Report Wire

Tag: fundamental rights

  • Article 35A snatched rights of non-residents in Jammu and Kashmir, says SC

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:  Introduction of Article 35A of the Constitution, which empowered the J&Ok legislature to outline everlasting residents, resulted in taking away basic rights of non-residents, the Supreme Court remarked on Monday because it continued listening to a problem to abrogation of Article 370. 

    Stressing the three basic rights of employment, settlement within the state and buying immovable property which non-residents had been denuded of, CJI DY Chandrachud additionally stated that Article 35A additionally took away the facility of judicial overview. 

    “See the 1954 order. It applied entirety of Part III (fundamental rights) and so Article 16, 19 applied to J&K. Now, you bring in Article 35A which creates an exception under 3 areas: Employment under state govt, acquisition of immovable properties, and settlement in the state. Though Part III is applicable, when you introduce A 35A, you take away 3 fundamental rights- Article 16(1), the right to acquire immovable property which was then a fundamental right under 19(1)(f), Article 31, & settlement in the state 
    which was a fundamental right under 19(1)(e),” the bench stated. 

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for the Centre, stated there’s sufficient materials to point out that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is subordinate to the Constitution of India and the constituent meeting of Jammu and Kashmir was in actuality a legislative meeting making legal guidelines.

    The apex court docket additionally prima facie agreed with the Centre’s submission on pleas difficult the abrogation of Article 370 that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is “subordinate” to the Indian Constitution, which is on the next pedestal.

    The bench, nevertheless, didn’t appear to agree with the plea that the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state, which was disbanded in 1957, was in actuality a legislative meeting.

    NEW DELHI:  Introduction of Article 35A of the Constitution, which empowered the J&Ok legislature to outline everlasting residents, resulted in taking away basic rights of non-residents, the Supreme Court remarked on Monday because it continued listening to a problem to abrogation of Article 370. 

    Stressing the three basic rights of employment, settlement within the state and buying immovable property which non-residents had been denuded of, CJI DY Chandrachud additionally stated that Article 35A additionally took away the facility of judicial overview. 

    “See the 1954 order. It utilized entirety of Part III (basic rights) and so Article 16, 19 utilized to J&Ok. Now, you usher in Article 35A which creates an exception below 3 areas: Employment below state govt, acquisition of immovable properties, and settlement within the state. Though Part III is relevant, once you introduce A 35A, you’re taking away 3 basic rights- Article 16(1), the correct to amass immovable property which was then a basic proper below 19(1)(f), Article 31, & settlement within the state 
    which was a basic proper below 19(1)(e),” the bench stated. googletag.cmd.push(perform() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for the Centre, stated there’s sufficient materials to point out that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is subordinate to the Constitution of India and the constituent meeting of Jammu and Kashmir was in actuality a legislative meeting making legal guidelines.

    The apex court docket additionally prima facie agreed with the Centre’s submission on pleas difficult the abrogation of Article 370 that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is “subordinate” to the Indian Constitution, which is on the next pedestal.

    The bench, nevertheless, didn’t appear to agree with the plea that the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state, which was disbanded in 1957, was in actuality a legislative meeting.

  • Plea in SC seeks route to empower residents to petition Parliament

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed within the Supreme Court looking for a route to the Centre and others to take steps to create an applicable system which empowers residents to petition Parliament and search initiation of deliberations on points highlighted by them.

    The plea got here up for listening to on Friday earlier than a bench comprising justices Okay M Joseph and B V Nagarathna.

    The bench requested the counsel showing for petitioner Karan Garg to serve a replica of the plea to the Centre’s lawyer and posted the matter in February. Advocate Rohan J Alva appeared for the petitioner.

    The plea has sought a declaration that it’s the elementary proper of residents underneath Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution to immediately petition Parliament to hunt initiation of a debate, dialogue and deliberation on the problems highlighted by them of their petitions.

    “The present writ petition prays that it is imperative for the respondents (Centre and others) to take substantive steps in order to ensure that citizens can have their voices heard in Parliament without facing undue barriers and difficulties,” it mentioned.

    The plea mentioned as an peculiar citizen of the nation, the petitioner felt “disempowered” when it got here to participation within the democratic course of and after folks forged their votes and elect representatives, there isn’t a scope for any additional participation.

    It mentioned there’s a full absence of any formal mechanism by which residents can have interaction with the lawmakers and take steps to be able to be sure that points that are of significant significance are debated in Parliament.

    “The absence of this mechanism creates a void between elected representatives and the citizens. The people are disconnected from the law-making process. This distancing of the citizens from their inherent rights to fully participate in Indian democracy is a matter of grave concern and is an issue which needs to be immediately addressed,” the plea mentioned.

    It mentioned a system by which the residents can immediately petition Parliament is already in place within the United Kingdom and it has been working properly for a number of years.

