Aadhaar: What happens to firms like Jio, Paytm as SC strikes down sec 57?

Finance minister Arun Jaitley on Wednesday indicated that the Centre would examine whether separate legal backing is needed for Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, a provision which allows private entities access to the core Aadhaar database.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which deals with private entities, and read down a few others, stating that they were unconstitutional.

“If it is backed by law, it is not unconstitutional,” Jaitley said when asked about Supreme Court striking down Section 57, which allows ‘any body corporate or person’ or ‘private entity’ to demand Aadhaar.

He added that the Centre would see if the court’s decision arose from a “procedural concern”.

“So let us first read the judgement. There are two-three prohibited areas. Are they because they are totally prohibited or are they because they need legal backing. So my answer in general, the generic answer will depend on what is the rationale… for instance on these private entities, it needs to be backed by law. That’s my understanding. I still have a detailed reading of the judgement to do,” Jaitley said

Business Standard

Aadhaar not mandatory for bank account, mobile connection: Key takeaways

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared government's Aadhaar scheme as Constitutionally valid and also struck down Section 57 of Aadhaar Act permitting private entities to avail Aadhaar data. "Robust data protection regime has to be brought in place as early as possible," Justice Sikri said while reading out the majority judgement.

The court said that the Aadhaar authentication data cannot be stored for more than six months.

The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench said Aadhaar means unique and it is better to be unique than being best. The first of the three judgements was pronounced by Justice A K Sikri. Justice Sikri pronounced the judgement for himself, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar.

Here are the key takeaways:

1. Individuals and corporates cannot collect Aadhaar data

2. Government not to give Aadhaar to illegal immigrants

3. Aadhaar need not be made compulsory for school admissions

4. Linking Aadhaar to telecom services unconstitutional

5. No person can be denied govt benefits only due to absence of Aadhaar

6. No need to link bank accounts, mobile numbers to Aadhaar

7. Aadhaar card is mandatory for PAN linking, Income Tax return

8. Aadhaar can be passed as Money Bill

9. Nothing in Aadhaar Act that violates right to privacy of individual

10. No child can be denied benefits of any schemes on not being able to bring their Aadhaar number

11. CBSE, NEET, UGC cannot make Aadhaar mandatory, also not compulsory for school admissions

'Section 377 gone with the wind', Bollywood celebrates 'a new beginning'

The Supreme Court, on Thursday decriminalised consensual gay sex. A five-judge SC Constitution bench termed part of IPC's Section 377, which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary. The court also partly struck down Section 377 as violative of the right to equality.

The apex court believes that the homosexuals and the LGBT community deserve equal rights and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of freedom of speech and expression.

"The constitution is a dynamic document, having the primary objective of establishing a dynamic and inclusive society," the judgment of CJI Misra and J Khanwilkar.

The verdict is being celebrated across the nation. From celebrities to commoners, everyone welcomed the decision with elation. Here’s how a few famous personalities from different spheres reacted upon the historic judgement:

Read More

Supreme Court rules it's not a crime to be a homosexual in India anymore

A five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench on Thursday unanimously decriminalised consensual gay sex. The apex court termed part of IPC's Section 377, which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary. The court also partly struck down Section 377 as violative of the right to equality.

The historic judgement came on a batch of writ petitions filed by dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri and business executive Ayesha Kapur and 20 former and current students of the IITs.

"Any kind of sexual activity with animals shall remain penal offence under Section 377 of the IPC," it said while adding that Section 377 of IPC was a weapon to harass members of LGBT community, resulting in discrimination
Read More

History owes apology to LGBT persons for discrimination: 10 points SC made

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalising homosexual relationships between consenting adults.

The judgement is being held as historic by the civil society as the apex court has for the first time ruled in favour of same-sex relationships. A five-judge constitution bench concurred on the matter and presented their opinion with various philosophical and constitutional rationale.

Key takeaways of the historic verdict:

• History owes an apology to LGBT persons for ostracisation, discrimination, the Supreme Court of India said
• LGBT community possesses the same human and fundamental rights as other citizens
• Sexual orientation a biological phenomenon, any discrimination on this grounds is violative of fundamental rights
• So far as a consensual unnatural sexual act in private is concerned, it is neither harmful nor contagious to society
• Courts must protect the dignity of an individual as the right to live with dignity is recognised as a fundamental right

Read More

SC asks panel to reduce water level at Mullaperiyar dam by three feet

The Supreme Court today asked the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) and a sub-committee set up by Kerala to deal with the flood situation in the state to coordinate and explore the possibility of reducing the water level at the Mullaperiyar Dam by three feet.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud asked Kerala and Tamil Nadu to abide by the directions given by NCMC on the rehabilitation of displaced people and the reduction of water level from the existing 142 feet to 139 feet at the dam.

