#SupremeCourt hears the issue of reservation for women in the upcoming Bar Council elections across the states
Sr Adv Shobha Gupta for the petitioner
Bench is informed that 4 State Councils have started the election process
Gupta: except for Maharashtra...I can say they have completely supported it
Counsel for the BCI submits the affidavit
Gupta : para 10, there is no co-option
CJI: there are some women lawyers, they may not be able to contest the elections, but because of the image in the bar and their status, they may be called to be part of the council
CJI: we will ask them to put a proposal before us and scrutinise it with assistance from all of you
CJI: there should not be any compromise of the issue that there be 30% reservation for women
Sr Adv Meenakshi : some states have no representations....mylords somehwere down will have to mould...in Maharashtra Bar Council, they have passed a resolution
Arora: 37% women must have registered, but in actual practise the count is low
CJI: those who are sitting at home, not really the face of the profession ...the reservation should be for those actually practising
Arora flags the issue of excessive fees for enrollment
Counsel for BCI: 30% you have to go to the parliament, if you oppose this co-option
Sr Adv PV Dinesh : we are trying to democratise the system, there should be regional representation also that should happen
CJI : we find that elections in 4 bar councils have been notified, it may not be prudent to ear mark the seats for women wherever the elections have started
CJI: the elections in Bihar and Chhattisgarh are also heldm so they may be excluded, in the remaining bar councils, 30% seats shall be reserved for the women, 20% be filled by election, and 10% by co-option
Dinesh: co-option will destroy the democracy, it is very powerful
CJI: the women advs who will be co-opted, a proposal regarding co-option will be placed before this court
CJI; wherever the women members of the bar are (inaudible) 20% seats ...the process of co-option qua those bar councils also will be undertaken to ensure that finally, the women members get 30% representation
Dinesh: there should be some guidelines for co-option
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ASG SV Raju: mylords wanted me to give a written note. One judgment I would like to show a 2013 judgment. It was argued that there was nothing in Sharjeel Imam speech.
Reads a document- theory of agency applies in a conspiracy. Also refers to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination judgment.
Here prima facie is accepted because cognisance was taken for 120B IPC. Therefore, Sharjeel Imam's case will be considered as evidence against others.
On rejoinder-on delay not attributable to them- prosecution is ready to argue however objected by the accused persons.
Gone are the days when news channels and newspapers properly report facts, it is very unfortunate - #SupremeCourt remarks while hearing writ petition alleging that Andhra Star Authorities blocked Sakshi TV channel.
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar.
J Narasimha was responding to Sakshi TV's counsel's submission that certain channels are perceived to be favourable to one government or the other.
J Narasimha: nobody reports facts. So what gets reported is a slanted fact.
J Narasimha: Now people have acquired the ability of reading and understanding between the lines of a newspaper. You pick up one newspaper you will get one perspective, other newspaper you will get another perspective. We have completely sacrificed the objective fact.
#SupremeCourt to continue hearing the bail petitions of #UmarKhalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, etc in the larger conspiracy case.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
Sr Adv Siddhartha Dave to continue arguments in rejoinder for Sharjeel Imam.
Counsel for Khalid: the petitioner has moved for interim bail for sister's wedding in 2.3 [Umar Khalid]. He had in the past moved such application and it was allowed.
Dave: I had mentioned about FIR 22 in which I was taken into custody and this January, I will come 6 years in custody. Whichever way you look at the matter, merit or otherwise. I am one of the persons who has been custody for the longest, not participated, no role in the riots. Persons who are physically present, committed riots, they have been enlarged on bail. I am on ground of the fact that my speech is being tried in a separate cases altogether. One important fact, the act that prosecution alleges fails foul of S.15 UAPA. What has to fall within S. 15 is the conspiracy to commit riots- the charge is not that speech is falling foul under s. 15.
That part of UAPA, which leads to commit riots or riots, S. 15 is not invoked by them. This is a peculiar FIR that conspiracy to commit offence is tried separately from committing the offence pursuant to conspiracy and I am not there in 750 FIRs. My speech is conspiratorial in nature and that conspiracy is s. 15 and if that goes, mine also goes. The prosecution for speech, I have been enlarged on bail- FIR 22/2020 in which I was in custody for 4.5 years. For same speech, I am prosecuted in Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, Allahabad HC enlarged me on bail. Aligarh FIR 55/2020- 25 January, 2020.
#SupremeCourt hears suo motu petition against the Allahabad High Court which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape
Counsel: there are similar judgments in other HCs too, in Kerala, Rajasthan HCs also , so its being repeated
Another Counsel points out that today in a trial court, during an in-camera hearings also, there were several people present and the victim was harassed