Junior Digest

New Delhi, Nov 29,2021: Parliament on Monday passed a Bill to repeal the three Farm Laws. The Bill was passed in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha without any debate, even as the Opposition MPs pressed for it.

The Bill, brought in Parliament on the first day of Winter Session, was passed within minutes of introduction in both Houses, as Opposition MPs protested, demanding a debate.

As Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar introduced the Bill, the Opposition’s chorus for a debate grew louder. Speaker Om Birla said he would allow the debate only if the House was in order, and the bill was passed within minutes of being introduced.

In the Rajya Sabha,the Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge was allowed to speak by Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan. Some members from the ruling benches also objected to it.
Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar, however, said that since the whole House agreed on the Bills, there was no need for a debate. The Bill was then passed through voice vote.

The Bill would repeal three laws – the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance, Farm Services Act, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

The Bill will now go for the assent of President Ram Nath Kovind, and once he signs the bill, a notification would be issued about the laws being repealed.

New Delhi , May 13,2022: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre, Jammu and Kashmir administration, and Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea challenging the government’s decision to constitute the delimitation commission for redrawing the assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies in the Union Territory.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh sought responses from the Centre, Election Commission of India and the Union Territory within six weeks.

The apex court posted the matter for further hearing on August 30.

The order of the apex court came on two Srinagar residents Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Dr. Mohammad Ayub Mattoo saying that contrary to the scheme of the Constitution, this delimitation exercise was carried out and alteration of boundaries and inclusion of extended areas could not be done.

The bench asked the counsel of petitioners why have they not challenged the formation of the commission itself and do they challenge the abrogation of Article 370 also.

The counsel who was making objectionable submissions, was told by the bench to choose his words properly and said that “Kashmir was always part of India and just a special provision was removed”.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that delimitation can be conducted only by the Election Commission of India and not the delimitation commission.

The challenge is about the delimitation pursuant to the notifications of March 6, 2020, and March 3, 2021.

The plea sought declaration that the increase in the number of seats from 107 to 114 (including 24 seats in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) in Jammu and Kashmir is ultra vires the Constitutional Provisions such as Articles 81, 82, 170, 330, and 332 and Statutory Provisions, particularly under Section 63 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

It said that while Article 170 of the Constitution of India provides that the next delimitation in the country will be taken up after 2026 then why has the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir been singled out.

The plea said that the last Delimitation Commission was set up on July 12, 2002, in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, after the 2001 Census to carry out the exercise throughout the country and the commission had issued guidelines and methodology for the Delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies vide letter dated July 5, 2004, along with the Constitutional and Legal Provisions.

It sought to declare the notification dated March 6, 2020, constituting the delimitation commission to take up delimitation in the UT of J&K and states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland by the Centre and consequential omission of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland from the process of delimitation vide., notification dated March 3, 2021, and conducting delimitation only for Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is unconstitutional as it amounts to classification and violates Article 14.

New Delhi, Mar 31,2022: The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the 10.5 per cent reservation provided to Vanniyars, a Most Backward Community (MBC) in Tamil Nadu, in government jobs and admission to educational institutions saying there is no substantial basis for treating them differently.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai upheld the Madras High Court order which had quashed the reservation.

“We are of the opinion that there is no substantial basis for classifying Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differently from the remaining 115 communities within the MBC groups and, therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the high court,” the bench said.

The top court said though caste can be the basis of internal reservation, it cannot be the sole basis.

The apex court had earlier refused to refer the matter to a larger bench saying that it was of the view that the issue does not need consideration by a larger bench.

“We are not inclined to the argument of referring the matter to a larger bench, you can start your arguments,” the bench said.

The top court had earlier agreed to examine the pleas and said admissions or appointments already made under the said quota will not be disturbed.

The apex court’s judgement came on a batch of petitions filed by the state of Tamil Nadu, Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), and others challenging the November 1, 2021 judgement of the high court quashing the reservation provided to Vanniyars, saying it was unconstitutional.

The high court had said the state government cannot come out with such a legislation providing reservation to Vanniyars without any quantifiable data on population.

NEW DELHI,May 6,2022: The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a Constitution Bench the matter related to the tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government over the control of bureaucrats in the national capital.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana clarified that the five-judge bench shall adjudicate the limited issue relating to ‘Services’ in Delhi and that no other substantial issue on interpretation of Article 239AA shall be adjudicated afresh. Article 239AA delineates the legislative and executive powers of the Delhi government while clarifying that three subjects, namely land, police and public order, shall remain under the exclusive domain of the Centre in the capital.
The bench, which also included justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said that the matter shall be heard next on May 11.

The Centre pleaded for a fresh adjudication by a Constitution Bench to set the boundaries of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi in transferring and appointing bureaucrats.

According to the Centre’s submissions, there can be more than the three subjects specifically mentioned under subsection 3 of Article 239AA on which the Delhi government is restricted from passing a law, and this aspect should be clarified further by another five-judge bench.

The Delhi government opposed the Centre’s views, seeking a quick decision on whether or not it has the executive power to transfer and appoint bureaucrats.

Dec 7,2021:Rohingya refugees sued Facebook on Monday for $150 billion over claims the social network is failing to stem hate speech on its platform, exacerbating violence against the vulnerable minority.

The complaint, lodged in a California court, says the algorithms that power the US-based company promote disinformation and extremist thought that translates to real-world violence.

“Facebook is like a robot programmed with a singular mission: to grow,” the court document states.

“The undeniable reality is that Facebook’s growth, fueled by hate, division, and misinformation, has left hundreds of thousands of devastated Rohingya lives in its wake.”

The mainly Muslim group faces widespread discrimination in Myanmar, where they are despised as interlopers despite having lived in the country for generations.

A military-backed campaign that the United Nations said amounted to genocide saw hundreds of thousands of Rohingya driven across the border into Bangladesh in 2017, where they have since lived in sprawling refugee camps.

Many others remain in Myanmar, where they are not permitted citizenship and are subject to communal violence, as well as official discrimination by the ruling military junta.

The legal complaint argues that Facebook’s algorithms drive susceptible users to join ever-more extreme groups, a situation that is “open to exploitation by autocratic politicians and regimes.”

Rights groups have long charged that Facebook does not do enough to prevent the spread of disinformation and misinformation online.

Critics say even when alerted to hate speech on its platform, the company fails to act.
They charge that the social media giant allows falsehoods to proliferate, affecting the lives of minorities and skewing elections in democracies such as the United States, where unfounded charges of fraud circulate and intensify among like-minded friends.

This year, a huge leak by a company insider sparked articles arguing Facebook, whose parent company is now called Meta, knew its sites could harm some of their billions of users — but executives chose growth over safety.

Whistleblower Frances Haugen told the US Congress in October that Facebook is “fanning ethnic violence” in some countries.

Under US law, Facebook is largely protected from liability over content posted by its users.

The Rohingya lawsuit, anticipating this defense, argues that where applicable, the law of Myanmar — which has no such protections — should prevail in the case.

Facebook, which did not immediately respond to questions about the lawsuit, has been under pressure in the United States and Europe to clamp down on false information, particularly over elections and the coronavirus.

The company has forged partnerships with several media companies, including AFP, intended to verify online posts and remove those that are untrue.

Ahmedabad:Feb 18,2022: A special court here on Friday awarded death sentence to 38 convicts in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case, which claimed 56 lives and left over 200 injured.

The court sentenced 38 of the 49 convicts to death under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The 11 others were sentenced to life in jail till death.
Judge A R Patel also awarded compensation of Rs one lakh each to those killed in the blasts, and Rs 50,000 for each victim with serious injuries and Rs 25,000 each for those with minor ones.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 2.85 lakh each on the 48 convicts.

Patel had on February 8 declared 49 of the total 78 accused as guilty under various offences of the Indian Penal Code, including for murder, sedition and waging war against the state, as well as under offences of the UAPA and Explosive Substances Act.

Bombs went off in Ahmedabad on July 26, 2008, at various spots including the state government-run civil hospital, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-run LG Hospital, on buses, parked bicycles, in cars and other places, killing 56 persons.

New Delhi, Dec 11,2021: Law and Justice Minister Kiren Rijiu on Friday informed the Lok Sabha that there is no proposal to scrap Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the law dealing with sedition. He also said the matter is subjudice.

He was asked by Assam MP Badruddin Ajmal whether the Supreme Court has recently termed the sedition law as colonial and has made an observation that it is being misused.

The Minister said in his reply that the Ministry of Home Affairs has informed that there is no proposal under consideration to scrap Sec. 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

He added that the question of law regarding Section 124A is pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court of India.

