Written by Ananthakrishnan G | New Delhi | Updated: January 19 2018 7:36 am Padmaavat is set for release on January 25. Citing freedom of expression and recalling instances of courts refusing to ban works of literature and art the Supreme Court Thursday cleared the decks for the nationwide release of Padmaavat by staying notifications of the governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat that prohibited screening of the film following protests from the Rajput community. Underlining that valued constitutional rights were at stake the bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud in an interim order also restrained other states from issuing similar notifications and directed state governments to provide security to the film crew if they ask for it. The bench accepted the contention of the petitioners that once a film is cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification states cannot interfere with it: We direct that there shall be a stay of operation on the notification and orders issued and we also restrain other states from issuing such notifications or orders in this matter Once Parliamentary legislation confers the responsibility and power on a statutory board and board grants certificate non-exhibition of it by states will be contrary to statutory provisions. Also Read | In CJI Dipak Misra s court Jesus Christ Mahatma Gandhi and two lovers of legend Rejecting the contention of the states that the film s screening will cause law and order problems the bench said it was the duty and obligation of states to maintain law and order . Senior advocate Harish Salve who appeared for film producer Viacom18 urged the court to order security for the film crew saying they were receiving threats. The court agreed and said the state must provide them security if they ask for it. Appearing for Gujarat Rajasthan and Haryana Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought more time to reply to the petition saying more facts needed to be brought on record. Suppose there is a rumour against a community which is in majority in my state can t I take action Mehta asked adding we have intelligence inputs and we want to place them on record . He repeatedly sought more time saying there was no urgency in the matter since the film was set for release only on January 25. Also Read | Why Supreme Court staying the ban on Padmaavat is unprecedented But Justice Chandrachud countered this: It is important. Valued Constitutional rights are at stake. The court will hear the matter next on March 26. Hearing the parties CJI Misra reminded them that the film Bandit Queen had passed the test of the Supreme Court. Salve said in this case we have agreed to do everything that the Censor Board asked us to do. But someday I will argue that an artist has a right to even distort history. Countering him Mehta said: History can be distorted as Gandhiji sipping whisky the country will not tolerate it. History cannot be distorted. Salve replied: Mr Mehta that is not even distortion of history. He said the West had even made a film called Jesus Christ Superstar. But Mehta would not give in: Let us follow Indian standards. Related Post | Rajput groups want unofficial ban to stay states say will study Supreme Court order Responding to Mehta s arguments the CJI said If you go by this 60 per cent of literature even classical literature of India cannot be read. The story of Nala and Damayanti he said was once translated by an Odisha scholar. But the scholar was a puritan. He left out some parts saying he doesn t think it should be read now. The scholar the CJI said was born in the 19th Century and was influenced by Victorian morality. Salve mentioned Lady Chatterley s Lover and said it was still selling. To this the CJI remarked that in the 1970s those who had not read the book were considered ill-qualified to discuss certain topics. As a judge of the Delhi High Court he said he had dismissed a petition which sought a ban on the film Dhobi Ghat. The plea was that it affected a community he said. Justice Chandrachud recalled his own experience when the Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy was sought to be banned. The argument he said was that it would disturb public order. The CJI cited the case of Sakharam Binder a Marathi play by Vijay Tendulkar that was banned in the country in 1974. He also mentioned instances of courts upholding freedom of expression by refusing to ban books like The Men Who Killed Gandhi and Gandhi: Naked Ambition. For all the latest India News download Indian Express App IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd Tags: Padmaavat Padmavat supreme court SShabir Ahmad BhatJan 19 2018 at 7:38 amPeople in general have lost faith in politicians in India but they still respect judiciary particularly Supreme Court as guardian of cons ution and rule of law.The politicians are generally swayed by popular sentiments having eye on votes and least care for rule of law.Not adhering to rule of law is a sure recipe for anarchy. Orders of Apex court on Padmavat release are appropriate and timely and must be adhered to in letter and spirit.(0)(0) Reply SShabir Ahmad BhatJan 19 2018 at 7:28 amPeople in general have lost faith in politicians and have still great regard for judiciary particularly Supreme http://www.blackberryos.com/members/kkjabong.html Court of India.If there is any semblance of rule of law it is because of courts as the politicians are swayed by popular sentiments and have their eyes on votes only.Not adhering to rule of law a recipe for anarchy.Orders of the Apex court on Padmavat must be adhered to in letter and spirit.(0)(0) Reply ManojJan 19 2018 at 7:07 amFeckless disregard for the Supreme court s directive and the CBFC s green signal to screen the movie is a blatant act of contempt for the law. All the states that have systematically opposed this directive are BJP ruled states and are in direct violation of the law and the cons ution. Does it not appear beyond doubt that the government by supporting its party in those states is directly challenging the authority of the Supreme court and the CBFC and applying all means to thwart the implementation of a legal directive from the highest authority in the land!. If this is not sedition and treason than what is! Since when has a proverbial and legendary figure become more significant than the cons ution of the country? This government has turned pariah and must be removed by due application of the law. If not then we are allowing anarchy to prevail. There cannot be anything worse for this country. This is the limit.(1)(0) Reply Sham LeleJan 19 2018 at 7:06 amGetting justice in time is also Supreme. Why not court direct to bring down number of pending problems. If Gov lose right to govern as they can not do some things then courts also should lose that right.(0)(0) Reply S KJan 19 2018 at 6:11 amThe same SC should stop the ban on SATANIC VERSES. There is no freedom of expression while the book remains banned.(4)(0) Reply Load More Comments NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Thursday held a meeting with four senior-most Supreme Court judges to resolve issues raised by them during a press conference on January 12. The meeting between the CJI and four judges- Justices J Chelameswar Ranjan Gogoi Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph- lasted for around 15 minutes before resumption of court proceedings at 10:30 am court sources said. They said that no other judge was present at the meeting. On Wednesday the meeting could not take place as Justice Chelameswar was indisposed. In an unprecedented presser on January 12 the four senior-most judges of the apex court had raised a litany of problems including the assigning of cases in the apex court and said there were certain issues afflicting the country s highest court. SC refuses to entertain plea to restrict media from reporting judges controversy The Supreme Court also refused to entertain a plea seeking to restrain the media from publishing discussing and politicising issues raised by four senior-most judges in the January 12 press conference. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it will look into the matter only after the apex court registry takes the petition on record and lists it for hearing. The plea which mentioned urgent listing and hearing sought to restrain the printing discussion politicisation and debate on the subject matter of the press conference dated January 12 with immediate effect to control further damage to the institution . By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: January 18 2018 1:42 pm On January 12 the four judges held an unprecedented press conference. Express Photo by Abhinav Saha Related News Mahatma Gandhi assassination case: Don t get carried away with greatness of the person involved SC tells petitionerDeath penalty by injection not workable: Centre informs Supreme CourtIn the interest of justiceDays after four most senior judges of the highest court in the country held an unprecedented presser to raise certain concerns about the functioning of the Supreme Court Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra met the dissenting judges for the second time on Thursday. The meeting between the CJI and the four judges J Chelameswar Ranjan Gogoi Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph lasted around 10-15 minutes. No other judge was present at today s meeting. The court proceedings resumed at 10:30 am a court source was quoted as saying by PTI. On January 12 the four judges had held an unexpected press conference the first of its kind in the country s history to voice their protest against the roster or the manner in which certain cases were assigned to various benches in the top court. The immediate trigger for the presser it was said was the assignment of Judge Loya s death case. READ: Supreme Court crisis: Four judges have a plan for CJI Dipak Misra to reform roster two more join them at meeting CJI Misra had met the four judges on Tuesday but the impasse remained and he was to meet them again on Wednesday. The meeting however could not take place as one of the judges Justice