Aadhaar is Constitutional but conditions apply: Here's the citizen's verdict

Aadhaar is Constitutional but conditions apply: Here's the citizen's verdict

Multimedia News: The Supreme Court on September 26 ruled Aadhaar Constitutional, but did away with the requirement to have Aadhaar for opening bank accounts and getting a mobile connections.

However, the unique identity number would still be a must for filing I-T returns.

---

News Source: BS & Business Standard

---

How the the verdict change things for the common man?

Business Standard spoke to people in New Delhi to get their views on the judgment. After Supreme Court struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which deals with private entities, and read down a few others, stating that they were unconstitutional.

↓↓↓ Here is the Video Link ↓↓↓

Aadhaar Verdict

Section 377 Verdict: 5-judge SC bench by unanimous decision decriminalises Sec 377

All the 5 judges on the constitution bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, concurred on the matter.

Section 377:  The Supreme Court said on Thursday that Section 377 is arbitrary and 'untenable', decriminalising a homosexuality.

The apex court said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of freedom of speech and expression. Supreme Court said that the homosexual community has same rights as everyone else.

"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.

CJI Misra quoted Schopenhauer, JS Mill and others on the freedom and liberty of an individual. He said, "We have to vanquish prejudice, embrace inclusion, and ensure equal rights", according to LiveLaw. TV reports quoted him as saying LGBT community has equal rights, and that Section 377 is irrational.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had reserved its verdict on July 17 after hearing various stakeholders, including gay rights activists.

The Centre, which had initially sought an adjournment for filing its response to the petitions, had later left to the wisdom of the court the issue of the legality of the penal provision with regard to the aspects of criminalising consensual unnatural sex between two consenting adults.

Full Updates → Section 377 Verdict

---

News Source: BS

Supreme Court on Aadhaar linking deadline, Aadhaar mandatory for bank accounts, phone and subsidies

For now, you can safely ignore persistent messages from telecom service providers and banks to link your Aadhaar to your phone number and account.

Business News India : Haven’t linked your Aadhaar number with your mobile phone yet? Breathe easy. The Supreme Court on Tuesday indefinitely extended the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar with existing bank accounts, PAN, mobile phone numbers, and various other services. However, according to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), your Aadhaar would still be required for opening new bank accounts or applying for Tatkal passports.

For now, you could safely ignore persistent messages from telecom service providers and banks to link your Aadhaar to your phone number and account.

The apex court also ruled that the government could continue to seek beneficiaries’ Aadhaar, the 12-digit national biometric identifier number, for the transfer of benefits under schemes funded from the consolidated fund of India. “We direct that the interim order passed on December 15, 2017, shall stand extended till the matter is finally heard and the judgment is pronounced,” a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, said. The judgment provided relief to hundreds or thousands of people who have not yet linked their bank accounts or mobile phones with Aadhaar.

The Aadhaar linking deadline has been extended till the apex court delivers its judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the biometric identification scheme. The current deadline for linking Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobile phone numbers, and other services was March 31, after it had been extended by the apex court on December 15 last year.

As Chief Justice Deepak Misra said their interim order stood extended, the Attorney General told the court that the government was prepared to extend the deadline in the last week of March because arguments in the matter would have concluded by then. “We were prepared for extension in last week of March,” he told the court in a bid to stall the extension.

The Constitution Bench, which also includes Justice A K Sikri, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y Chandrachud, and Justice Ashok Bhushan, had on March 7 ruled that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) would not insist on Aadhaar-only identification for NEET and other all-India examinations.

Read More On  → Aadhaar Linking Deadline ←

National anthem in film theaters: SC leaves it to the govt to frame policy

SC's interim order on playing the anthem continues; in the meanwhile government to decide whether to change policy or not

 

 

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to take a call on regulating the playing and singing of the national anthem in public places including cinema halls.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it was needless to say that the Centre will have full discretion in the matter.

The court said that while taking a decision, the government will not be influenced by the apex court's 2016 order wherein playing of the national anthem in cinema halls was made mandatory.

Contrary to media reports, the Supreme Court suggested that Central Government can modify the interim order on national anthem in film theaters and that it will have full discretion in the matter.

The apex court said, "The discretion has to be exercised without being influenced by our interim order. We may further emphasize that the discretion may be utilized to regulate in an inclusive manner or as the Central Government feels fit."