He said the Supreme Court in an order dated 30.04.2021 issued notice to the Union of India, where the petitioners had made a prayer before the Supreme Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be unconstitutional and void.

After the hearing, the Supreme Court through an order dated 12.07.2021 granted time for filing written submissions and counter affidavits in the matter on behalf of the Union of India.

He further added in a Writ Petition (Civil), S.S.Vombatkere vs Union of India, the Supreme Court in the Union of India, tagged it with other matters wherein similar question of law has been raised and are pending for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

New Delhi, April 1,2022 : Amid fresh debate over the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Jammu and Kashmir after the recent release of film ‘The Kashmir Files’, a Private Member Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on Friday to ensure rehabilitation of the community, which also provides for giving minority status to them in J&K, and a white paper on the issue. The Kashmiri Pandits (Recourse, Restitution, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Bill, 2022 was introduced by Congress MP Vivek K Tankha. It aims to provide for social, political and economic rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits. The Bill also provides for protection of their property, restoration of their cultural heritage, ensuring their safety and security, provision of rehabilitation and resettlement package to them and for matters. The Bill provides for granting minority status to Kashmiri Pandit, declaring the community as victims of genocide and changing their official nomenclature to ‘Internally Displaced Persons’. It also provides for releasing a white paper on the issue of Kashmiri Pandits documenting all events in the Kashmir valley pertaining to the atrocities and plight of the Kashmiri Pandits starting from the year 1988. For the white paper, the Bill has provision for creating a high level committee, comprising of a retired Chief Justice of India as the Chairman, two retired judges of the Supreme Court of India, two sitting Members of Parliament, two former members of Parliament, four sitting or former Members of Legislature/Council of Jammu and Kashmir and four other individuals as may be nominated by the Advisory Committee as members. “The Government, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish an environment of economic justice, prosperity and security, for Kashmiri Pandits,” the Bill said. It provides for creation of an appropriate corpus fund for the purpose of grants to be given to five thousand small or cottage industries owned by Kashmiri Pandit, land and other capital expenditure, interest free loans and other assistance. It also provides for sanctioning an enhanced medical allowance to those who are economically weak and in need of medical attention as well as provide insurance coverage to all Kashmiri Pandits. The Bill has provisions for restoring religious places and other heritage belonging to Kashmiri Pandits, and measures to ensure their safety and security, and setting up an Inquiry Commission to investigate atrocities against Kashmiri Pandits. “Thirty-two years ago, what took place in Kashmir on the night of January 19, 1990 lives fresh in the minds of Kashmiri Pandits as a night of barbarism, terror and mass killings. Kashmiri Pandits suffered the horrors of genocide and exodus at the hands of militants, thousands were brutally killed, women were raped, houses and temples burnt, lives disrupted,” Tankha said in the statement of purpose and objectives of the Bill. “This inhumane attack on life and honour of a minority population, who were inhabitants of the region for thousands of years, led to a complete breakdown of law and order and forced them to leave their motherland, their culture, and their homes behind. Most could never return. Over six lakhs Kashmiri Pandits still live in exodus and yearn to return and resettle in their motherland,” he said A private member’s bill is a bill introduced into a legislature by a legislator who is not a part of government. Only 14 such bills have been passed by both Houses since 1952.

New Delhi, Jan 7 ,2022: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the separate investigations ordered by the Punjab and Central governments into the breach of security when Prime Minister Narendra Modi went to the state on Wednesday.

A Bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli stayed the work of the two committees till January 10 when the apex court will hear the matter again.

The court asked the Centre and Punjab to hold hands while proceeding with any inquiry.

It asked the two committees — formed by the Punjab government and the Union Home Ministry — to refrain from inquiries till Monday.

Senior advocate D S Patwalia, Advocate General of Punjab, requested the Bench to pass an order to put on hold the proceedings of the Central panel as it has issued notices to the Punjab DGP and state officials.

Patwalia said Punjab will put on hold the operations of its own two-member committee.

At the same time, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve all the records related to the visit of Modi to Punjab in connection with the security breach.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior law officer representing the Centre, said some officer from the NIA should assist the High Court Registrar General in collecting the evidence including wireless messages related to Modi’s visit as the Registrar General may not be aware of the sources where the records can be got.

“We direct Punjab and police authorities, SPG and other agencies to cooperate and provide necessary assistance to seal the entire record,” said the Bench.