Chelameswar took leave for the day. Late on Wednesday however the four judges met with two other Supreme Court judges and finalised a proposal which they hope will break the current impasse sources told The Indian Express. The proposal meant to be handed over to the CJI Thursday is regarding setting up a system to insulate the roster from allegations of favour. Earlier on Monday the CJI had met a seven-member delegation of the Bar Council of India and Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh and had assured them that the crisis would be sorted out soon. In another development on Thursday the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to restrain the media from publishing discussing and politicising issues raised by four senior-most judges in the January 12 press conference. After the January 12 presser the Congress had sought an investigation into the death of special CBI judge BH Loya who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. For all the latest India News download Indian Express App IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd More Related News Supreme Court judge recuses from hearing plea on Rakesh Asthana s appointment Congress MP Rajeev Satav moves bill proposing recording of all Supreme Court proceedings Tags: SC judges Supreme Court India Brij GuptaJan 18 2018 at 6:39 pmI appreciate the courage of Sri Prashant Bhushan who has taken upon himself to take on the establishment and the Judiciary and fight for truth.(5)(2) Reply AArun KumarJan 18 2018 at 5:15 pmIn the History of Judiciary this is beginning of grouping of Judges in SC after four Senior Judges expressed unhappiness over administration of SC particularly function of CJI in Public Now new Precedence started by these senior judges to be followed by displeasure/frustrated Judges of SC/HCs in future.Only theirs dismissal from SC is only remedy left to avoid such revolt against CJI in future.(2)(3) ReplyKiran Prakash GuptaJan 18 2018 at 7:27 pmIt seems vested intrest in the present impasse. In 1997 the SC has decided that CJ is the master of roaster in the matter of Government of Rajsthan v Prakash Chand then why this act of contempt to the SC decision(0)(0) Reply Mast MalangJan 18 2018 at 4:16 pmन्य यप ल क क म श्र पुर ण - जस्ट स द पक म श्र द्व र जस्ट स ल य क मृत्यु त सभ बड़े केस जज नंबर 10 अरुण म श्र क देने से ये समस्य पैद हुई है - प्रध नमंत्र ने अपने प्रध न सच व नृपेंद्र म श्र क कल जस्ट स द पक म श्र के घर भेज - अब ब र क उंस ल ऑफ इंड य के चेयरमेन मन्नन कुम र म श्र ब ल रहे हैं हम र वजह से बेवजह र हुल ग ंध क ब लने क म क म ल गय - य र ये इतने म श्र एक स थ क्य कर रहे हैं कुछ समझ नह ं आ रह है - इन सबके ब च सबसे सुख जगन्न थ म श्र हैं च र घ ट ल उन्ह ंने शुरू क य ज ँच क आदेश देने व ले ल लू य दव अंदर और म श्र ब हर - ल लू य दव अरुण म श्र के फ़ैसले क वजह से जेल में हैं उन्हें यह केस च फ़ जस्ट स द पक म श्र ने द य ज पूर्व च फ़ जस्ट स रंगन थ म श्र के सगे भत जे हैं -म श्र ने म श्र क बहुत केस द ल य म श्र के ऊपर च र क गुस्स आय म श्र म श्र क मन ने आय म श्र ने म श्र क ठेंग द खल य अब म श्र -म श्र पर म श्र क ल इन पर ल ने क ज म्म आय ऐस सुन्दर सुय ग ब रले ह आत हैं जब स रे गृह म श्र त ह गए ह ं !(3)(1) Reply OObserverJan 18 2018 at 4:09 pmThere seems to be lack of understanding of the need and importance of inter-personal relationship tools/techniques available among some senior judges in the apex court of the country. A refresher training course for them asap would be quite in the fitness of things not only on Transactional Analysis but also about Discipline/Conduct rules regulations etc. . Quite a few seem to be still in child ego stage reactions.cocoons. But the MDQ is who is fit enough to give them such refresher behavioural training tips.(0)(2) Reply Raman BramanJan 18 2018 at 3:45 pmSeems like the four judges want to run the Supreme Court. Their ego prevents them from taking orders.(3)(17) Reply Load More Comments Written by Seema Chishti | Updated: January 17 2018 9:42 am The lordships object: The dissatisfaction expressed last Friday by four top Supreme Court judges raises serious questions about India s institutions. Express Photo by Abhinav Saha Can the four judges complaint be called a crisis ? It is certainly an unprecedented situation. It involves sitting judges speaking out. Judges have spoken before but mostly off the record or while hearing cases. Justice JS Verma spoke in the late nineties on things ailing the judiciary. But that was in general terms. Recently Justice CS Karnan a sitting High Court judge went public and even sentenced Supreme Court judges to jail for in his view violating the SC/ST (Prevention of) Atrocities Act. Justice Kehar was the Chief Justice. Karnan acted alone. He ended up being the first sitting judge to be held guilty of contempt and jailed. What makes this complaint from four senior-most judges different is that it doesn t involve a single judge. This is the entire Collegium minus the Chief Justice airing differences. These judges are not a group with similar ideas on how the judiciary must function. One is the putative successor after the present Chief Justice demits office. What is the