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

Karnataka Government Formation: Supreme Court tells BJP to face floor test tomorrow; top updates

While the Supreme Court resumed its hearing over the Karnataka government formation, the Congress observed ‘Save Democracy Day’ across the country. Catch all the updates here. 

Karnataka Elections Results 2018 » The Supreme Court on Friday held a hearing in the Karnataka government formation matter, directing that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and the state’s new chief minister, B S Yeddyurappa, must conduct the floor test on Saturday at 4 pm.

The hearing came after the apex court issued notices to the Karnataka government and BJP’s Yeddyurappa seeking their replies on the plea filed by the Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) combine, which has 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, for its part, observed ‘Save Democracy Day’ today across the country.

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to place before it two communications sent by Yeddyurappa to Governor Vala in which he had staked claim to form the government, saying their perusal was necessary to decide the case. Among these communications to be furnished in court will be the letter of support from newly-elected legislators that Yeddyurappa submitted to the Governor. The Congress has argued that the letter submitted by Yeddyurappa has only 104 signatures, which is clearly short of the majority mark of 112-seats in the 222-member Assembly. The Congress-JD(S) had submitted a letter with 117 signatures.

On Thursday, Governor Vala administered the oath of office and secrecy to Yeddyurappa at the Raj Bhavan in a morning ceremony. Vala has told Yeddyurappa to prove within 15 days that he has the majority in the Legislative Assembly. Although the BJP emerged as the single-largest party, winning 104 seats, in the May 12 assembly election, it fell short of eight seats from the 112-halfway mark in the lower House. The Congress trailed behind the saffron party with 78 seats and the regional JD(S) with 37 seats.

At a special pre-dawn hearing, a three-judge Bench of the apex court had rejected a joint writ petition, filed by the Congress and the JD(S) on Wednesday night, to halt the swearing-in of Yeddyurappa as Karnataka chief minister. However, the top court said Yeddyurappa’s swearing-in was subject to the final outcome of the matter before it.

Latest Updates on → Karnataka Government Formation

Aadhaar-PAN linking deadline extended to June 30; all you need to know

Earlier deadlines for linking Aadhaar with PAN were July 31, August 31 and Dec 31, 2017, with the last being March 31 this year.

Latest News : The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on Tuesday extended the last date for linking of Aadhaar with Permanent Account Number (PAN) from March 31, 2018, to June 30, 2018.

The order said the deadline for PAN-Aadhaar linking for filing I-T returns is being extended after “consideration of the matter”.

It is understood that the latest order by CBDT has come in the backdrop of the Supreme Court, earlier this month, directing extension of the March 31 deadline for linking Aadhaar with various other services.

The apex court ordered for the extension of the deadline till the five-judge constitution bench delivers its judgment on petitions challenging the validity of the biometric scheme and the enabling law.

This is a fourth extension given by the government for individuals to link their PAN with their biometric ID.

The government has now made quoting of Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns (ITRs) as well as obtaining a new PAN.

Section 139 AA (2) of the Income Tax Act says that every person having PAN as on July 1, 2017, and eligible to obtain Aadhaar, must intimate his Aadhaar number to the tax authorities.

As per updated data till March 5, over 166.5 million (16.65 crore) PANs, out of the total about 330 million (33 crore), have been linked with Aadhaar.

The earlier deadlines for linking the two databases were July 31, August 31 and December 31, 2017, with the last being March 31 this year.

→ Aadhaar Deadline ←

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 ←

56% abortions in India unsafe despite being legal; kill 10 women every day

A legislative amendment to increase gestation limit for abortion from 20 to 24 weeks has been hanging fire for three years

 

Health News : Niketa Mehta was in the 24th week of her pregnancy when a test revealed substantial abnormalities in the foetus’ heart that posed a risk to its survival. Mehta decided to abort, but found herself restrained by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, which prohibits abortion of a foetus older than 20 weeks, except when “immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman”.

Mehta’s obstetrician sought judicial authorisation (Nikhil Datar v. Union of India) from the Bombay High Court, saying Mehta did not want to give birth to a severely disabled infant and witness its suffering. The court refused, saying the issue was of future health risks to the unborn child, and not to the mother.

This was in 2008. The ruling fueled a fierce debate around individual choice, ethics, technology and the law, and fueled demands from women’s and reproductive rights activists that the MTP Act be amended. Nine years since, in July this year, the Supreme Court allowed a woman to abort an over-20 week foetus which had serious cardiac impairments, observing that a woman’s right to reproductive choices is a part of her personal liberty.

The courts have clearly come a long way, reflecting a broader change in society, but a legislative amendment to increase the gestation limit for abortion from 20 to 24 weeks has been hanging fire for three years.

The 2014 draft bill proposes to allow abortion for up to 24 weeks’ gestation in rape cases, and to remove the limit altogether in case of specified abnormalities in the foetus. In order to make abortion services more accessible, it also proposes to allow AYUSH (Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathy) doctors, auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs) and nurses to conduct abortions.

Click to Read → Abortion in India

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

Diwali: Cracker ban goes up in smoke as Delhi air quality turns ‘very poor’

A 'very poor' air quality index essentially means that people may suffer from respiratory illnesses on a prolonged exposure to such air

 

 

The online indicators of the pollution monitoring stations in the city glowed red, indicating a 'very poor' air quality as the volume of ultrafine particulates PM 2.5 and PM 10, which enter the respiratory system and manage to reach the bloodstream, sharply rose from around 7 pm.

At 10 pm, in Mandir Marg in Delhi, the PM 2.5 concentration was 390 units against the prescribed 60 units, while PM 10 was 480 against the prescribed 100.

Real-time pollution data appeared alarming. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee's (DPCC) R K Puram monitoring station recorded PM 2.5 and PM 10 at 878 and 1,179 micrograms per cubic metre at around 11 pm.

However, the nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide concentrations at 50.84 and 31.20 respectively were well under the prescribed limits.

The pollutants had violated the corresponding 24-hour safe limits of 60 and 100 respectively by up to 10 times.

While it is difficult to quantify the immediate effect of the ban on firecrackers, residents across the national capital felt the beginning was promising with neighborhoods reporting much lesser noise and smoke till about 6 pm, compared to the previous years.

But as the festivities picked up, the faint echo of crackers started growing louder.

According to the SAFAR (System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting And Research), the 24-hour rolling average of PM2.5 and PM10 were 154 and 256 micrograms per cubic metre respectively at around 11 pm.

It has forecast that the pollution levels will peak between 11 pm and 3 am.

Click here to know more → Firecracker Ban

Don’t portray every inter-religious marriage as ‘love jihad’

The HC bench upheld a marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man

 

The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that all inter-religious weddings cannot be viewed as 'love jihad' as it upheld a marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man.

A division bench comprising justices V Chitambaresh and Sathish Ninan made the observations in its judgement on a habeas corpus petition filed by the man. A habeas corpus plea is filed to ensure a person under arrest is brought before a court which will determine whether the detention is legal.

"We are appalled to notice the recent trend in this state to sensationalise every case of inter-religious marriage as either 'love jihad' or 'ghar wapsi' even if there was platonic love between the spouses before," the court said.

The bench also cited the Supreme Court order in the Lata Singh versus state of Uttar Pradesh case of 2004 to emphasise the need for encouraging inter-caste and inter-religious marriages.

"We caution that every case of inter-religious marriage shall not be portrayed on a religious canvass and create fissures in the communal harmony otherwise existing in the God's Own Country - Kerala," the bench said and upheld the marriage.

It said the present case was projected by the parents of the woman as 'love jihad' whereas the man, who was in love with her and married her later, termed it as 'ghar wapsi' (a bid to coerce her to come back).

The woman from Kannur had left her home on May 16 along with the Muslim youth. On a complaint from her parents, police had traced and detained them in Sonepat in Haryana a month later.

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