The top court was hearing a PIL seeking a judicial probe into the breach of security in Punjab.

The court said the Registrar General would take the assistance of the Director General of Police of Chandigarh and a senior NIA official in the collection of evidence.

New Delhi, Feb 23,2022: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will examine a report submitted by an Inquiry Commission headed by Justice (Retired) V S Sirpurkar into the alleged murders of four men accused of gang-rape and murder in an alleged “encounter” with police in Hyderabad on December 6, 2019. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana and also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said after the lawyers’ argument that it will examine the inquiry report. The Commission probed the alleged murders of four men, who were accused of gang-raping and murdering a veterinarian, in an alleged gun battle with the police. The Supreme Court said that no intervention application in the case will be allowed. “We will see the report and read it,” the bench said. The Commission submitted its report to the Supreme Court on January 28 this year. It collected various records including investigation reports, forensic reports, post-mortem report, photographs as well as videos. The Commission held hearings for 47 days between August 21 and November 15, 2021. It examined 57 witnesses during this period and recorded their evidence. Its members also inspected various places associated with the incident.

Feb 17,2022: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order staying a controversial State law which provides 75% reservation for local youths in private sector jobs earning less than ₹30,000 a month.

Industry associations have said the law “affects the idea of India as an economic unit”.

A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and P.S. Narasimha set aside the February 3 stay order of the High Court on the ground that it did not give “sufficient reasons”.

The Bench observed that every law passed by legislature was presumed to be legal. An order of stay of their implementation by a court of law should be reasoned. The High Court had not given sufficient reasons for stopping the Haryana law in its tracks on February 3.

“There should be manifest illegality… This is not the way a statute ought to be dealt with… We are not on the merits, but the way in which the High Court dealt with this,” Justice Rao remarked orally.

The Supreme Court, without going into the merits of the issue, requested the High Court to decide the writ petition filed by industrialists before it expeditiously and not later than a period of four weeks from today. The parties were directed to not seek adjournments in the High Court.

‘Do not take coercive steps’
Meanwhile, the top court ordered the State government to not take any “coercive steps” against employers in the highly industrialised State for violating the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act. Industry bodies said in court that the Act impacted 48,000 registered companies by ushering in “inspector raj”.

An employer faces a fine of ₹ 10,000 to ₹2 lakh for violation of the Act. The statute covers companies, societies, trusts, limited liability partnership firms, partnership firms, and large individual employers. Many hire talents from outside Haryana.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Faridabad Industries Association, opposed the Haryana government’s appeal against the High Court stay.
“Reservation in private sector has no basis in the Constitution. The law impacts not only employment but the very existence of livelihood. There was no empirical study done, no data whatsoever to justify this law. Entry 24 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution does not back this law. What is the presumption of constitutionality which this law provides,” Mr. Dave asked.

He submitted that the continuation of the law’s implementation, which came into effect in January 2022, would have far-reaching effects, not only in Haryana, but across India as it would not stop other States from enacting similar laws which exclude jobs to residents of other States.

“Everybody will be affected… Even law firms,” Mr. Dave said.

He said if the Supreme Court felt that the High Court needed to give reasons to maintain the February 3 order, the High Court could be asked to decide the writ petition pending before it finally. Mr. Dave said questions on the validity of the law required immediate litigation and a quick decision.

‘Drastic Act’
Senior advocate Shyam Diwan, for Manesar Industrial Welfare Association, said the law had a “profound impact on ongoing businesses” and required day-to-day hearing. “This is a drastic Act,” he submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Haryana, said the stay order of the High Court was passed without application of mind.

“There is a presumption of legality in favour of a law and it is ordinarily not stayed unless the legislation is prima facie unconstitutional or illegal… There was no reason given by the HC for staying the legislation,” Mr. Mehta argued.

He referred to the need “to regulate migrants from settling elsewhere”.

“Firstly, we are concerned about livelihood… The livelihood of everyone,” Justice Rao reacted.

Mr. Mehta said States, including Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Maharashtra, had implemented similar laws. He requested the Supreme Court to examine the validity of the laws in all these States and deliver an authoritative decision on their validity.

But the top court left it to the Punjab and Haryana High Court to decide the case finally, assuring that it had meanwhile “protected those working”.