meaning of business as usual in court which senior legal officials hope will be achieved? Business as usual is in some sense restored with courts functioning and judges hearing cases rostered to them (even after they have publicly shared concern that the rostering of work is unfair). But the other big administrative task which the Chief Justice fulfills is discharged as a group a Collegium which is responsible for judicial appointments. The letter released last Friday was written by four out of five members of the Collegium so the Chief Justice is unlikely to have an easy run there. What is the meaning of resolving the situation ? A resolution would have to involve some discussion between all five judges leading to a settlement on what the rules of the game must be. Some rules for rostering may be in order. Rostering cannot be seen to necessarily exclude seniors. In India given the scale of cases the principle of en banc or the entire court hearing everything together does not apply. The Indian Supreme Court speaks in many voices (26 judges in 13 court rooms). But Benches seen to be specialising in some area could be created so the allocation of cases is not seen as purely discretionary. Also Read | Supreme Court crisis: CJI Dipak Misra meets four dissenting judges will talk again The one case in which a complaint was made against the Chief Justice the Medical Council of India bribery scam was re-allocated to himself on the bench by the Chief Justice on November 10 2017 despite being allocated to another bench (consisting of five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court) by Justice Chelameswar the second-most senior judge. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua or no man can be a judge in his own case was held to be overruled by the other principle of the Chief Justice being the master of the roster . This may need changing if any meaningful resolution is sought. Has anything happened historically which has similarly drawn the judiciary into a national debate? The most contentious time was in the 1970s when the idea of the committed judiciary that Indira Gandhi and her team spoke of was almost secured. The infamous ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case (April 28 1976) which essentially upheld the government s right to limit the fundamental rights of Indians in an Emergency had a sole dissenter Justice HR Khanna who was penalised for his view. The appointment of Justice AN Ray as Chief Justice in April 1973 superseding three senior judges is meant to be an all-time low in how the judiciary was sought to be managed. His proximity to then-PM Indira Gandhi raised serious questions over the judiciary s role in the Emergency. Also Read | http://cgworkshop.org/forum/member.php?42322-shopozo See a political conspiracy what judges did is unforgivable says senior RSS leader Later the judiciary in an era of coalition governments took on a role deemed more activist also evolving a unique mechanism of securing near-complete control over judicial appointments. The government retains administrative control but especially after the NJAC Bill was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 (Justice Chelameswar being the lone dissenter) appointments again fall in the judiciary s domain. What is the relationship of the judiciary with the executive and Parliament? The relationship between the three pillars of Indian democracy has often been fraught a see-saw but that itself is said to add heft to Indian democracy. If the Rajya Sabha is seen to balance the Lok Sabha then the judiciary has applied brakes on legislative enthusiasm beaten back sometimes yet persisting. At the very start when the Constitution was drawn up in 1950 judges ruled on two crucial matters supporting the rights of zamindars and the right of journalists to publish (Romesh Thapar versus State of Madras 1950). Then the government sought to bring in the first ever amendment to the Constitution. Also the only way a judge can be removed from office involves Parliament. Justice Soumitra Sen is the only judge to have been impeached by the Rajya Sabha in 2011 he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote on the matter. The fact that the removal of a judge is only possible via Parliament adds balance but also a slice of tension to the relationship. The famous Kesavanand Bharti judgement in April 1973 gave India the basic structure or parameters for the legislature to amend the Constitution. Nothing that seeks to change the basic structure or spirit of the Indian Constitution would be allowed said a thirteen-judge bench led by Justice Sikri. Governments and courts have had issues as the state is the biggest litigator. Court judgements impact policy but cases often have political implications and so policy and politics and courts continue to be intertwined. For all the latest Explained News download Indian Express App Tags: Express Explained balaji baliarsinghJan 17 2018 at 2:09 pmWhat majority people will tell that is the law. If that is not so then law will not be changed with changing locality. What is