Click to Know More → National Anthem In Theaters

Supreme Court's verdict on Triple Talaq: Highlights

Following are the highlights

Following are the highlights of the Supreme Court's majority verdict in triple talaq matter:

• The practice of 'triple talaq' is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and violated the Islamic law Shariat.
• 'Triple talaq' was "manifestly arbitrary" as the marital tie could be broken "whimsically" by a Muslim man.
• Justice Kurian Joseph said it was extremely difficult to agree with the CJI that triple talaq has to be considered integral to the religious denomination in question and that the same is part of their personal law.
• These views were shared by Justices R F Nariman and U U Lalit who were part of the majority in their own verdict.
• Since 'triple talaq' is instant and irrevocable, there was no scope for reconciliation between the husband and wife.
• 'Triple talaq' was held to be violative of fundamental rights under Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.
• Justice Joseph said the Holy Quran is the "first source of law" and pre-eminence has to be given to it.
• Justice Nariman said 'triple talaq' is only a form of Talaq which is permissible in law, but at the same time stated to be sinful by the Hanafi school which tolerates it.

Read Full Article

Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid issue: The history behind the dispute (All you need to know)

The first recorded incident of violence over the holy site took place in 1853 

The Babri mosque dates back nearly 500 years when it was built in Ayodhya by Mir Baqi, a commander of the first Mughal emperor Babur, in 1528. Hence the mosque's name, Babri Masjid.

Here is the timeline to the Ayodhya dispute:

1853: The first recorded incident of violence over the holy site takes place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh. Nirmohis, a Hindu sect, claim that a Hindu temple had been destroyed during Babur's times to build the mosque.

1859: The British colonial administration erects a fence at the site to separate the places of worship. While the Muslims are allowed to use the inner court, the Hindus are allowed the outer court.

1885: In January 1885, Mahant Raghubir Das files the first case, seeking permission to build a canopy on the Ramchabutra (a raised platform) outside the mosque. The plea is rejected by the Faizabad district court.

1949: Lord Ram's idols appear inside the mosque, allegedly placed by Hindu groups. Both sides file suits; the government declares the area as disputed and locks the gates to the premise.

1950: Gopal Singh Visharad and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das file suits at the Faizabad court seeking permission to offer prayers to the idols in the janamsthan. While the inner courtyard remains locked, prayers are allowed.

1959: The Nirmohi Akhara files a third suit seeking possession of the site and claiming to be the custodians of the Ram Janmabhoomi.

1961: The Sunni Central Board of Waqf files a case against the placing of idols inside the mosque and claim that the mosque and surrounding land was a graveyard. (read more...)

Sasikala convicted in DA case: How a Poes Garden raid did her in

Subramanian Swamy's complaint named only Jayalalithaa and not Sasikala

 

Breaking News - Over the past week or so, one of the staunch supporters of VK Sasikala's claim to form a government in Tamil Nadu was BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. He was seen openly supporting her in TV channels and even met the governor at Chennai. Ironically then, the final blow that dashed Sasikala's hopes of occupying the chief minister's chair came from a bullet fired by Swamy two decades ago.

In fact, while Swamy's complaint named only Jayalalithaa, a raid of Poes garden and evidences gathered there and other locations in 1996-97, brought in Sasikala convicted, her nephew VN Sudhakaran and her sister in law J Elavarasi as accused no 2, 3 and 4 in what came to be known as the disproportionate assets (DA) case.

The trial court judgment by Justice John Michael Cunha in September 2014, records that the criminal law was set in motion against former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa by Subramanian Swamy, the then president of Janata Dal.

He lodged a complaint on June 14, 1996 alleging that, subsequent to the assumption of the public office of the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa acquired properties and earned income disproportionate to her known source of income. The complaint came a month after the AIADMK was condemned to its worst defeat till date in the Assembly elections. Jayalalithaa herself lost in Barugur. Her party was reduced to four seats from 164, five years earlier. (read more...)

8 people per day on average die in Delhi due to pollution: SC

At least 3,000 pre-mature deaths take place annually in Delhi due to air pollution

 

Every day eight people on an average are dying in Delhi due to air pollution-related diseases, the Supreme Court today said even as it directed the Centre to consider banning the use of fuels high in sulphur content-- furnace oil and pet coke -- by industries in NCR.

A bench of Justices M B Lokur and P C Pant quoted a study of a Boston-based institute which said that every year around 3000 people die in Delhi pollution-related diseases.

"A 2010 study of the Boston-based institute on health effects estimates that at least 3000 pre-mature deaths take place annually in Delhi due to air pollution-related diseases.

"The World Allergy Organisation's journal published a report in 2013 on the high respiratory disorder symptoms which says that students living in Chandni Chowk in north delhi have 66 per cent such symptoms, west Delhi's Mayapuri (59 per cent) and south Delhi's Sarojini Nagar (46 per cent).

"Heavy traffic movement has been found to be the factor responsible for the relative difference between the localities," the bench said while quoting the report in the order.  (read more...)

National anthem to BCCI: SC verdicts that stirred the nation in 2016

Of the several judgments delivered, most were monumental, though some could be termed as surprising

Breaking News - It was a happening year for the Supreme Court as it produced several judgement in the course of the year. While most of them were monumental, a few could be termed as surprising.

Business Standard  brings you the top five judgements by the apex court of the nation.

SC verdicts that stirred the nation in 2016

J&K's Constitution subordinated to Indian Constitution

Rap on the knuckles to BCCI 

National anthem in cinema halls

The Cauvery tangle

The Sahara case

2016  was a happening year for the Supreme Court as it produced several judgement in the course of the year. While most of them were monumental, a few could be termed as surprising.

Read Article Source>>>

Be Updated on Stock Market News  &  Latest Business News  |  Business Standard

57 defaulters owe banks a whopping Rs 85,000 cr: RBI to SC

Only 57 borrowers have defaulted on bank loans worth a whopping Rs 85,000 crore.

The Supreme Court said this after perusing a report submitted by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) about persons who have taken loans worth over Rs 500 crore and defaulted and asked the central bank why their names should not be made public.

"Who are these people who have borrowed money and are not paying back? Why this fact that the person has borrowed money and not paying back be not known to public," asked a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur. 

Related Story:  Now, RBI takes complete charge of monitoring debit card data breach

The bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, said if the bar was lowered below Rs 500 crore, then the default amount would cross over Rs one lakh crore.

Observing that if people file an RTI query, they must know who the defaulters are, the bench asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) why the information on defaulters should be withheld.

"People should know how much money a person has borrowed and how much money he needs to pay back. The amount payable should be known to public. Why should you withhold the information," the bench said.

Read Source

Protests in Karnataka over SC order to release Kaveri water story for pol news (priority)

Hundreds of people, especially farmers on Monday staged protest demonstrations in the Mysuru region against the Supreme Court order to Karnataka for releasing 15,000 cusecs of water daily for 10 days to Tamil Nadu.

The protesters at Mandya, about 100 km from Bengaluru, blocked the vehicular traffic on the busy Bengaluru-Mysuru state highway by burning discarded tyres and effigies of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and placing barricades at many places enroute.

About 100 farmers stood knee-deep in the Kaveri river at Srirangapatna near Mysore, threatening to hold 'Jal Satyagraha' (agitation for water) to prevent the state government releasing water from the nearby Krishnaraja Sagar Reservoir (KRS), built across the river basin.

"We will not allow the state government to release water at any cost from the half-empty reservoirs as we don't have enough water for our fields and drinking water," said Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha leader Nanjungowda at Mandya.

Farmers, traders, students and political leaders have called for a shut down in Mandya district on Tuesday in protest against the apex court order, which will deplete the water level in the KRS further, affecting supply to  read more..

SC asks banks to respond to Mallya's plea against contempt notice

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the consortium of banks led by the SBI to respond to beleaguered liquor baron Vijay Mallya's plea seeking recall of the notice of contempt for allegedly not making full disclosure of all the assets owned by him and his family as directed by the top court earlier.

Giving 10 days time to the State Bank of India (SBI) to file its response, the bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman gave Mallya a week's time to file his rejoinder as it directed the hearing of the matter on September 27.

Mallya's lawyer said the liquor baron has contended that the disclosure of the assets was for the settlement of outstanding dues with the banks, and since no settlement was taking place, he was not obliged to make disclosure and consequently there was no contempt.

Contesting the allegation that he had not made full disclosure of his assets, Mallya, now residing in London, said that the disclosures made by him about his assets and liabilities, submitted to the court in a sealed cover on March 31, were "accurate" and were meant for lending banks to have a "fair idea" for a  read more..