Page 218 - Supreme Court

Parties can't directly reach apex court, seek dissolution of marriage: SC

The Supreme Court said on Monday contesting parties cannot directly approach it and seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S K Kaul, while referring to a top court verdict delivered earlier by a two-judge bench, said it was rightly held that any such attempt must be spurned and not accepted, as the parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 before the top court or under Article 226 before the high court seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The reason is that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial forum is to approach the superior tribunal/forum for redressal of his/her grievance. The parties should not be permitted to circumvent the procedure by resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case

Article 142(1) of Constitution crucial, its exercise must be legitimate: SC

The Supreme Court said on Monday Article 142(1) of the Constitution, which gives wide and capacious power to the apex court to do complete justice should be exercised in a legitimate manner and with caution, as its verdict ends the litigation between parties. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court to do "complete justice" in any matter pending before it. As per Article 142(1), a decree passed or an order made by the apex court is executable throughout the territory of India. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S K Kaul said the exercise of power and discretion under Article 142(1) is valid and as per the Constitution, as long as complete justice' required by the cause or matter' is achieved without violating fundamental principles of general or specific public policy. Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamour

SC rules that it has power to dissolve marriage, scraps 6-month wait period

The Supreme Court held on Monday it has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in exercise of its plenary power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution and can grant divorce by mutual consent while dispensing with the 6-month waiting period mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court to do "complete justice" in any matter pending before it. As per Article 142(1), a decree passed or an order made by the apex court is executable throughout the territory of India. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with divorce by mutual consent and sub-section (2) to this provision provides, after the first motion has been passed, the parties would have to move the court with the second motion, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meanwhile, after six months and not later than 18 months of the first motion. A five-judge constitution bench headed by ...

Centre tells SC that consultation on re-examining sedition law on last leg

The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that consultation on re-examining sedition law is at an advanced stage

Govt at advanced stage of consultation on sedition law: Centre to SC

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred hearing on a batch of pleas challenging the sedition law after the Centre said it is at an advanced stage of consultation on reexamining the colonial-era penal provision. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala noted the submission of Attorney General R Venkataramani that the government has initiated the process to reexamine section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The bench posted the hearing on the matter in the second week of August. The batch of pleas challenged the constitutional validity of the penal provision. Venkataramani said the consultation process has been at the advance stage and before it goes to the Parliament, it will be shown to him. "Kindly post the matter for further hearing after the Monsoon session of Parliament," he urged the bench. At the outset, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the bench to constitute a bench of seven judges for adjudicating the issues. The bench said that even if

Citizens are at liberty to choose religion: Tamil Nadu government to SC

Tamil Nadu government has told SC that no incident of forceful conversion has been reported in the State in the last many years and citizens are at liberty to choose the religion they want to follow

SC says it can dissolve marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown

The Supreme Court on Monday held that it can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S K Kaul said the apex court is empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court to do "complete justice" in any matter pending before it. "We have. held that it is possible for this court to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage," the bench, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari, said. The apex court delivered the verdict on a batch of petitions relating to the exercise of its vast powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve broken-down marriages between consenting couples without referring them to family courts for protracted judicial proceedings to get the decree of separation.

SC to hear pleas challenging validity of penal law on sedition on Monday

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a batch of pleas, including one filed by the Editors Guild, challenging the validity of the colonial era sedition law. The Centre is expected to apprise the court of the steps taken so far with regard to reviewing the contentious penal provision. On October 31 last year, the top court had extended its May 11 direction putting on hold the sedition law and the consequential registration of FIRs while granting additional time to the government to take "appropriate steps" for reviewing of the provision. According to the apex court's website, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala has listed as many as 16 petitions challenging the validity of the law for hearing. The central government, which has to review the provision, on October 31 last year, had told the bench that it be granted some more time as "something may happen in the winter session of Parliament". Attorney General R Venkataramani had said t

Act swiftly against hate speech or face contempt, SC tells states

According to data collated by the National Crime Records Bureau, cases saw almost a sixfold increase between 2014 and 2020

Fully cooperating with probe, says Adani after Sebi's extension request

A US-based short seller named Hindenburg report charged Adani Group with financial wrongdoings in its investigation on February 25

SC verdict likely on May 1 on divorce without referring to family courts

The Supreme Court will likely pronounce on May 1 its verdict on broad parameters for exercising its vast powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages between consenting couples without referring them to family courts. A five-judge constitution bench of Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari had reserved its judgement on September 29, 2022. While reserving its order, the court had said social changes take a "little time" and sometimes it is easier to bring a law but difficult to persuade society to change with it. The apex court had acknowledged the large role a family plays in marriages in India. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court to do "complete justice" in any matter pending before it. The apex court is also considering whether its sweeping powers under Article 142 are inhibited in any manner in a scenario where a marriage has irretrievably broken down in the opin