very common things in UK USA attract capital punishment in Saudi arabia. It suggest that nothing is legal illegal as such. The things what is agreed by the vast group is the rule to follow in that land. In that way we can not say judge is always supreme nor the PM . That is the situation Public should have the final say. Otherwise it may lead to civil war(0)(1) Reply Vikrant AgrawalJan 17 2018 at 12:04 pmWife of communist leader will always present a colored picture(1)(4) Reply Kulmohan ManchandaJan 17 2018 at 11:00 amWhether the judges fight amongst themselves or patch-up makes little difference to the state of Justice in India. The fact that widows and orphans of 1984 riots got no justice on their watch for 33 long years is enough to say that they were anyway not doing their jobs properly.(8)(0) ReplyJoji CherianJan 17 2018 at 11:32 amWhat about the widows and orphans of pogrom 2002 ? And you know who the master brain was and where he is today.(8)(11) ReplyVikrant AgrawalJan 17 2018 at 12:07 pmWhat about those who killed innocents in Sabarmati express in Godhra? What about widows of people killed in over 20000 riots that happened before 2002 under Congress nose? Worst killing happened in 1947 under Nehrus nose what about his failure to control those mass killing and rapes which killed lakhs and displaced millions(6)(3)Masa KolaJan 17 2018 at 12:16 pmFalse propaganda by Sickular left lobby.(2)(3) Muftkhor By ChoiceJan 17 2018 at 10:46 amThe 4 judges have violated Indian Cons ution. Cons ution grants powers to rkster to CJI(2)(16) Reply Abhay NandanJan 17 2018 at 10:34 amCollegium system need to go. NJAC Bill would have made them accountable to the people through parliament. It was though struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. Lone dissenter Justice Chelameswar though part of present Collegium seems to be reasonable. Under the garb of Judicial Freedom he did not opt to be unaccoutable. We have just seen how so called freedom and independence of Judiciary has tarnished the image of System of Justice in the eyes of common man. With certain checks and controls in NJAC it can be ensured that another Indira do not succeed to get a pliable judiciary.(3)(9) ReplyAnand MohanJan 17 2018 at 11:07 amHighly balanced comments by you. Rather i would say that one of the reason for the problems arising today in higher judiciary is extreme ring fencing of itself by the court during last 23-24 years against any probability of its systems being checked or open for (type of ) peer review.(5)(0) Reply Load More Comments NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a petition filed by a senior lawyer seeking live streaming of judicial proceedings in the top court on matters of constitutional and national importance. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the matter will be listed in due course of time. In a bid to bring in transparency the top court had last year allowed the installation of CCTV video recording with audio in trial courts and tribunals of each state. Senior advocate Indira Jaising appearing in person said that the citizens have the right to information and matters of constitutional and national importance can be live-streamed. She said in Western countries this system is already in place and live streaming of court proceedings including that of International Court of Justice are available on the Youtube. If live streaming of top court s proceedings is not possible then alternately the video recording should be allowed she said. Jaising said that like the top court is currently hearing Aadhaar matters and will be hearing other constitution bench matters which are of great significance to the people the proceedings can be live streamed. This Writ Petition is filed as Pro Bono for enforcement of public interest to advance the rule of law and bring accessibility and transparency in the administration of justice her plea said. Jaising in her petition said that live streaming of Supreme Court cases of constitutional and national importance having an impact on the public at large will empower and provide access to citizens who cannot personally come to the court due to socio-economic constraints. The Petitioner submits that the live streaming and videography of the proceedings of the Supreme Court in matters of great public importance will be in keeping with the principle of open access to justice and will ensure justice is not only done but it is seen to be done her plea said. She said the apex court may place restrictions on such videography and live streaming of proceedings in cases where there are countervailing interests of privacy as in family law cases criminal law cases as well as in the interests of witness testimonies in criminal matters . The Petitioner submits that she has a right to information in real time about the proceedings in the Supreme Court of India on all matters of great public importance in exercise of her rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India . In her plea Jaising contended that a cardinal principle of law is that justice is not only to be