Heena Sharma Blog

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response of the Uttar Pradesh government on a plea seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protestors by district administration for recovering losses caused by damage to public properties during agitations against Citizenship Amendment Act in the state. A bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and K M Joseph, issued notice to the state government and directed it to file its response within four weeks. The apex court was hearing a plea which has alleged that that notices have been sent in Uttar Pradesh in an "arbitrary manner" against a person, who had died six years ago at the age of 94, and also to two others who are aged above 90. Advocate Parwaiz Arif Titu, petitioner in the case, has sought stay on these notices claiming they have been sent to persons who have not been booked under any penal provisions and no details of FIR or any criminal offences have been made out against them. Read More

The Supreme Court on Thursday partially stayed the Bombay High Court order allowing shifting of HDIL promoters Rakesh Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan, accused in the multi-crore Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank scam case , from Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail to their residence. A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobe and justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the high court order to the extent of allowing their release from prison needed to be stayed. The law officer said the other aspect of the high court order such as sale of assets of the accused promoters under the supervision of high court appointed committee should be allowed to remain operative and the sole objection was with regard to their release from Arthur road jail. The top court agreed with the submissions. Read More

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said on Wednesday that it will file a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict on Ayodhya title suit before December 9. "The board is firm on its decision to file a review petition in the Supreme Court and we have time till December 9 for doing so," AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani told PTI. The Sunni Central Waqf Board decided on Tuesday that it would not file a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case, but was yet to take a call on whether to accept a five-acre alternative plot for a mosque. Stressing that the decision of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, one of the main litigants, will have no effect on the AIMPLB decision, Jilani said the board has already taken a final decision in this regard in its meeting here on November 17. "Exercising our constitutional right, we are going to file a review petition in the Babri Masjid case during the first week of December. Sunni

A colonial-era law that criminalizes homosexual sex is viewed by many as a blot on the idea of India as a liberal democracy Current Affairs News : Five judges on India’s Supreme Court are hearing a challenge to a law that criminalizes homosexual sex — Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, introduced by British colonial authorities in 1861 and kept on the books in independent India. The Indian government told the court, which began hearings last Tuesday, that it would leave it to the wisdom of the judges to decide whether Section 377 violates fundamental rights to life, liberty and personal security as long as it does not get into broader issues like marriage, inheritance and adoption. But these are inevitable. Menaka Guruswamy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs against Section 377, argued that it was love that needed to be “constitutionally recognized” and not just sex. Social media and newspapers are filled with conversations and reports about Section 377, but L.G.B.T. life i

A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by CJI Dipak Misra, is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law Current Affairs News : Facing problems with Aadhaar authentication? You're not alone, even a Supreme Court judge has such an experience to share, which he did while hearing petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme's constitutional validity. Supreme Court judge Justice D Y Chandrachud on Wednesday recalled a personal experience -- his mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, had faced difficulty in authentication to get her pension. Justice Chandrachud is part of the five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law of 2016. The hearing will continue on Thursday. On May 3, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed A