Connect with us

Legal News

CAA Rules : Sixth extension sought by Home Ministry for framing rules in over two years

Published

on

SHASHWAT MISHRA – Mumbai Uncensored – 19 January 2022

The Home Ministry sought sixth extension in a row over framing rules for the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 a legislation passed to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan which belong to, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians religion. The communities belonging to the above religions who came to India till December 31st, 2014 will not be treated as illegal migrants and will be given Indian citizenship.

The sixth extension sought for the last two years raises questions as according to the Manual on Parliamentary Work, the rules for any legislation should be framed within six months of receiving presidential assent or seek extension from the committees on subordinate legislation, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. As the rule suggests, the Home Ministry could not frame rules within six months, hence, it sought extension from the authorized committees, first in June 2020 and then five more times. 

 ‘We have approached the parliamentary committees seeking more time. Hopefully, we will get the extension,’ a home ministry official told PTI. Framing rules for any legislation is essential as for any legislation to come into operation, rule-making is necessary. The government has already clarified that the citizenship will be granted only after the rules are framed.

Legal News

A Muslim woman is forbidden as the guardian of her child: According to the Supreme Court

Published

on

On Wednesday, the Kerala High Court declared that it had to adhere to Supreme Court precedent in stating that a Muslim woman can not be the guardian of her minor child and the property. The Quran or the Hadith does not prohibit the right of a Muslim woman to be a child’s guardian, but the Court said that it must respect the law as the Supreme Court defined it under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Reports state that the court was deliberating on the appeal made by C Abdul Aziz of Kallai, Kozhikode, and 12 other people, who were represented by attorney KM Firoz. The court of Justices PB Suresh and CS Sudha recognised that although Muslim personal law forbids Muslim women from acting as guardians for their minor children, it is invalid when compared with articles 14 (equality) and 15 (discrimination) of the Indian Constitution. It was emphasised again that the Court must abide by the precedents established by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court has previously ruled in several cases that a Muslim woman could not serve as a guardian for her underage children, stated the court. “It is undeniably true that women have ascended to new heights and slowly but surely stormed a number of male strongholds in the contemporary era.” As was mentioned, many Muslim-majority or Islamic nations have female heads of state. Additionally, women have taken part in space missions. However, this court is obligated to follow the Supreme Court’s rulings, “stated the Court. The appellant, meanwhile, argued by referring to the Hadith and said that the woman was recognised as the guardian of her husband’s property as well. They said that there was nothing in the Quran or Hadith that prohibited a woman from being a guardian of her son or his property. They also added that Hadiths were never considered in any of the judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard.

In contrast, the responses claimed that neither the Quran nor the Hadith endorses the concept that a mother can serve as a guardian and that several verses of the Quran explicitly support the opposite view. The Court upheld that even while the Quran did not expressly indicate that a mother could not serve as a guardian, it was not for the Court to interpret this in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Furthermore, citing the Shayara Bano case, the Shariat Act is the only law that applies to Muslims in the situations listed in Section 2 of the act, which includes guardianship, according to the Court. The petition was filed over a partition deed in which a Muslim mother acted as a legal guardian of her son’s property. The Kerala High Court noted that the partition agreement was obligatory on the parties but disregarded the mother’s status as legal guardian.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Bombay high court seeks response from Maharashtra government on PIL to rename Dindoshi Metro Station ‘Pathanwadi’

Published

on

Khushi Thapa, Mumbai Uncensored, 7th July 2022:

The Bombay High Court on Monday ordered the Maharashtra government to respond to a PIL that asks for the renaming of the Dindoshi metro train station to Pathanwadi within two weeks.

The high court ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1 lakh before the hearing on June 9.

A PIL was filed by Naee Roshni social organisation by advocate Sahood Anwar Naqvi against MMRDA and others, claiming that MMRDA breached its own policies in 2019 when it renamed the station to Dindoshi under political influence. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), which tried to subvert the station names on Mumbai Metro lines 2A and 7, was the subject of the appeal filed on July 18, 2019.

In spite of RTI responses noting that Dindoshi is a “revenue village” and not the “closest wadi,” the petitioner claimed that the name “Pathanwadi” was changed to “Dindoshi” under excessive political pressure and demands from two MLAs, Atul Bhatkhalkar and Sunil Prabhu. The complaint alleged that the name was “arbitrary,” hurt the citizens’ feelings, and violated their fundamental rights.

Continue Reading

Legal News

राष्ट्रीय अन्वेषण अभिकरण अदालत ने एल्गार मामले पर जमानत की खारिज

Published

on

Nazneen Yakub – Mumbai Uncensored, 29th June 2022

राष्ट्रीय अन्वेषण अभिकरण (NIA)ने मुंबई के एल्गार मामले में जमानत खारिज कर दी है। एल्गार परिषद- माओवादी मामले में सुरेंद्र गाडलिंग, रोना विल्सन, महेश राउत, सुधीर धवले और शोमा सेन की याचिका को 29 जून को एनआईए ने खारिज कर दिया है। आरोपियों द्वारा 2018 में पुणे की सत्र अदालत में तकनीकी आधार पर जमानत याचिका दायर की गई थी। 

इस याचिका में आरोपियों ने दावा किया था कि मामले में आरोपपत्र दाखिल करने के लिए सत्र अदालत द्वारा 90 दिनों का विस्तार ‘‘अवैध’’ था। इसलिए, वे दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता (सीआरपीसी) के प्रावधानों के तहत तकनीकी आधार पर जमानत के हकदार हैं।

एल्गार परिषद माओवादी मामला

एल्गार परिषद माओवादी मामला 31 दिसंबर 2017 का है जोकि पुणे में आयोजित ‘एत्गार परिषद’ सम्मेलन में हुआ था। इस सम्मेलन में कथित भड़काऊ भाषण दिए थे। इन भड़काऊ भाषणों के बाद पुणे पुलिस ने यह दावा किया था कि अगले दिन महाराष्ट्र शहर के बाहरी इलाके में स्थित कोरेगांव भीमा युद्ध स्मारक के पास हिंसा हुई थी। 

पुलिस ने दावा किया था कि कॉन्क्लेव को माओवादियों का समर्थन भी प्राप्त था। इस मामले में एक दर्जन से अधिक कार्यकर्ताओं और शिक्षाविदों को आरोपी बनाया गया है। इस केस को राष्ट्रीय जांच एजेंसी में सौप दिया गया था।

Continue Reading

Trending