done in public but also should be seen to be done and the best possible manner to achieve this goal is to live stream the proceedings so that the arguments of all counsels are heard and recorded. Such an exercise would inspire confidence in the functioning of the judiciary as an institution and help in maintaining the respect that it deserves as a co-equal organ of the state she said in her plea. Written by Ananthakrishnan G | New Delhi | Updated: January 18 2018 2:38 pm After enrolling for Aadhaar a person is required to authenticate his or her biometrics to avail benefits. (Representational purpose) Taking up for hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court Wednesday asked the petitioners if the State was not entitled to collect biometric data of citizens to ensure that constitutional obligations are carried out. Can t the State have a countervailing interest? For instance there are many schools without students They (State) may say all we are trying to do is to ensure that money is going where it ought to If you are depending on social welfare benefits equally the State has countervailing interests to ensure that they reach the right people Justice D Y Chandrachud one of the five judges on the Bench said. Headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra the Bench also includes Justices A K Sikri A M Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan who appeared for the petitioners replied that such savings they had found were minimal. He said even if there were such savings such an architecture was not possible. The unique identity architecture he said was such that throughout the day there will be an electronic trail of your movements and it is left with the central government why should central government know my movements . My movements can be tracked. With sophisticated computers it can be tracked real time. Such an architecture is not permissible and is unconstitutional This becomes a surveillance society. Divan said biometrics across the world do not operate on this scale at all. If someone hacks or hacks my fingerprints no way I can replace them. Aadhaar he said was helping the State profile citizens and had empowered it with a switch with which it can cause civil death of an individual . It raised several questions including whether the Constitution of India authorises creation of a surveillance state and whether the vulnerability of the database threatened national security . There ought to be an opt-out option according to us since there are many who say there was no consent at all there was no counselling (while enrolling) Divan said. After enrolling for Aadhaar a person is required to authenticate his or her biometrics to avail benefits. But the algorithm followed by the unique identity is probabilistic which means that authentication may or may not happen Divan said adding that this will have the effect of making the subscriber s entitlement wholly dependent on the authentication. This leads to excluding people from services. How can anyone s right be made probabilistic? he submitted. CJI Misra echoed Justice Chandrachud when he said Article 21 confers fundamental rights which include the right to education. To ensure that they (State) must ensure that teachers and students come to school. They may say their purpose is this. He also referred to fingerprint collection at entry gates of offices etc. Divan said that the petitioners had no problem with biometrics being required at entry gates etc. Our objection is to a central registry which stores the data. Then you know exactly from cradle to grave what a person is doing he said. Justice Sikri referred to the US embassy seeking biometrics to process visa applications and at border controls. Divan said this was different from Aadhaar as in the case of US border control the requirement of biometrics ends there unlike Aadhaar where the electronic trail happens throughout. Aadhaar acts as bridge between silos of information and helps profiling Divan said. He said there was no government control at all when data was being collected from 2014. At this Justice Chandrachud asked: Is your contention going to be: all data prior to 2014 has no legal standing at all? Justice Sikri said: Are you saying that whatever was done between 2009 and 2016 needs to be nullified? Divan replied in the affirmative adding when you are picking sensitive data from people there has to be some minimum governance Defects of the past cannot be cured retrospectively. When Divan invoked the Supreme Court judgment on the right to privacy to buttress his arguments Justice Chandrachud said: There are two separate cases. Firstly what we dealt with in the privacy judgment. Secondly will your biometric data which is held in the central depository be disclosed when you authenticate? It only authenticates it does not send back the biometric data. Raising their challenge the petitioners also questioned the manner in which such an important legislation was introduced as a money Bill. Divan said the law must fall for this reason alone adding it is a colourable legislation . The arguments will continue Thursday. For all the latest India News download Indian Express App Tags: Aadhaar supreme court Radhakrishnan MannadiarJan 19 2018 at 7:05 amHaving spent some 35000cr and putting crores of people into inconvenience if the Aadhar project is not up to the mark the person headed the Deptt and also the GOVT that conceived such a project without proper thinking needed to be held responsible for the colossal waste of tax payers money. MMS and Neelkeni are not above the law the accountability is something now India has to be concerned about lest the politicians will ruin the nation within no time. They need to be punished for playing with the private life of crores of citizens . Why blame the present dispensation they are in fact struggling to save the money and and trying to put the information for better use.(1)(0) Reply Asokan AndyJan 18 2018 at 10:37 pmanother misconception is Aadhar is storing your mobile number bank accounts no.. That is a absolutely false. People are purposefully spreading wrong information to malign Aadhar. it is other way around when u take a Mobile connection you identify yourself with your Aadhar and your mobile account will have your Aadhar number along with your address and account info. same thing with bank your bank account will have the Aadhar number associated with it with your bank not at Aadhar.(0)(1) Reply Asokan AndyJan 18 2018 at 9:41 pmDoes aadhar card have poison or some thing to kill some body This is the last attempt of corrupt to stop identifying an India citizen uniquely. Thats all Aadhar is just to a way to uniquely identify the Billion plus citizens. If there is a problem that should be sorted out.. There is plane accidents do we ban planes. ? There is car accidents do we ban cars ? A small percentage of risk is there and people die during surgeries.. Shall we ban all surgeries. ? No No and No we are smart enough to find to make https://tribute.tributecff.org/campaign/display/profile.do?campaignId=1392145655007 the process better same thing . Just make it better make sure there is 100 enrollment ..This is revolutionary and will transform India . #FightForAadhar(0)(1) Reply SSV IyerJan 18 2018 at 5:34 pmAadhar authentication should be limited to government schemes. The system is still not foolproof and the Government should not be allowing any private operator for phone and vehicle insurance to have a free run in the name of aadhar.(2)(0) Reply suresh VRGJan 18 2018 at 3:26 pmIn the last 2 years due to Aadhar card being linked to various accounts 1. 3.3 crores Ghost LPG Connections blocked 2. 87 lakh Ghost job holders under MNREGA and other similar schemes have been removed 3. 19 lakh Ghost accounts which were getting farm subsidies in Maharashtra alone were eliminated 4. 8.2 lakhs Ghost students who were enrolled for mid-day meals scheme were weeded out 5. About 80 000 Ghost teachers and lecturers in schools and colleges who were drawing ries were cleaned out 6. 31 lakh Ghost ration and subsidy cards have been eliminated 7. The list goes on .. Due to the above it is estimated that Rs 65000 crores per year is being saved. Over the last 67 years corruption and looting has gone so deep in our DNA that we are simply unwilling to come out of it. There are 130 crore Indians and which Govt in its right senses will try to keep track of the individual movement of all of them and to what end???? 1/2(10)(1) Replysuresh VRGJan 18 2018 at 3:27 pmThese Angels of Death paint Dark Death scenarios with exaggerated severity just like the corrupt Politicians do when ever any law is being enacted to curb corruption. In any case what do they have to hide their movements unless they are indulging in anti-national activities ?? 2/2(4)(1) Reply Load More Comments NEW DELHI: The Centre will need to assure the Supreme Court that data collected under Aadhaar is fully protected and cannot be misused to ensure its ambitious scheme passes muster with the apex court on Thursday asking what is the nature of the safeguard to prevent sale of information by private operators. With a nine-judge bench last year declaring the right to privacy a fundamental right and asking the government to prepare a robust data protection regime the apex court s Constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri A M Khanwilkar D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan asked whether the government had taken measures to protect data related to Aadhaar. Senior advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar scheme told the bench that information collected by private operators was being sold and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had no control over them. Referring to news reports and sting operation of a news channel he alleged private operators continued to hold demographic and biometric data which could be easily purchased and misused violating the people s fundamental rights . In its statements relating to leak of data the UIDAI has repeatedly asserted that there has been no breach as far as biometric data are concerned and that Aadhaar authenticates