    It additionally mentioned that if residents have the power to interact with the Centre and Parliament at a deeper stage, it might scale back the burden on the apex court docket and excessive courts “since there may exist an effective and alternative remedy for espousing and pursuing public interest causes.”

    The plea mentioned residents have a elementary proper to take part in democratic affairs and are constitutionally entitled to current workable and constructive options to Parliament on issues of nationwide significance in order that public curiosity is appropriately safeguarded.

    “The current system does not fully allow citizens to initiate discussions in Parliament by moving appropriate petitions,” it added.

    The petition mentioned formulation of well-reasoned and affordable guidelines which permit residents to immediately petition Parliament will usher in a transformative period of democratic governance and create an setting for strong engagement between the folks of the nation and the members of Parliament.

    It has sought route from the Centre and others to expeditiously take steps to create an applicable system or affordable guidelines and laws which empower residents to petition Parliament and search initiation of a debate on the problems highlighted by them.

    NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed within the Supreme Court looking for a route to the Centre and others to take steps to create an applicable system which empowers residents to petition Parliament and search initiation of deliberations on points highlighted by them.

    The plea got here up for listening to on Friday earlier than a bench comprising justices Okay M Joseph and B V Nagarathna.

    The bench requested the counsel showing for petitioner Karan Garg to serve a replica of the plea to the Centre’s lawyer and posted the matter in February. Advocate Rohan J Alva appeared for the petitioner.

    The plea has sought a declaration that it’s the elementary proper of residents underneath Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution to immediately petition Parliament to hunt initiation of a debate, dialogue and deliberation on the problems highlighted by them of their petitions.

    “The present writ petition prays that it is imperative for the respondents (Centre and others) to take substantive steps in order to ensure that citizens can have their voices heard in Parliament without facing undue barriers and difficulties,” it mentioned.

    The plea mentioned as an peculiar citizen of the nation, the petitioner felt “disempowered” when it got here to participation within the democratic course of and after folks forged their votes and elect representatives, there isn’t a scope for any additional participation.

    It mentioned there’s a full absence of any formal mechanism by which residents can have interaction with the lawmakers and take steps to be able to be sure that points that are of significant significance are debated in Parliament.

    “The absence of this mechanism creates a void between elected representatives and the citizens. The people are disconnected from the law-making process. This distancing of the citizens from their inherent rights to fully participate in Indian democracy is a matter of grave concern and is an issue which needs to be immediately addressed,” the plea mentioned.

    It mentioned a system by which the residents can immediately petition Parliament is already in place within the United Kingdom and it has been working properly for a number of years.

    It additionally mentioned that if residents have the power to interact with the Centre and Parliament at a deeper stage, it might scale back the burden on the apex court docket and excessive courts “since there may exist an effective and alternative remedy for espousing and pursuing public interest causes.”

    The plea mentioned residents have a elementary proper to take part in democratic affairs and are constitutionally entitled to current workable and constructive options to Parliament on issues of nationwide significance in order that public curiosity is appropriately safeguarded.

    “The current system does not fully allow citizens to initiate discussions in Parliament by moving appropriate petitions,” it added.

    The petition mentioned formulation of well-reasoned and affordable guidelines which permit residents to immediately petition Parliament will usher in a transformative period of democratic governance and create an setting for strong engagement between the folks of the nation and the members of Parliament.

    It has sought route from the Centre and others to expeditiously take steps to create an applicable system or affordable guidelines and laws which empower residents to petition Parliament and search initiation of a debate on the problems highlighted by them.

  • Hijab ban: Plea moved in SC difficult Karnataka High Court verdict

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: A particular depart petition has been filed within the Supreme court docket by a Udupi scholar towards the Karnataka High Court court docket order that dominated that carrying of hijab by Muslim ladies is just not a vital spiritual apply within the Islamic religion and prescribing uniform is just not a violation of elementary rights assured beneath Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution.

    ALSO READ | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim ladies say they won’t go to school with out hijab and battle it legally

    The plea states that the excessive court docket has failed to notice that the precise to put on a Hijab comes beneath the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    “… High Court has failed to notice that the precise to put on a Hijab is protected as part of the precise to conscience beneath Article 25 of the Constitution. It is submitted that because the proper to conscience is basically a person proper, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought to not have been utilized by the Hon’ble High Court on this instantaneous case,” the plea reads.

    It has been mentioned within the plea that the excessive court docket has failed to notice that the Indian authorized system explicitly acknowledges the carrying/carrying of spiritual symbols.

    ALSO READ | Hope makes an attempt to push Muslim ladies into 4 partitions of home fail, says Kerala Guv welcoming Hijab verdict

    “…It is pertinent to note that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet. Order IX, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules makes a special provision for affidavits that are to be sworn by pardanashin women…” It added.

    Upholding the federal government order dated February 5, 2022, banning the hijab in lecture rooms, a full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justices Krishna S Dixit, and Justice JM Khazi pronounced the decision on a cluster of petitions questioning the order handed by the state authorities banning the carrying of hijab in lecture rooms.