SC asks MP to re-examine reservation for state residents in B.Ed admission

The Supreme Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to re-examine its policy of granting 75 per cent quota to state residents in admission to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) courses, terming it "wholesale reservation" which is unconstitutional. The top court said reserving 75 per cent of the seats for the residents of Madhya Pradesh is "too high", and as the figures for the last two years indicate, it is not serving the intended purpose. A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia said though the state is within its rights to reserve seats for its residents, while doing so it must keep the ground realities in mind. "The number of seats from the next academic year shall therefore be fixed again for residents and non-residents, keeping in mind the observations made by us in this order. "We make it clear that though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75 per cent of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, .

Top Headlines: Sebi on Adani row probe, H-1B lottery system fraud & more

Business Standard brings you top news at this hour

Supreme Court quashes criminal case against SAD's Parkash Singh Badal

The Supreme Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) patriarch Parkash Singh Badal, who died two days ago, and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal in a forgery case, saying the summons issued by the trial court was "nothing but abuse of process of law". A bench of justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar, which had reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas filed by the Badals and senior Akali leader Daljit Singh Cheema on April 11, quashed the summons issued by the Hoshiarpur trial court in Punjab and upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. "In view of the reasons, and even assuming the complaint's averments to be true, do not make out the ingredients of the offences, for which the trial court has passed the summoning order," the bench said. It said, "Under the circumstances to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellants (Badals and Cheema)- accused arising out of the complaint and to face the trial by the accused as per the summoning order

SC directs states, UTs to register cases against those making hate speech

From quashing proceedings against Parkash Singh Badal in a forgery case to hearing Delhi Police's response in WFI row, here are some of the important cases that were heard by the court today

'Merely a proposal': Centre to Supreme Court on lifting pesticide ban

Registration committee is a technical statutory body that evaluates the efficacy and safety of insecticides under the specified conditions for use in the country

Sebi likely to seek more time from Supreme Court in Adani Group case

Deadline to submit status report is May 2

Supreme Court grants bail to Hardik Patel in 2015 Patidar stir case

The Supreme Court Friday granted bail to BJP leader Hardik Patel in a case lodged against him in connection with the violence during the Patidar stir in Gujarat in 2015 subject to his "diligent participation" in the investigation. A bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli made its earlier order granting protection to Patel absolute. "This court had in February 2020 issued notice and had granted interim protection. Three-and-a-half years have passed since then. In these circumstances, we see no reason to alter the order at this juncture. "Hence, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue till the completion of further process, subject to his diligent participation in the process, if called upon to do so," the bench said while disposing of the plea filed by Patel. The top court was hearing a 2020 plea filed by Patel challenging the Gujarat High Court order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea after considering the government's objection on grounds of

SCBA terms BCI resolution on same sex marriage 'highly inappropriate'

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has condemned a resolution passed by the Bar Council of India which said the apex court should desist from hearing the pleas seeking legalisation of same-sex marriage, terming it "highly inappropriate." In a resolution adopted on April 23, the BCI had expressed its concern over the same-sex marriage issue being heard in the Supreme Court, saying it would be "catastrophic" to overhaul something as fundamental as the conception of marriage by the court and the matter should be left to the legislature. Responding to the resolution, the SCBA statement, signed by a majority of its members, said it is the duty of the court to decide if the issue should be adjudicated by the court or left to the wisdom of Parliament. "The SCBA Executive Committee feels it is highly inappropriate for the BCI to issue a Press Statement dated April 23, 2023 opposing a hearing of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Court to hear the petiti

SC rejects plea against Bihar govt's decision to conduct caste-based survey

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea against the Bihar government's decision to conduct a caste-based survey in the state. A bench of Justices M R Shah and J B Pardiwala allowed the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court and directed it to decide the petition expeditiously. "Petitioner seeks permission to move an application which can be considered by the high court. "We permit the petitioner to file an appropriate interim application and request the high court to consider and finally decide at least the interim application at the earliest and preferably with three days of filing it," the bench said. The apex court clarified that it has not expressed anything on merits of the case. The first round of caste survey in Bihar was conducted between January 7 and 21. The second round started on April 15 and will continue till May 15. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this is a serious case where the Patna High Court has