identity but not the purpose of a transaction. The bench however noted that Aadhaar details of former captain of Indian cricket team M S Dhoni was also made public. What safeguard the government has introduced to ensure that information is not sold out and what is the nature of the safeguard? Justice Chandrachud asked. Divan claimed that the Aadhaar scheme had been unconstitutional from the beginning as the government could not compel citizens to part with personal information to private operators without sanction of law. He said 49 000 operators were blacklisted by the government till September 2017 and it showed something is wrong in the process. I am questioning the very integrity and pervasive nature of the process. A person cannot travel or go to school or open a bank account or have an insurance policy or invest in mutual fund if he or she does not have Aadhaar he said. The bench however pointed out that people provide personal information to private companies while getting mobile connection and insurance and asked why they should be reluctant in giving information under Aadhaar scheme. How can you say that it (information) is part of your identity while denying information to the government while you provide information to private parties. If you want mobile connection or insurance you go to private entity and provide information to them Justice Chandrachud said. The arguments remained inconclusive and hearing would resume on January 23. New Delhi: Four top Supreme Court judges convened a press conference on Friday that was seen to reflect the growing rift with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The Supreme Court s four senior-most judges - Justices J Chelameswar Ranjan Gogoi Madan Lokur and Kurien Joseph - said that things are not in order with what they described as the administration of the Supreme Court .In a letter to the Chief Justice that was made public the four judges underlined that an independent judiciary is essential for a functioning democracy. We don t want wise men saying 20 years from now that Justice Chelameswar Gogoi Lokur and Kurian Joseph sold their souls and didn t do the right thing by our Constitution Justice Chelameswar said explaining why they decided to go public with their views at what he conceded was an extraordinary event. This isn t the first time when members of the higher judiciary have expressed a strong opinion but in the past they had always spoken through their judgements. Here are five standout instances in the Indian judiciary: 1. In a landmark judgment in 1975 Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court cancelled the election of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the Lok Sabha. An Emergency was imposed in the country on June 27 the same year. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha despite threats and political pressure announced ...the petition is allowed and the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi respondent No. 1 to the Lok Sabha is declared void .2. In 1976 Justice Hans Raj Khanna the lone dissenter in a five-member bench went against the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in a case involving civil liberties. What is at stake is the rule of law... the question is whether the law speaking through the authority of the Court shall be absolutely silenced and rendered mute... Justice Hans Raj Khanna said observations that were seen to have cost him his promotion as Chief Justice of India. He was superseded and Justice Beg who was next in seniority appointed the Chief Justice of India in January 1977.3. In 1980 the Supreme Court of India strengthened the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution and ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution is limited by the Constitution. Parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power the court ruled after the 42nd amendment to the Constitution attempted to reduce the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts to decide the constitutional validity of laws enacted by the legislature. CommentsClose X 4. In 1994 the Supreme Court attempted to deal with complaints that the Centre had been dismissing state governments and laid down ground rules for invoking powers under Article 356 of the Constitution.5. In 1993 the Supreme Court interpreted the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state - including the legislature and the executive - could have any say in the appointment of judges. The court then created the collegium system that continues to make recommendations for appointment and transfer of judges. Parliament created a National Judicial Appointments Commission through a constitutional amendment in 2014 to reverse the 1993 verdict.But the Supreme Court called this change unconstitutional and struck down the changes in 2015. Justice J Chelameswar was a member of this bench but gave a dissenting note. He has since then sought changes in the selection and appointment process on more than one occasion within the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment