News By/Courtesy: Kabir Jaiswal | 01 Jul 2019 21:53pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Supreme Court will deal with a lot of key issues as it resumes on July 1 after a six-week recess. The SC had extended the time for concluding Ayodhya mediation to August 15 on the closing day.
  • The CJI-led bench had instructed political parties to send information of donations obtained through election bonds in a closed cover by May 30.
  • The supreme court would also review the constitutional validity of Article 370

 Ayodhya mediation extension

The Supreme Court will deal with a lot of key issues as it resumes on July 1 after a six-week recess. The SC had extended the time for concluding Ayodhya mediation to August 15 on the closing day.

 This was based on the interim study presented by the mediation committee led by former SC judge Justice F M Khalifulla requesting more time. The Court referred the matter to a panel comprising former SC judge Justice F M Khalifullah, Sri Sri Ravi Sankar, and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu for mediation in March. The hearings were scheduled to take place at Faizabad in UP, where the disputed site is located.

Legality of electoral bonds 

Two days after the first polling day in the recent general elections, the CJI-led bench had instructed political parties to send information of donations obtained through election bonds in a closed cover by May 30. 

The order originated in petitions lodged in 2017 by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and NGOs Common Cause and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which called electoral bonds "an obscure financing system that is unchecked by any authority." 

The petitioners expressed their fear that the amendments to the Companies Act 2013 would lead to "private corporate interests taking precedence over the needs and rights of the people of the State in policy considerations". India's election commission filed a counter-affidavit saying that the plan was a "retrograde step as far as transparency in political funding is concerned". The ECI said it had voiced out its dissent in May 2017 itself, instantly after the enactment of the Finance Act 2017, which brought in the key legislative amendments to lay the basis for the scheme.

 Constitutional Validity of Articles 370, 35A 

The supreme court would also review the constitutional validity of Article 370, which gives Jammu and Kashmir unique status and limits the authority of Parliament to create legislation for the territory. The apex court would also deal with a host of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which gives residents of Jammu and Kashmir special rights and privileges.

Sabarimala Review

The Constitution Bench of CJI Gogoi and the Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman, Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra heard the arguments in a lot of petitions lodged by the Travancore Devaswom Board, Pandalam Royal Family, and sets of devotees against the judgement of September 28, which proclaimed the right of families of all ages to enter the temple.

They asserted fundamentally that the temple practice was based on the deity's celibate personality. The petitioners also presented that constitutional morality was a subjective test that should not be implemented in matters of faith. Religious beliefs cannot be rationally evaluated. The right to worship must be exercised in accordance with the nature of the temple's deity and essential practice. They also presented that the decision incorrectly introduced the notion of "untouchability" under Article 17 to the position of the Sabarimala temple, without knowing its historical context.

 

Rafale Review Verdict by Apex Court 

On May 10, the last day before summer vacations, the Supreme Court had reserved orders on the petitions for review filed against the verdict of December 14, which had declined to order probe in the Rafale deal's allegations of corruption.

The bench also reserved orders in a contempt petition for attributing ' chowkidar chor hai ' comments to the Supreme Court in connection with its judgment of April 10 against BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The chief of Congress expressed apology for attributing the comment and said the remark was made in the heat of political campaigning.

 

 

Section Editor: Sandeep G | 01 Jul 2019 22:05pm IST


Tags : #Legal

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.