Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging tribunal's order confirming ban extension on SIMI
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the plea challenging the tribunal's July 24, 2024 order.
The tribunal was constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 after the Centre had on January 29, 2024 decided to extend the ban on SIMI for five years.
The SIMI was first declared outlawed in 2001 during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government and since then the ban has been extended periodically.
The SIMI was established on April 25, 1977 in Aligarh Muslim University as a front organisation of youth and students, having faith in Jamait-e-Islami-Hind (JEIH). However, the organisation declared itself independent in 1993 through a resolution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC declines plea to deregister AIMIM, suggests broader petition on communal appeals
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to deregister parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen as a political party. A bench of justices Surya Kant and justice Joymala Bagchi suggested that the petitioner could file a plea on the larger issue of political parties invoking communal statements. "We are not on communal parties , etc. Sometimes, regional parties invoke regional sentiments... So what should be done... There are parties who also invoke caste issues that are equally dangerous. Without criticising anyone, such issues can be raised," justice Kant said. The bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh plea raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives. The plea was filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari , who alleged that AIMIM 's declared objectives were to serve the Muslim community alone, violating the principle of secularism, and hence it cannot be recognised as a political party. The bench, however, observed that as per the constitution of the party, its objective is to work for every backward section. The bench said the party's constitution is "for every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority community... backward both economically and in the field of education... that's what the Constitution professes". Justice Kant said, "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution... party's political manifesto or constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution." The senior judge pointed out that India's Constitution grants protection to minorities. "Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability; that is absolutely offending. That must be struck down, that must be banned... Suppose a religious law is protected under the Constitution and a political party says it will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected under the Constitution... What is only within the framework of the Constitution (that may not be objectionable)," justice Kant said. SC advised the petitioner to file a "neutral" petition.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Professors stare at shut doors in Punjab, govt silent
Ludhiana: A thousand doors that opened wide after years are bolted shut within a day. In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through Punjab's education system, the Supreme Court on Monday quashed the appointments of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians recruited in a landmark 2021 drive, ending the hopes of hundreds of qualified educators and reigniting fears over the state's crumbling higher education infrastructure. The top court found the recruitment process — touted at the time as a revival of govt colleges after two decades of hiring freeze — violated University Grants Commission (UGC) norms and lacked procedural integrity. The ruling has affected 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians who had joined more than 150 colleges across Punjab, some as recently as six months ago, others nearing the end of their probation. The fallout is most acute in Ludhiana district, where 116 teachers now face termination. "This affects 116 families here alone," said Jaspreet Sivian, a senior member of the teachers' coordination committee. "Across the state, it's a thousand homes. People who waited years, met every eligibility rule — NET, PhD, teaching experience — are now being told none of it matters. It's heartbreaking." The Supreme Court held that bypassing the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and omitting key academic assessments, including viva voce, invalidated the appointments. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why! Techno Mag Learn More Undo The teachers, however, argue that the blame lies squarely with flawed govt procedure, not the candidates. "Why should we pay the price for bureaucratic shortcuts?" asked a professor from a Ludhiana college. "We cleared every bar the system set for us. Now we're being punished for the state's mistakes. And the worst part? Not a single word yet from the Punjab govt." Many affected teachers say they have now aged out of eligibility for future recruitment. Saurabh Kumar, a Hindi professor with 12 years of experience, had cleared NET (National Eligibility Test) and earned a PhD. But now, at 38, he exceeds the general category age limit of 37. "I was regularised finally after years of part-time work. And now, I may never be eligible again," he said. The pain is amplified by silence. "The verdict came yesterday. Still, the govt hasn't announced a single step, not a plan, not even an apology," said another member of the faculty. "The silence is deafening." Several teachers had already left private jobs to join govt posts under the impression of long-term stability. Institutes that saw hope for academic revival finally — like Ludhiana's SCD Govt College, which had only 6 permanent teachers before 2021 — now face returning to those conditions. The committee representing the affected teachers has announced its intention to file a review petition, and if needed, a curative one — the last legal recourse available. "Until then, no terminations should be issued," Sivian pleaded. "The Punjab govt should stand with us. Over a thousand families are now in crisis after two decades of waiting and years of honest service." The ruling has also drawn condemnation from alumni and education advocates. Brij Bhushan Goyal, alumnus and office-bearer of SCD College's alumni association, said: "This is not just the loss of jobs. It's the collapse of morale in our academic institutes. The state failed to defend its decision in court, and the victims are our teachers. What a pity. What a waste." What do you tell a teacher who taught through illness, who moved cities, who hung family hopes on a govt seal? What do you tell a scholar who has aged out of a professionthat never let her in properly? What do you tell a student who sees his classroom grow silent as staff rooms empty and chalkboards wait in vain? With campuses now facing staffing chaos and hundreds of careers on the brink, the verdict has not just ended appointments — it has reopened a crisis in public higher education that Punjab had only just begun to address.
