Latest news with #ColinGonsalves
United News of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
Colin Gonsalves moves SC to review verdict mandating three-year Bar practice for junior judges
New Delhi, July 16 (UNI) Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging its recent judgment that mandates a minimum of three years' practice at the Bar as a prerequisite for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran had, on May 20, ruled that candidates must have at least three years of practice as advocates to be eligible for entry into judicial service. The Court had directed all High Courts and State governments to amend their service rules accordingly. However, it clarified that the requirement would not apply where the recruitment process had already commenced prior to the judgment. The review petition, filed through Advocate Satya Mitra, has challenged the judgment on seventeen grounds. It argues that the Court overlooked five Law Commission reports (1924–1986) that had rejected mandatory Bar practice as an effective qualification for judicial appointments. The plea also cites the Second Judicial Pay Commission Report (2022), which recommended a fresh consultative process before imposing such criteria. Highlighting advancements in judicial training, the petition states that since 2002, State Judicial Academies have conducted structured pre-service training, including year-long residential programs, court attachments, and rigorous instruction in court procedures and evidence law. It further raises concerns about procedural fairness, alleging that affidavits collected from High Courts during the previous hearings were neither made public nor shared with aspiring candidates, depriving them of an opportunity to respond. The plea contends that the mandatory practice condition disproportionately affects women, who often face societal pressures to marry early, as well as aspirants from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Economically Weaker Sections, persons with disabilities, and transgender persons, who lack equal access to litigation mentorship and inclusive workspaces. Additionally, the petition criticises the Bar Council of India (BCI) for failing to protect student interests, pointing to high enrolment fees, the proliferation of unregulated law colleges, and delays in issuing licenses to young lawyers. UNI SNG RN
The Hindu
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Panel discussion held to seek justice for Rohingya refugees
Days after the Supreme Court called the petition moved against the Rohingya being 'cast into the international waters' by the Government of India as 'fanciful ideas', a panel of six members comprising human rights lawyers and social workers gathered to seek justice for the refugees. The panel discussion comes in the light of the Rohingya refugees living in the national capital alleging that their family members were picked up from their camps and deported overnight to a shore near the India-Myanmar border, left in the international waters with only a lifejacket. Following this, the Supreme Court bench hearing petitions from Rohingya refugees to put a stay on such deportations by the government, refused their plea. Human rights lawyers Prashant Bhushan, Colin Gonsalves, and social activist Harsh Mander were present at the panel discussion along with journalist Pamela Philipose, human rights activist Rita Manchanda and social worker Priyali Sur. During the discussion, the members of the panel presented a study of the various case studies and media reports, including one report by The Hindu on the subject matter. 'Inhumane' deportation Speaking in the panel, Mr. Bhushan presented case studies of families who were impacted by the 'inhumane' deportation. 'The deportation process that India followed for the Rohingya refugees not only violates the International law but also its own Constitutional laws,' he said. Deporting refugees to a country where there is a genocide against them goes against Constituional values of right to live and international genocide convention, the senior lawyer added. Adding to the conversation, Ms. Sur, a social worker running the Azaadi Project, an organisation that works for women survivors of war and conflict, said that while it is important to question how the Rohingya refugees could be left in the water, it is equally important to question the way they are treated inside the country. 'The community's name has become a taboo; there is unwarranted detention for years, the children are separated from their parents and the conditions of the detention centres is inhuman,' she pointed out.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
'Fanciful PILs': Supreme Court lashes out at frivolous petitions to block Rohingya deportation
Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Friday said that the central government had already deported a batch of Rohingya Muslims on May 8. He claimed that the deportees were handcuffed and sent off to the Andaman Islands, given life jackets and 'pushed towards Myanmar' read more The Supreme Court rebuked petitioners for filing successive PILs to stop the deportation of Rohingya Muslims. The court told senior advocate Colin Gonsalves that 'PILs after PILs cannot be filed' on the same issue unless there is some new fact backing their petitions. Earlier this month, a three-judge bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh refused to grant an interim stay on the apprehended deportation of Rohingyas, saying they are not Indian citizens and hence do not have the right to reside in the country. The PILs were argued by Gonsalves and advocate Prashant Bhushan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and questioned the validity of the UNHCR granting refugee status to Rohingyas. These individuals, originally from Myanmar, had fled to other countries due to severe threats to their lives from the military. Gonsalves on Friday said that the central government had already deported a batch of Rohingya Muslims on May 8. He claimed that the deportees were handcuffed and sent off to the Andaman Islands, given life jackets and 'pushed towards Myanmar'. They sought the help of fishermen after reaching the country to call their relatives in Delhi and informed them that they faced a threat to their lives. Justices Singh and Kant asked whether anyone can verify these details or not. 'When the country is facing such a situation at present, you cannot come up with fanciful PILs like this. There is no material to support vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Unless the petitioner provides prima facie credible material, it is difficult to pass an interim order which is contrary to the one refused on May 8 by a 3-J bench.' Gonsalves referred to a Supreme Court ruling on the protection of Chakma refugees to argue for similar relief for the Rohingyas. He also pointed to a UN report and an order from the International Court of Justice, asserting that the Rohingyas are refugees, not migrants, and their right to life protection is mandated by the UN. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court irked by repeated PILs to stop Rohingya deportation
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday was irked by successive attempts through PIL to stop alleged deportation of Rohingya Muslims within a fortnight and told senior advocate Colin Gonsalves that he can't be filing PIL after PIL on the same issue without any new fact to seek modification of SC's May 8 decision refusing relief. On May 8, a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh had refused to grant interim stay on apprehended deportation of Rohingyas despite spirited arguments from Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan. The bench had said Rohingyas, who are not Indian citizens, do not have a right to reside anywhere in the country. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta had said India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees and disputed validity of UNHCR granting refugee status to Rohingyas, who are from Myanmar and had fled to other countries because of serious threat to their lives from the military. On Friday, Gonsalves said on May 8 itself the Union govt had deported 28 Rohingyas, who were handcuffed and taken to Andaman Island, given life jackets and pushed towards Myanmar. After somehow reaching Myanmar, they took help of fishermen to make phone calls to their relatives in Delhi to inform them that they faced imminent threats to their lives. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The bench of Justices Kant and Singh said these are bald averments and who is there to verify these facts are true to his knowledge. 'When the country is facing such a situation at present, you cannot come up with fanciful PILs like this. There is no material to support vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Unless the petitioner provides prima facie credible material, it is difficult to pass an interim order which is contrary to the one refused on May 8 by a 3-J bench.' Gonsalves cited a SC judgement on protection of Chakma refugees to seek similar relief for Rohingyas. He also cited a UN Report as well as an order of the International Court of Justice to claim that Rohingyas are not migrants but refugees whose protection of lives is mandated by the UN. The bench said, 'We do not want to comment on the UN Report today. We will give an answer to that on July 31, when this petition along with the pending one would be taken up for hearing.' Gonsalves said this would allow govt to deport more Rohingyas, whose number exceed 8,000 in different parts of the country and 800 of them are in Delhi.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Right to reside is only for Indian citizens, not for Rohingyas, rules Supreme Court
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on May 8 declined to intervene in the alleged deportation of illegal Rohingya Muslim migrants from Delhi, saying that if Rohingya refugees in the country were found to be foreigners under Indian laws they will have to be deported. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves and lawyer Prashant Bhushan had urgently approached the court with appeals, asserting that the Rohingyas are at risk of genocide in Myanmar and contending that as refugees, they possess the right to remain in India. #Operation Sindoor India-Pakistan Clash Live Updates| Missiles, shelling, and attacks — here's all that's happening Pakistani Air Force jet shot down in Pathankot by Indian Air Defence: Sources India on high alert: What's shut, who's on leave, and state-wise emergency measures The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N Kotiswar Singh, ruled that the right to reside anywhere within India is limited to its citizens, indicating that non-citizens would be managed in accordance with the Foreigners Act. The court scheduled the hearing for the appeals on July 31. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Kanu Agrawal informed the bench that the Supreme Court had previously rejected requests to halt the deportation of Rohingya Muslims from Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. This decision followed the Central Government's expression of security concerns related to the Rohingyas' presence in India and the potential implications for national security. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The World's Most Stunning Blue Flag Beaches Ranked: Top 25 List! Read More Undo In response to Gonsalves and Bhushan's claims that the Rohingyas fled their homeland as a result of genocide perpetrated by the Myanmar Army, and that they have been recognized as refugees by the United Nations Human Rights Commission with issued refugee cards, they argued for their right to live and reside in India. However, the Solicitor General countered their arguments by asserting that the Rohingyas are classified as foreigners, and referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the Assam case, which stated that it would refrain from commenting on the conditions in Myanmar. He further explained that the court also indicated that the right against deportation is linked to the right of residence, which is exclusively available to Indian citizens. Live Events Despite these assertions, the Solicitor General assured the court that the deportation of illegal Rohingya migrants would adhere to due process under current laws and emphasized that India does not acknowledge them as refugees. He noted that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and questioned the legitimacy of the UNHCR's designation of them as refugees. The bench acknowledged that while the right to life under Article 21 applies to the Rohingya migrants, they are nonetheless classified as foreigners, and their situation will be handled in line with the Foreigners Act.
