#Sabarimala: Majority judgment is 9 pages long. Dissenting judgment runs into 68 pages.
The dissenting judgment of Justices Chandrachud and Nariman states that every central Minister including Prime Minister and Chief Minister bound to act in furtherance of Supreme Court orders.
While berating the tendency of political parties running after votes in defiance of SC orders, dissenting judgment in #Sabarimala states that it is incumbent upon the Executive, MPs and MLAs to faithfully aid in carrying out decrees and orders passed by the Supreme Court
The State govt of Kerala might be in a soup.
While there is no stay on 2018 judgment, the State might have to tread cautiously because any act in furtherance of 2018 verdict might be irreversible (in case 2018 verdict is reversed State might not want to get caught on wrong foot)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the most depressing stories to come out of court in recent times.
Man killed by police on ground that he was dacoit. Media also publishes the photo of the deceased as dacoit. Policemen involved are rewarded for the killing. But….(1/n)
The real dacoit found to be very much alive and in jail. The mother of the deceased man moves High Court for CBI probe. Police admit in court that the dacoit is alive but single-judge of HC still declines CBI probe. Hands over case to Police itself to probe fake encounter (2/n).
Mother moves Division Bench in appeal. Meanwhile, Police file closure report in the fake encounter but the investigating officer does not even find time to appear before the trial court after closure report is filed. (3/n)
Sudarshan News and media regulation: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Centre has filed a fresh affidavit calling for regulation of digital media before the court takes up issue of regulation of TV channels.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi is appearing on behalf News Broadcasters Federation which has sought impleadment in the matter.
Rohatgi says NBF is the largest body of tv channels in India with 160 members from different parts of the country.
He submits News Broadcasters Association is not representative of news channels and seeks permission to file an affidavit to put forth a self-regulatory mechanism.
Hearing against Sudarshan News commences before the Supreme Court.
Sanjay Hegde enters appearance on behalf of Zakaf Foundation of India.
"I have a watching brief in this matter. We are not a party to this matter," says Hegde.
Justice DY Chandrachud tells Hegde that Sudarshan News has raised substantial issues against Zakaf Foundation.
"But we are not here to investigate into your client. But Sudarshan News has sought to justify their programme on the grounds of your source of funding"
Sudarshan News and UPSC Jihad: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Sr. Counsel Anoop Chaudhuri appearing for petitioner says Sudarshan news has filed an affidavit with vague allegations and submits he wants to file a rejoinder.
Shyam Divan says it was difficult to file a detailed affidavit in two days. We (lawyers) are all in different locations.
We were ambushed by various applications/ interventions, he submits.
Sudarshan News files affidavit before Supreme court defending its programme Bindas Bol and the use of the term "UPSC Jehad".
The affidavit largely focuses on foreign funding received by Zakat Foundation, an orgnisation which supports civil service aspirants.
Sudarshan News has claimed that some such funds received by Zakat Foundation are from terror-linked organisations.
The organisations/ individuals named in the affidavit are Madina Trust, Muslim Aid (UK), Zakat Foundation of America and Zakir Naik
The affidavit says the TV channel has no ill-will against any particular community or individual and do not oppose selection of any meritorious candidate
"There is no statement or message in the four episodes broadcast thatmembers of a particular community should not join UPSC"