SC to hear PIL on May 1 seeking judicial probe into Pahalgam terror attack
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Wednesday seeking the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir's Pahalgam that left 26 dead.According to ANI, the plea, filed by Kashmir resident Mohammad Junaid along with Fatesh Kumar Sahu and Vicky Kumar, also urges the apex court to issue directions to the Central government and the Union Territory administration to ensure enhanced protection for tourists visiting Kashmir.The matter has been listed for hearing before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Disturbing': SC asks YouTubers who joked about disabled to attend next hearing too
THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday reiterated its call for framing guidelines for social media users, balancing freedom of speech and expression with rights and duties. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this as it heard a plea by M/s SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Cure Foundation accusing YouTubers Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar of cracking insensitive jokes on persons with disabilities (PwDs). Complying with the court's direction during the last hearing, the five appeared before the Bench Tuesday. The Supreme Court gave them two weeks to file a counter-affidavit and directed all except Sonali Thakkar to appear again before the bench on the next date of hearing. Thakkar has been allowed to appear online. 'Respondents number 6-10 are present in court in compliance with our order. Their counsel seeks and is granted two weeks to file counter-affidavit… No further time shall be granted… Respondents 6-8 and 10 shall remain present in person on the next date as well. Any absence shall be viewed seriously. Respondent No.9 (Sonali Thakkar) is permitted to appear online,' the bench said in its order. Justice Kant said, 'Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined. (SMA Cure) Foundation has raised serious issues. Something very disturbing.' The court is also seized of two other petitions by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for clubbing of FIRs lodged against them in connection with allegedly objectionable remarks made on 'India's Got Latent' show. In May, the court while hearing Allahabadia's plea to club the FIRs against him had flagged the need to put regulations in place for social media use. It also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter. On Tuesday, the Attorney General sought more time to assist the court. He said the question of their enforceability will have to be considered at length. Allowing the request, Justice Kant said, 'We would like to test the guidelines… You have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts — where the limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start… We would like to invite open debate on that… Members of Bar, stakeholders and all so-called stakeholders, all invited.' He sought to stress that Article 21, which deals with the right to life and liberty, would prevail over Article 19, which deals with freedom of speech and expression. 'Right to dignity also emanates from the right which someone else is claiming… Article 19 can't overpower Article 21… Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place,' said Justice Kant. He also pointed to the need to ensure that the guidelines are not misused. 'What we are doing is for posterity. What we do should not be misused by anyone, you have to ensure that too. There has to be a balance. We have to protect citizens' rights,' Justice Kant remarked. Apology before NCW YouTuber Samay Raina appeared before the National Commission for Women (NCW) on Tuesday and submitted a written apology over remarks deemed disrespectful to women in his show 'India's Got Latent'. The NCW summoned Raina over objectionable content in the programme aired on an online platform. During the hearing before NCW chairperson Vijay Rahatkar, Raina expressed regret for his comments and assured the Commission that he would avoid such statements in the future, according to a statement. He also agreed to create content that upholds the dignity of women and spreads awareness about their rights and respect, the NCW statement said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Marriages sacrosanct in Hinduism, but strained by trivial disputes, says HC quashing dowry case
1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court observed that Hindu marriages, regarded as spiritual unions, are increasingly under threat from trivial disputes and prolonged litigation. While quashing a dowry harassment case filed in December 2023 against a Nagpur man and his family, the court noted such discord often causes irreversible damage to families and must be resolved with dignity, where reconciliation is not possible. The division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar passed the order on July 8 in response to a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered at Beltarodi police station under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 377 (unnatural offences) of IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act — all non-compoundable offences. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR, as the couple informed they had obtained a mutual divorce and settled their differences. "Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in society due to various factors," the bench observed. "Small issues between two individuals are spoiling lives, and marriages, which are sacrosanct in Hinduism." Noting that marriage is more than a social contract, the judges said, "It is a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, nowadays, these sacred marriages receive setbacks in such circumstances. The distress, disharmony, and lack of adjustment among individuals lead to conflict." The court pointed to misuse of matrimonial laws, saying that legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Special Marriage Act, though well-intentioned, is being misapplied. "This results in multiplicity of litigation, mental and physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss, and irreversible harm to children and other family members," the bench noted. It criticised the tendency of naming multiple family members of the husband in such cases, calling it a growing trend that demands a different judicial perspective. "If parties can settle their disputes amicably and live peacefully, it is the duty of courts to encourage such action," the judges said. Referring to Supreme Court's State of Maharashtra versus Chandrabhan case, the bench reiterated the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution is not limited to mere survival. "In matrimonial disputes, if reunion is not possible, it should be put to an end as early as possible. Otherwise, lives of individuals involved will be ruined, which would be violative of Article 21," the order stated. Emphasising the importance of peaceful closure, the court held that continuing criminal proceedings in such settled cases serves no public interest. "The court should support a respectful settlement to terminate litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty," it concluded.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
