It makes me proud to note that many important High Court judgments are brought to the public domain FIRST by LiveLaw @LiveLawIndia. The latest one is the recent Allahabad HC order on inter faith marriages.
This important order, which had been lying obscure, was traced out by @ISparshUpadhyay. Another recent example is the CIC's damning order in the Aarogya Seri RTI issue, which was discovered by Akshita @_Akshita_Saxena.
There are other examples too of LiveLaw sparking public discussions by bringing to public knowledge HC orders which were remaining unnoticed by many.
For eg : 1. Bombay HC order on vilification of Tablighi Jamaat followers.
2.Kerala HC order on right to access internet in hostels
3. Series of Gauhati HC orders on citizenship documents. 4. Calcutta HC order against Bank of Baroda. 5. Orders of Madras & Andhra HCs in migrants cases. 6. Kerala HC order on equal rights for girls and boys in hostels. 7. Meghalaya HCs 'Hindu Rashtra' order(bizarre one)
8. Meghalaya HCs orders in Patricia Mukhim cases. 9. Allahabad HC orders on conversion for marriage. 10. Allahabad HC cow protection orders. 11. Kerala HC order on obscenity in magazine cover. 12. Kerala HC habeas orders denying love jihad angle in love marriages.
13. Kerala HC order giving protection to transgender person; another order allowing same sex partners to live together.
There are many others too, including the orders from SC, which were relevant for litigators. Efforts of Ashok @nationalizer deserve a special mention.
It goes without saying that Rashid sir @answeringlaw is a strong inspiring force behind the relentless research efforts of the team.
It is heartening to see the country discussing judgments brought to light by @LiveLawIndia. The happiness doubles when the judgements are good.
Also, the order of CPIO of PMO saying that PM CARES was not a public authority - first brought to public domain by LL.
(The list is not exhaustive).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So on this #ConstitutionDay what do we see : 1. Nearly 10 lakh people in JK denied rights to access 4G internet despite SC pronouncements on proportionality principle. 2. Discussions about bringing State monitoring over citizens' decisions to choose life partner and religion.
3. A Supreme Court which is getting increasingly wary of holding the executive to account to the constitution. 4. Increased state intolerance towards citizen movements and protests. Use of sedition, NSA, UAPA to crack down dissent. #ConstitutionDay
5. Parliament which acts like a rubber stamp passing laws without effective discussions. 6. Increased impunity for hate speech against minorities. 7. Election Commission not doing anything to control brazen communal propaganda in elections.
Studying some provisions of Indian Evidence Act in the light of #BabriVerdict
"A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory to the nature of the transaction" - illustration (f) of Section 9.
For example, if Advani & Co were heading the mob at Babri site, the cries of mob calling for demolition ("mandir waheen banaeenge" etc) are relevant facts to prove incitement. #BabriDemolitionCase #BabriMasjidDemolition
Criminal Conspiracy - Sec 10 says acts done by different members of conspiracy at different stages are relevant against each other in proving conspiracy, though the members may be strangers.
(In #BabriDemolitionCase, court said accused & kar sewaks are strangers to each other)
From #BabriVerdict :
Court says : 1. No evidence that accused incited the mob on the day of demolition. 2. As to speeches, slogans etc., made earlier by accused, court refused to accept press reports, video tapes, photos as authentic. Newspaper reports hearsay evidence.
3. Court adopts a conspiracy theory in the form of an unverified intelligence report that anti social/anti-national elements could have assembled in the area under the garb of kar sewaks and surmises that they might have created trouble. (Quite astonishing!) #BabriMasjid
4. No material to show accused raised provocative slogans.
5. Incident occurred suddenly and without provocation and accused did not themselves expect that it would happen, court says. #BabriVerdict #BabriMasjidDemolitionCase
For legal recognition of same-sex marriages, better hope lies in the petition filed in Kerala HC than in the PIL before Delhi HC. The petitioners in the Kerala HC petition filed through @ManuSrinath are a gay couple, who seek registration under Special Marriage Act.
They are personally aggrieved & raise a constitutional challenge to provisions of the SMA. On the other hand, the Delhi HC plea is a PIL, with no personally aggrieved petitioners, who seek a declaration under Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) without raising any constitutional challenge.
So, Delhi HC has asked personally aggrieved petitioners to come on record.
Also, under HMA, marriage needs to be solemnized. So possibly there could arise questions of ritual sanction for same sex marriages, which could take the case to a different route.
A notable point in the order is that it gave effect to the phrase "further the activities" in Section 38/39 UAPA.
So a mere ideological leaning is not sufficient but there should be at least prima facie evidence to show some overt acts or instigation of violence.
Usually, the Courts ignore this limb of the Sec 38/39, and uncritically accept the theories of the prosecution, which very often blend fierce criticism of the establishment with terrorism. (For eg : Zafoora Sargar, Devangana Kalita cases).
In a case related to pollution control, SC ordered removal of 48000 slum dwellings around rail tracks. This was after court noted Railway's failure in solid waste management. While ordering removal of solid garbage, court also ordered slum removal.
@anujbhuwania in his book "Courting the People" shows how Courts' concerns with urban cleanliness ends up affecting the basic rights of people in the lower strata, without necessarily following due process. This case is another example.
The startling aspect of this order passed by J Arun Mishra 2 days before his retirement is that it does not contain any directions for slum dwellers' rehabilitation.
The Delhi HC last year had ruled that eviction of slum dwellers without ensuring their rehabilitation is illegal