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
A law to settle disputes, if neglectful to power, can sustain the inequalities it seeks to remedy
And don't you forget that you're being recorded On Monday, the Supreme Court in 'Vibhor Garg v. Neha' ruled that a husband's secretly-recorded phone calls with his wife are admissible evidence in a divorce litigation. Justice B V Nagarathna, writing for a 2-judge bench, invoked the exception under Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, which permits disclosure of communication between spouses in marital suits. The court reasoned that such recordings advance the constitutional right to a fair trial, and can override marital privacy. With that single move, the court reiterated a boundary that has long kept domestic surveillance at least technically suspect. It is now law that a spouse may listen in first and justify later, so long as the marriage is on the rocks. The judgment demands close scrutiny, as it fails to consider the power imbalances underlying privacy breaches. Snooping as coercive control: The court treats clandestine recordings as a mere effect of marital breakdown, not a cause. However, this reasoning ignores the phenomenon of coercive control. Call-recording apps installed without consent, insistence on shared passwords and unlocked phones, and forced access to WhatsApp chats and UPI SMS alerts are scenarios Indian counsellors routinely hear from survivors of domestic abuse, primarily women. Most times, surveillance precedes, and often precipitates, marital discord. Women's rights activists and family lawyers reiterate that domestic surveillance is an intrusive and all-consuming method of gendered domination. By holding that secret clips, however obtained, are presumptively admissible, the judgment incentivises spying - especially for the spouse who enjoys economic leverage or technological literacy. Courts could have insisted on a proportionality filter: admit only material that could not be gathered by less-intrusive means, and weigh whether the act of snooping itself constituted a form of abuse. Instead, the ruling raises the stakes for many wives already monitored by their husbands or in-laws, and sharpens the pressure to 'behave' under watch. Sanctity v. privacy: To justify this outcome, the bench reaches back to the Victorian rationale of Section 122. Shielding privileged communication between spouses protects the 'sanctity of marriage'. The court now says that once marital harmony is eroded, so must the privilege; privacy plays no independent role. This reasoning justifies a 200-year-old outdated rationale, instead of subjecting it to the latest constitutional tests of privacy. Since the authoritative 9-judge bench 2017 judgment in the 'Justice K S Puttaswamy' case, informational privacy has been declared a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Every statutory limit on this must pass a proportionality test. State infringement of privacy must be: Be proportionate to the need for such interference. Have procedural guarantees against abuse of power. The spirit of Puttaswamy ideally should be followed here, even when the breach is by a private party. A blanket licence for covert recordings, which ignores the means of recording and their centrality to the litigation at hand, would fail the proportionality test's requirement of necessity and minimal court's refusal to run Section 122 through the 'Puttaswamy filter' echoes the logic that once kept marital rape outside the penal code. Marriage was said to confer perpetual consent to sexual acts between spouses. For several decades, this rationale was unquestioningly accepted as legitimate. Constitutional adjudication should do the opposite in all these cases - interrogate inherited rationales, not inherit them rights activists have long argued that privacy cannot shield domestic violence. The state should step into the home when there's abuse. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is rooted in that insight. Yet, women's rights also insist that intrusions on privacy be evaluated through the lens of power and vulnerability.'Vibhor Garg' ignores this safeguard. It allows the spouse with the tech tools to trample upon privacy, even when the surveillance itself may be a form of abuse. A rights-sensitive approach should perhaps ask: was the recording coerced? Was it a tool of clandestine control? Admitting such evidence without that inquiry risks turning the courtroom into an extension of the abusive household, where such control is legitimised through Supreme Court has shown that it can balance public interest with personal liberty. In 'Selvi v. State of Karnataka' (2010), it permitted narco-analysis only when the accused gives consent and strict procedural safeguards are observed. In 'Vibhor Garg', however, it reads the Evidence Act mechanically and only weighs privacy against marital far richer constitutional values of autonomy, dignity and equality hardly make an appearance. The exception in Section 122 should be subjected to a proportionality inquiry. Until then, 'Vibhor Garg' stands as a cautionary tale: a law framed to settle disputes, if inattentive to power, can perpetuate the very inequalities it seeks to remedy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best? How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip? F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