New Delhi, Dec 14,2021: Home Ministry on Tuesday said there are no plans to amend the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Minister of State for Home Nityanad Rai informed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday.
In response to a question by several opposition MPs, whether the Government plans to amend the existing Act “in the light of recent evidence about the large number of acquittals and for preventing the harassment of innocent people in wake of misuse of this law”.
Minister of State for Home, Nityanand Rai in his reply said, “Conviction is an outcome of an elaborate judicial process and is dependent on various factors, such as, duration of trial, appraisal of evidence, examination of witnesses, etc. There are adequate Constitutional, institutional and statutory safeguards including inbuilt safeguards in the UAPA itself, to prevent misuse of the law.”
“The UAPA has been amended in the past keeping in view the requirement. Presently no amendments in the UAPA are under consideration,”
The information regarding custodial deaths of the persons in custody under the UAPA is not maintained by NCRB,” he said.
He also said information regarding custodial deaths of the persons in custody under the UAPA is not maintained by NCRB.

New Delhi,Jan 28,2022:The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly’s resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behavior in the House.

“We’ve no hesitation in allowing these petitions. The resolutions are malicious in the eyes of law, unconstitutional, illegal, and declared to be ineffective in law. As a result of the stated declaration, petitioners are declared to be entitled to be benefits of Members of Legislative Assembly”, the bench pronounced the operative portion of the order.

The legislators were suspended for a year for allegedly misbehaving with the presiding officer. in the Assembly. A batch of petitions was filed challenging the Maharashtra Assembly’s resolution.

The MLAs will now be entitled to all consequential benefits after the conclusion of the session in July, last year.

The bench had pointed out that as per the relevant rules, the Assembly has no power to suspend a member beyond 60 days. In this regard, the bench referred to Article 190(4) of the Constitution which says that a seat will be deemed to have become vacant if a member remains absent in the House without its permission for a period of 60 days, Live Law reported.

New Delhi,May 21,2022: Not satisfied with the proceedings of the Gyanvapi mosque case in a Varanasi court, the Supreme Court on Friday transferred the adjudication of the suit filed by the five-Hindu women plaintiffs from a Varanasi civil judge to a district judge. The apex court ordered the district judge to decide on priority the application by the committee of management of Anjuman e-Intezamia Masjid Varanasi challenging the maintainability of the suit under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The mosque committee is contending that the suit is in the teeth of the Places of Worship Act 1991 and therefore barred.

Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected “where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.”
Relieving the Varanasi civil judge from adjudicating the suit, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, said that in view of the complexity of the matter, a “senior and experienced” judicial officer of the Uttar Pradesh higher judicial service should examine the case.

“A slightly more seasoned and mature hand should hear this case. We are not making an assertion on the trial judge. But a more seasoned hand should deal with this case and it will benefit all the parties,” the court said in the course of the hearing.

Entrusting the case to Varanasi district judge, the top court said that the May 16 ex-parte order passed by the civil judge sealing the area where “shivling” is found and restricting the entry of Muslims for offering prayers is subsumed in its (the top court’s) May 17 order.
The top court said that its May 17 order to protect the shivling in the Gyanvapi Masjid without in anyway impeding the entry of Muslims in the mosque for offering prayers will remain in force till Varanasi district judge decides on the challenge to suit by the five-Hindu women plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The court added that its May 17 will continue for another eight weeks after the decision, as either of the aggrieved parties may pursue legal remedies.

May 11,2022: In a historic order, the Supreme Court has directed that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code be kept in abeyance till the government’s exercise of reviewing the contentious law is complete.

The SC bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section124 A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice be caused to the accused, it held.
No new cases under sedition law
The SC also directed the Center and states that no new cases should be registered under Section 124A until the government’s re-examination of the law is completed.
This is the first time in 162 years that the operation of the provision of sedition has been suspended.

The court said the provision would remain suspended indefinitely and till further orders. It added that the Union government is free to issue additional directions to the states.

Govt agrees to re-examine sedition law
The development comes days after the government, in a major U-turn of its policy told the SC that it was ready to reconsider the colonial era law.

In an affidavit, the Ministry of Home Affairs has told the Supreme Court that in the spirit of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav and the Prime Minister’s unequivocal views in favour of protection of civil liberties and to shed colonial baggage, the government has decided to re-examine and re-consider the sedition law.

The use of the sedition law, which was introduced by the British to target freedom fighters in post-Independence India was always controversial.