The bench observed that it was not an expert to deal with such severe natural calamity and was leaving to the executive to contain the crisis.

The top court asked Kerala to submit the report on the steps taken on disaster management and rehabilitation measures.

The death toll in the monsoon fury in the southern state has crossed 167, while rains and flood water have caused extensive damage.

Rise in flood waters in Periyar River due to the rains and opening of the shutters of all major dams including Mullaperiyar, Cheruthoni, part of Idukki reservoir and Idamalayar, have severely affected the lives of people in downstream areas.

Maratha reservation: Sambhaji Brigade chief talks about genesis of demand

Maratha Reservation - A bandh was recently observed in different parts of Maharashtra, as part of the series of protests in the ongoing agitation of the Maratha community which is demanding reservation in education and employment sectors. Over the last two years, almost 60 silent marches have been held, all of them peaceful, except for the last few when violence broke out in parts.

It looks like the Marathas, unconvinced about the assurances given by Devendra Fadnavis government, are upping the ante.

The demand itself goes back 34 years. A leader of Mathadis (headloaders) Annasaheb Patil had committed suicide in 1982 over demands for Maratha reservation. The community, which is said to form 33% of Maharashtra’s population is the largest group in the state, enjoys a sizable representation in politics and in the sugar co-operative sector. Even several chief ministers of Maharashtra have been Marathas.

At the same time, it is relatively backward when it comes to the education and employment fronts. Now, community leaders, under the banner of several groups, have been agitating across the state and have been demanding the Other Backward Class (OBC) status along with a 16% quota.

Aarushi-Hemraj murder case: SC admits CBI's plea against Talwars' acquittal

Aarushi-Hemraj murder case - The Supreme Court today agreed to hear the CBI's appeal challenging the acquittal of dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the 2008 twin murder case of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.

A bench headed by Justices Ranjan Gogoi said the CBI's appeal would be heard along with Hemraj's wife's pending petition, which has also challenged the acquittal of the Talwars by the Allahabad High Court on October 12 last year.

"Leave granted," the bench, also comprising Justices Navin Sinha and K M Joseph, said.

Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, representing the CBI, referred to the plea filed by Hemraj's wife's. The bench said CBI's appeal would be tagged with it.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars' Noida residence with her throat slit in May 2008. The needle of suspicion had initially moved towards 45-year-old Hemraj, who had gone missing, but his body was recovered from the terrace of the house two days later.

Article 377: Why its abrogation should vest with Parliament, not the courts

As is appropriate for our time, this piece developed from a conversation on the repeal of Article 377 on Twitter. In the fiercely contested world of Indian Twitter, my interlocutor is on my side of the debate—she supports a secular, liberal world view and argues against majoritarian excesses. Further, from what I have seen, she seems animated only by the warmest of human instincts.

But lacking such character and burdened with a life-long distrust of moral fervour, I found myself in deep disagreement with her arguments. At issue was not whether Article 377 ought to be repealed—both my interlocutor and I feel that it should. Rather, at issue was whether it ought to be repealed by the courts or by Parliament. I feel that the repeal of Article 377 is properly the prerogative of Parliament, not of the courts.

Perhaps it is just a matter of age. Young progressives see the decriminalisation of homosexuality as an entitlement. I see it, as I do all personal law, as a matter that needs to be negotiated with society. Social norms—birth, marriage, death, inheritance—from which personal law flows are not immutable truths. They evolve, as society does, with technology, trade and travel. Each age has its definitions of normal and deviant. I do not suggest that these definitions are necessarily fair or equitable. Only that arriving at these are legitimate matters of public debate and contest. A century back, child marriage was the norm, gay marriage unthinkable. Perhaps inconceivably to someone in the 1920s, our norms today have flipped. Similarly we can only imagine the customs of the future. But just as we don’t want to be shackled by laws that reflect that mores of an age past, nor would the generations who succeed us.

Athawale appeals to people to not participate in Bharat Bandh

Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale today appealed to the public to not participate in the August 9 'Bharat Bandh' called by Dalit organisations against the Supreme Court ruling on the SC/ST Act.

