Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the July 30 bail condition imposed by Madhya Pradesh High Court where a man accused of sexual assault was asked to get a Rakhi tied on him by the victim.
AG KK Venugopal: So far as present case is concerned, on the face of it the court seems to have been carried away. Court must restrict themselves to conditions under 437 and 438. All this drama and this needs to be condemned.
AG: suggestion is the exam for judges and National judicial academy and state judicial academy must have programs on gender sensitization. As far as e committee is concerned, SC judgment should be put on state information system which will go to subordinate courts
AG: So far as sensitization is concerned, gender sensitization and grievance redressal committee is there in SC and lectures need to be given to district and subordinate, high courts too about gender sensitization
SC: can you circulate a note with your submissions
SC: discretion about conditions for such cases needs to be deliberated
AG: judges need to be educated about such orders..
SC: when we define the areas what is permissible and what areas are not. Else we can define the areas where discretion can be excercised.
AG: This is an opportunity for this Court to impart gender sensitization..
Senior Adv Dushyant Dave: A 96 year old ex judge and 84 year old senior adv has intervened. I am appearing for them and they have shown HC orders..
SC: all of you file submissions on this
Senior Adv Sanjay Parikh: we have also circulated a note but will improve upon this
SC: The matter to be listed after 3 weeks. Parties and intetvenors have to file written note.
With multiple co-morbid illness and high chances of getting #Covid19 infection in the prison, the Madras High Court had directed the concerned authorities to grant 30 days' leave to a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in September.
Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayan: After your orders, the remission file is pending after the recommendation of the State Govt. for more than two years now. We have no option but to approach this Court now.
Hearing commences before 3-judge bench of Supreme Court headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar.
Senior counsel Sanjay Hegde continuing his arguments.
Hegde: From Bhagat Singh throwing bomb to current Prime Minister taking oath, there is an incomparable political and personal heritage (attached to current Parliament building) for people of India.
#SupremeCourt will resume its hearing on the batch of petitions seeking relief in the form of extension of moratorium period beyond six months or waiver of interest on interest.
Centre had earlier informed the Supreme Court that the scheme formulated to give benefit of compound interest waiver to small borrowers for period of loan moratorium will be given effect to by November 5. @RBI @FinMinIndia #loanmoratorium
A letter circulated yersterday states that Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta would be appearing in the #CentralVista matter today, thus a request for "accomodation" in the #loanmoratorium matter would be made today with regard to appearance of the Centre.
SC bench headed by Justice UU Lalit hears the case after Centre had stated extradition of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya was not under way due to “secret proceedings” against him in the United Kingdom
Mallya was scheduled to appear before the Supreme Court in a contempt of court case against him after his conviction was confirmed following a dismissal of his review plea on August 31.
Justice Lalit: Order dated August 31 cites MEA report that certain legal proceedings by contemnor is pending in the UK. Counsel for Mallya was asked to respond. An IA has been filed by EC Agrawala, counsel for contemnor seeks discharge from the case.
[Challenge to NCC Act provision that only allows 'males/females' to enrol as cadets]
Kerala HC heard the counsel appearing for the transwoman and the Central Government.
The petitioner was aggrieved that she was not being allowed to enroll as a cadet on account of her gender.
At the hearing today, the Counsel for the Central Government contended that the petitioner could not challenge the constitutionality of the provision since she had chosen to identify as a woman. She could choose the female option when enrolling, he asserted.
Advocate Raghul Sudheesh countered this stating that she was denied enrollment on account of her being a transgender who 'identified as a woman'.