Those opposed to the law have long argued that successive governments, both at the Centre and states have used it to target critics, activists and journalists.
They also point out that despite the high number of cases registered under the sedition law only a few have ever been convicted under it.

New Delhi, Dec 20,2021: A bill to link voter IDs with Aadhaar was introduced, and passed in Lok Sabha on Monday, amid opposition by several MPs who called it a violation of rights of citizens and attack on democracy.

The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on Monday, and was brought for passage by Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on the same day. Opposition protests against the Bill in the House saw MPs raising slogans against the Minister as he moved the Bill for consideration and passing.

“There is a provision in the Bill for linking Aadhaar card with voter ID card. This is voluntary and not mandatory,” the Minister said, calling it a major electoral reform.

Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said the Bill should be sent to a standing committee. Rijiju however said the 105th report of parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice stated that the committee is of view that linking Aadhaar with electoral roll will purify electoral roll.

A brief debate on the Bill was held in which BJP MP Nishikant Dubey alleged that the Congress was opposing the Bill because they wanted to give voting rights to “Bangladeshis”. “After this Bill is passed Congress will not be able to make Bangladeshis or Nepalis (voters in India). All these parties are doing vote bank politics. The other point is that polling booths are in Madarssas and Mosques, the Bill will address that. We appeal Bangladeshis and Videshis are not made voters in India”.

Kalyan Banerjee of Trinamool Congress said entire democracy is being taken away by the Bill.

As Banerjee was speaking, a comment was made from the treasury benches calling him a “Bangladeshi supporter”.

Shiv Sena’s Vinayak Raut also opposed the Bill, and questioned why it was being passed in a hurry.

Supriya Sule of the Nationalist Congress party also asked what is the hurry, and also questioned Nishikant Dubey’s charges, stating, “one of their Ministers is Bangladeshi is the allegation in West Bengal”. She said government should bring a comprehensive Bill on electoral reforms, including reservation for women.

Several other MPs said there should be proper debate on the Bill. Bahujan Samaj Party’s Ritesh Pandey said Bills were being bulldozed in Parliament. Anubhav Mohanty of Biju Janata Dal also said the Bill needs to be properly discussed.

Asaduddin Owaisi said the Bill violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

Rijiju replied to the points raised by the MPs and blamed the Opposition for creating a ruckus in the House, as protests continued demanding suspension of MoS Home Ajay Mishra Teni and other issues.

Amid continuing protests, the Bill was passed through voice vote, and the House was adjourned for the day.

New Delhi, Dec 15,2021: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Maharashtra government’s petition to make public the 2011 caste census data.

A Bench of the apex court, comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar, while dismissing the petition of Maharashtra government, said that it cannot entertain a petition by the state, when the Union government has maintained that the data was unusable and fraught with mistakes.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that SECC-2011 was not a census exercise undertaken under the Census Act 1948 and was done on the basis of executive instructions of the concerned Ministry to enumerate the Caste Census of households for delivery of targeted benefits.

The bench further said the fact that the State of Maharashtra was obliged to comply with the “triple test” requirement before enforcing the reservation for OBCs in the local bodies does not mean that the Union Government can be directed to share the information, which they themselves have classified as unusable.

The Court, however, gave liberty to the State of Maharashtra to pursue other remedies available in law for their relief. It also took note of the fact that Maharashtra has constituted a commission for collecting caste data for the purpose of reservation in local bodies.

May 02,2022: The Supreme Court, while stating that the Centre’s current vaccination policy is not arbitrary, ruled that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated.

Disposing of a petition seeking disclosure of the vaccine trial’s data and putting a stay on the “vaccine mandates” issued by authorities in various parts of the country, a Bench led by Justice L Nageswara Rao said: “On the basis of substantial material filed before this court reflecting the near unanimous views of experts on the benefits of vaccination…this court is satisfied that the current vaccination policy of the union of India is informed of the relevant considerations and cannot be said to be unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary.”
On vaccine mandates, it stated that “no data” was “placed by Union of India or states controverting data by petitioner in the form of emerging scientific opinion which appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with the vaccinated persons”, while adding that “in light of this, restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through various vaccine mandates by the states governments/union territories cannot be said to be proportionate.”
It also asked authorities across the country which had imposed such mandates to recall them. The court was hearing a plea by Jacob Puliyel, a paediatrician who has been advising the Centre on vaccines as a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.