In a statement issued today, Athawale appealed to the people to maintain peace, harmony and brotherhood in the country.

His appeal comes a day after the Lok Sabha passed The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill 2018 to overturn a Supreme Court order concerning certain safeguards against arrest under the law.

Yesterday, The Constitution (123rd Amendment) Bill 2017, which grants constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes(NCBC), was also passed by the Parliament.

Athawale said the passage of the two bills was a revolutionary step and alleged that the opposition is defaming the government wrongly over this.

Hearing on Section 377 concludes; Supreme Court reserves judgement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of section 377 of Indian Penal Court which criminalises consensual gay sex.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra concluded hearing the arguments on the contentious issue after detailed hearing of four days, which had commenced on July 10.

The bench, also comprising Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, asked the parties to file written submissions in support of their claims by July 20.

The verdict is likely to be pronounced before October 2 this year as Justice Misra would be retiring as CJI on that day.

Section 377 refers to 'unnatural offences' and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.

No objection if Supreme Court deals with validity of Section 377: Centre

The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it would leave it to the wisdom of its judges to decide on the constitutional validity of Section 377 on the issue of criminalising unnatural intercourse between two consenting adults.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging its 2013 verdict that had re-criminalised consensual sex between two consenting adults of the same gender, was told by the Centre that it has no objection with the court dealing with the validity of this penal provision.

"We leave to the wisdom of the Court to deal with the validity of Section 377 so far as it relates to consensual sexual acts between two adults," Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the bench at the outset of the crucial hearing which entered the second day..
Read More

Nirbhaya gangrape case: Supreme Court upholds death penalty of rapists

Nirbhaya gangrape case - The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed review petitions filed by three convicts in the 2012 Delhi gangrape and murder case, upholding a death sentence handed to them.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan delivered the judgment on the pleas of Mukesh (29), Pawan Gupta (22) and Vinay Sharma (23) in the case that rocked the nation six years ago and paved way for stringent laws against sexual harassment in the country.

The fourth death row convict, Akshay Kumar Singh (31), has not filed a review petition against the apex court's May 5, 2017, judgment.

he Supreme Court had said the "brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature" of the crime could create a "tsunami of shock" to destroy a civilised society.

In its 2017 verdict, the apex court had upheld the capital punishment awarded to them by the Delhi High Court and a trial court in the case of the gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedic student on December 16, 2012.

Article Source - BS

Supreme Court refuses CBI probe into 2 BJP workers' death in Bengal

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea seeking a CBI probe into the recent killing of two BJP workers in Purulia district of West Bengal after panchayat polls.

A vacation bench of Justices A K Goel and Ashok Bhushan asked the petitioners to approach the Calcutta High Court for the relief.

Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for petitioners, said that it is a serious matter as the killing of BJP workers have taken place after the panchayat polls in Purulia district.

On May 30, 18-year-old Tirlochan Mahato, a BJP worker from Balrampur village of Purulia district was found hanging from a tree with a poster written in Bengali struck on his back, saying he was killed for canvassing for the BJP during panchayat election.

Another death of one Dulal Kumar, also a BJP worker, had taken place on June 2 in a similar manner in the same district.

The petition was filed by the father of Kumar, who sought a CBI probe into the killings.

Pathankot court frames charges against seven accused in Kathua case

Kathua Rape Case - The district and sessions court here today framed charges against seven of the eight accused of raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua district, officials said.

The eighth accused in the case is a juvenile.

The trial in the case began on May 31 with the seven accused being produced before the district and sessions judge after the Supreme Court shifted the hearing outside Jammu and Kashmir.

The case was transferred by the Supreme Court from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab for a fair trial following a plea by the victim's family.

While transferring the case from Kathua to Pathankot, about 30 km away, the apex court directed day-to-day in-camera trial in the case.

According to the 15-page charge sheet of the Jammu and Kashmir's Crime Branch, the girl from a minority nomadic community, who was kidnapped on January 10 this year, was allegedly raped in captivity in a small village temple in Kathua district. She was kept sedated for four days before being bludgeoned to death.

Karnataka floor test tomorrow: Yeddyurappa says 100% confident; top updates

.

The Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) B S Yeddyurappa, sworn in as KarnatakaGovernment chief minister a day before, on Friday said he would obey the Supreme Court’s direction to face a floor test at 4 pm on Saturday. He was confident that he would be able to prove a majority, he added.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court reduced the 15-day window the BJP had been given by Governor Vajubhai Vala to prove its majority in the House and ordered that Yeddyurappa face a floor test on Saturday itself. The court was hearing the Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) combine's plea challenging the Governor's decision to invite the BJP to form the next government in the state after the May 12 Assembly election threw up a fractured mandate. Even as Yeddyurappa said he was 100 per cent confident of proving full majority, the Congress termed the apex court's judgment "historic".

The hearing came after the apex court issued notices to the Karnataka government and Yeddyurappa seeking their replies on the plea filed by the Congress and JD(S), which have opposed Yeddyurappa's swearing-in and termed Governor Vajubhai Vala's decision to invite the BJP to form the government as "unconstitutional". Meanwhile, the Congress on Friday observed 'Save Democracy Day' across the country

Karnataka: CM B S Yeddyurappa announces farm loan waiver; latest updates

Katnataka Assembly Election Results 2018 - Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader B S Yeddyurappa took oath as the 23rd chief minister of Karnataka on Thursday after the Supreme Court, in a post-midnight hearing, decided not to put a stay on the swearing-in.

Top BJP leaders, including Union Ministers JP Nadda, Dharmendra Pradhan and Prakash Javadekar were present at Raj Bhavan in Karnataka during the swearing-in ceremony.

Earlier, while hearing a plea filed by Congress, the Supreme Court refused to stall the swearing-in of Yeddyurappa.
The court, however, made it clear that the swearing-in and the government formation would be subject to the final outcome of the case before it.

The top court sought the letters which Yeddyurappa had written to Karnataka Governor informing him his election as BJP legislature party and posted the matter for further hearing at 10.30 am on Friday.

In a midnight legal push, the Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) had approached the Supreme Court seeking an immediate intervention by the chief justice to stay the move, which it termed as an "encounter of the Constitution".

Marriage of two adults can't be annulled just because man is under 21: SC

An adult couple has a right to live together without marriage, the Supreme Court said, while asserting that a 20-year-old Kerala woman, whose marriage had been annulled, could choose whom she wanted to live with.

The top court held that live-in relationships were now even recognised by the Legislature and they had found a place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The observations came while the apex court was hearing a plea filed by one Nandakumar against a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with Thushara on the ground that he had not attained the legal age of marriage.

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act states that a girl can't marry before the age of 18, and a boy before 21.

Nandakumar, who had approached the top court, will turn 21 on May 30 this year.

The high court had also granted the custody of Thushara to her father after noting that she was not Nandakumar's "lawfully wedded" wife.

A bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said their marriage could not said to be "null and void" merely because Nandakumar was less than 21 years of age at the time of marriage.

Impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra moved by Opposition: Top updates

The impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will be given a final shape on Friday at a meeting involving Opposition parties led by the Congress. After the meeting, the Opposition parties are likely to submit the motion to Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu. Senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad has called the meeting, coming days after the party said the option of moving an impeachment motion against CJI Misra was still open. The Opposition parties meeting in Parliament to discuss the matter include the Congress, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP), and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), according to sources quoted by news agencies in their reports.

If the parties decide to move the impeachment motion, it would come just a day after a Bench headed by CJI Misra threw out all petitions demanding an independent probe into the death of special CBI judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, who was conducting a trial in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case – Amit Shah, now the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was an accused in the case.

Tamil Nadu bandh: DMK protests over Cauvery Water Management; 10 highlights

The Opposition-sponsored bandh in Tamil Nadu bandh on Thursday disrupted public life in the state and in Pondicherry. Protests, fasts and demonstrations are being held against the Union government’s failure to form the Cauvery Management Board. Farmers, traders, students, lawyers and film associations have joined Opposition to protest against Modi government.

The bandh has hit public transport as buses were off roads and shops and hotels remained shut. The main opposition party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), along with Congress, the Communist parties and regional parties including Viduthalai Chiruthai Katchi (VCK) and Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), have called for the bandh demanding the setting up of the CMB as per a Supreme Court order. The apex court on February 16, directed the Centre to set up the authority to control the issue between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, within six weeks.

The Centre had approached the Supreme Court during at the end of March, seeking some clarification regarding the interpretation of its judgement.

Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court alleging contempt of court against the Centre for not setting up the Board, as the lack of action violates the Court's order. The matter is listed for hearing on April 9.