Salamat Ansari and his wife Priyanka Kharwar alias Alia, who are from Kushinagar district of Uttar Pradesh.

Priyanka had converted her religion and her father complained to the police about this. Both the spouses took refuge in the court to quash the police action.

The Hindustan Times writes that the decision was given by the court on 11 November 2020 but it has been made public on 23 November 2020.

According to Hindustan Times, now that the Uttar Pradesh government was working on a plan to make a law related to conversion for marriage, this decision of the High Court may cause problems for it.