Latest news with #BarandBench
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
What did SC tell the 'qualified IT professional' who wanted crores in alimony after just 1.5 years of marriage?
In a strong message that may well set a precedent, the Supreme Court of India has drawn a sharp line between legitimate maintenance and unreasonable demands, especially in short-lived marriages. The apex court recently heard a high-profile alimony case where a woman demanded Rs 12 crore, a BMW car, and a luxury apartment in Mumbai, after just 18 months of marriage. The Court's response was firm: "You're educated, earn yourself." Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Operations Management CXO Public Policy others Others Data Science Healthcare Data Analytics Data Science Degree Digital Marketing MBA Cybersecurity Leadership Design Thinking Project Management Technology MCA Management PGDM Artificial Intelligence healthcare Product Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details As reported by Bar and Bench, the woman, a qualified IT professional with an MBA degree, had sought extravagant interim maintenance from her estranged husband, who she claimed was wealthy and had filed for annulment citing mental health issues, including schizophrenia. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Unsold Container Homes in South Cotabato - Prices You Won't Believe! Shipping Container Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo Her demands included: Rs 12 crore in alimony A BMW luxury car A high-end flat in Mumbai The matter was taken up by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria. Live Events CJI: 'Why don't you work?' During the hearing, CJI Gavai questioned the fairness of the woman's expectations considering her background. He said, as quoted by NDTV : 'You're an IT person. You've done your MBA. You're in demand in cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad... Why don't you work?' Highlighting that the marriage lasted only 18 months, the CJI further remarked (via Bar and Bench): 'It lasted just 18 months. And you are seeking a crore a month?' The Court viewed the demand as excessive and stressed that maintenance is not a substitute for self-reliance. The Court's Verdict: Dignity Over Dependence The Court offered the woman two options: Accept the luxury apartment without legal entanglements, or Opt for a one-time settlement of Rs 4 crore The Bench reiterated its stance with a powerful closing note: 'You are well-educated. You should not be depending on handouts. You should earn and live with dignity.' This case echoes a series of recent judgements where Indian courts clarified that maintenance laws are for support, not entitlement: In March 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 125 of CrPC is meant to protect, not reward, individuals who avoid work despite being qualified. The court said: 'A well-educated wife with ability and past work experience should not remain idle solely to claim maintenance.' In December 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that alimony cannot be claimed merely to match the husband's wealth. The Court said a husband is not obligated to maintain his ex-wife as per his rising financial status after separation. The Supreme Court's latest observation sends a powerful message: Education and skills are empowerment tools, and the law encourages individuals, especially women, to use them. Inputs from TOI
Scroll.in
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
‘Be patriots': Bombay HC rejects CPI(M) plea to hold protest rally against Israel's war on Gaza
The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the Mumbai Police's refusal to grant permission for a protest against Israel's war on Gaza, Live Law reported. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad urged the party to 'be patriots' and focus on domestic concerns rather than international affairs. 'Our country has enough issues,' Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying. 'We don't want anything like this. I am sorry to say, you are all short-sighted. You are looking at issues in Gaza and Palestine. Look at your own country.' The judges asked the CPI(M) to instead address local civic problems such as 'garbage dumping, pollution, sewerage, flooding', Bar and Bench reported. The court also cautioned that protests on sensitive foreign issues like Gaza could trigger diplomatic repercussions. 'You don't know the dust it could kick up... getting on to the Palestine side or the Israel side,' the court said. 'Why do you want to do this? It's obvious, going by the party you represent that you don't understand what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country.' Advocate Mihir Desai, representing the petitioner, argued that the petition was about the right to free speech and peaceful assembly, Live Law reported. Desai also highlighted that CPI(M) had been active in public service, including organising health and education camps. The bench, however, noted that the Supreme Court has recently observed that the right to free speech is being misused, Live Law reported. While rejecting the plea, the bench also pointed out that the original application to hold the protest at Azad Maidan had been filed by the All India Peace and Solidarity Foundation, not the CPI(M). The court said that the party's petition was untenable as it challenged the rejection of the application filed by the All India Peace and Solidarity Foundation. Israel's military offensive in Gaza began in October 2023 after Palestinian militant group Hamas killed 1,200 persons during its incursion into southern Israel and took hostages. Israel has been carrying out unprecedented air and ground strikes on Gaza since then, leaving more than 61,000 persons dead.
News18
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- News18
'Movie Crime-Focused, Not Community-Targeted': Centre To Supreme Court On 'Udaipur Files'
Last Updated: The movie is based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was killed in June 2022 The government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the film Udaipur Files is 'crime-focused" and does not target any specific community. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, said the film does not vilify any community, adding that the dialogues are generic and references to terrorism are context-specific. 'The film is crime-focused and not community-targeted. Dialogues are generic. Terrorism references are context specific," Mehta said, Bar and Bench report The Solicitor General further noted that film's themes do not threaten foreign relations, and it was screened by a committee that also consulted the Ministry of External Affairs. '55 cuts as mandated by CBFC were implemented. The film does not vilify any community. All characters depicted are fictional composites," he added. The top court was hearing pleas both supporting and opposing the film's release. The movie is based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was killed in June 2022. The accused in the case, Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, allegedly murdered Lal over a social media post he shared supporting a former BJP leader. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Madani, argued that the film spreads hatred against Muslims and that hate speech should not be protected as free speech. He said, 'The whole movie is that. Everything about this movie spews venom against a community that is targeted." Javed also sought a stay on the film's release until the trial concludes. The case is being heard in a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jaipur. The accused were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court's decision on the film's release is awaited. 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.
Scroll.in
5 days ago
- Scroll.in
Karnataka HC quashes case against three men booked for distributing pamphlets promoting Islam
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a first information report against three Muslim persons who were booked for distributing pamphlets promoting Islam at a Hindu temple in May, Live Law reported on Wednesday. In the order delivered on July 17, Justice Venkatesh Naik T said that the allegations did not amount to an offence under the state's anti-conversion law, according to Bar and Bench. The case was registered on a complaint by a man who alleged that when he visited the Ramateerth temple in Jamkhandi city of Bagalkot district on May 4, the three persons were distributing pamphlets promoting Islamic teachings. The man alleged that they had also offered vehicles and jobs in Dubai as incentives to encourage conversion to Islam, and criticised Hinduism. The persons were booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections pertaining to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and punishment for criminal intimidation. They were also charged under Section 3(5) of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022, which states that converting persons through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or any fraudulent means is considered invalid. Quashing the case, the High Court held that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at face value, the persons accused in the matter had not converted or attempted to convert anybody. The court further noted that under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, complaints about conversion through fraudulent means can only be filed by the person who has been converted or their family. 'The absence of these essential elements renders the allegations insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act,' the court said.
