Latest news with #SC
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'Social Justice 2.0': Mallikarjun Kharge's photo 'blocks' Ambedkar portrait at Congress's meet; BJP calls it 'hypocrisy'
NEW DELHI: Congress party's "Social Justice 2.0" meeting attracted attention for all the wrong reasons after pictures from a party meet showed BR Ambedkar's portrait being pushed aside to make way for Mallikarjun Kharge 's photograph. The meeting, ironically, was held to discuss the issues faced by SC, ST and OBC communities, and was attended by top party leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Kharge, KC Venugopal and Revanth Reddy. The Bharatiya Janata Party was quick to call out the "hypocrisy" with its IT chief Amit Malviya saying, "Congress never misses a chance to preach about social justice, but their actions speak otherwise. Just look at how Baba Saheb Ambedkar's photo has been pushed to the corner and overshadowed, while Mallikarjun Kharge's picture takes centre stage. So much for respecting icons of social empowerment. Hypocrisy has truly become Congress's second nature. " Congress, which gave the war cry of "Save the Constitution" and has always advocated for a caste-based census, is yet to comment on the matter. The pictures of the meeting were also shared by the leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge, who termed it "Congress party's Social Justice 2.0". "Congress party's Social Justice 2.0 —a new movement for social justice, equity and empowerment of the weaker sections has begun in Telangana. Our unwavering fight, spearheaded by Shri @RahulGandhi for justice is giving voice to the millions from SC, ST, OBC, EWS communities who have been sidelined for decades. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Swelling and internal bleeding in the brain, help this baby Donate For Health Donate Now Undo Despite forming a vast majority of India's population, these communities are glaringly absent from top corporate boards, the judiciary, bureaucracy, and premier institutions," Kharge's X post said. "Our demand was to conduct a nationwide Caste Census and remove the arbitrary 50% cap on reservations. This Govt has accepted to conduct the Caste Survey under huge public pressure, but without removing the cap. But the scientific manner in which Telangana has conducted its survey must be a role model for the entire nation. Based on this groundbreaking socio-economic survey, our Government in Telangana has recommended 42% reservations for OBCs in local body elections and educational institutions. This significant bill is currently awaiting the assent of the Hon'ble President of India," it added.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 yrs, SC told Jaising, who is assisting the top court in "Nipun Saxena v. Union of India" case, has filled her written submissions challenging the blanket criminalisation of sexual activity involving adolescents aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 and Section 375 of IPC. She has argued the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights. Jaising said the legal framework wrongly equates consensual relationships between adolescents with abuse, ignoring their autonomy, maturity, and capacity to consent. 'There is no rational reason or empirical data to justify the increase in the age of consent from 16 to 18 years,' Jaising submitted, noting that the age had remained at 16 for over 70 years until it was raised by the Criminal Law Act, 2013. She pointed out the increase came without debate and went against the Justice Verma Committee's recommendation to retain 16 as the age of consent. The amicus curiae submitted adolescents today attain puberty earlier and are capable of forming romantic and sexual relationships of their choice. Scientific and social data, including findings from the National Family Health Survey, indicate sexual activity among teenagers is not uncommon, she said. Jaising cited a 180 per cent rise in prosecutions under POCSO involving minors aged 16–18 between 2017 and 2021. 'Most complaints are filed by parents, often against the girl's will, in cases involving inter-caste or inter-faith relationships,' she said, cautioning criminalising consensual sex 'forces young couples into hiding, marriage or legal trouble, instead of encouraging open dialogue and education". To address this, she urged the court to read into the law a 'close-in-age' exception, which would exempt consensual sexual acts between adolescents aged 16 to 18 from prosecution under POCSO and IPC. 'Criminalising sex between teenagers is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the best interests of children,' she said. The senior lawyer referred to international norms and Indian jurisprudence to argue that legal capacity is not strictly age-bound. Quoting the UK's Gillick ruling and India's own Puttaswamy privacy judgment, she said 'autonomy in decision-making is central to the right to privacy' and must extend to adolescents capable of informed sexual choices. The submission also pointed to trends in various high courts, including Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya, where judges have expressed disapproval over the automatic prosecution of adolescent boys under POCSO. These courts have stressed not all sexual acts involving minors are coercive, and the law should distinguish between abuse and consensual relationships. Jaising concluded urging the top court to declare consensual sex between adolescents aged between 16 and 18 was not a form of abuse and must be excluded from the purview of POCSO and rape laws. She called for a review of the mandatory reporting obligations under Section 19 of POCSO, which deter adolescents from seeking safe medical care. 'Sexual autonomy is part of human dignity,' she said, "and denying adolescents the ability to make informed choices about their own bodies was a violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution." This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
37 years after raping a minor, Rajasthan man, now 53, is declared a juvenile
Thirty-seven years after he raped an 11-year-old girl in Rajasthan's Ajmer, a man was declared a juvenile by the Supreme Court, which upheld his conviction by lower courts but directed him to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) instead. The man, now almost 53, was convicted and sentenced in February 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer, for rape and wrongful confinement. This was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in July last year. However, his lawyers claimed before the SC bench, comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident in November 1988. They said that his date of birth is September 14, 1972, and therefore, on the date of the incident, his age would be 16 years 2 months and 3 days. Since he was a juvenile, the proceedings as held cannot sustain, especially the sentence, they said. They had also prayed that an inquiry be held to determine his age 'so that he may get the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.' In January this year, the SC directed the Ajmer District and Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry into the claims of the petitioner, complete its findings in eight weeks and report to the SC. After the school admission and other documents confirmed his date of birth in September 1972, the SC ruled, 'The Appellant was therefore a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime.' With the issue of age not being raised in earlier courts, the SC said that 'authoritative judgments passed by this Court … (have) categorically held that the plea of juvenility can be raised before any court and has to be recognised at any stage, even after disposal of the case.' 'Consequently, the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court will have to be set aside, as the same cannot sustain. We order accordingly,' the SC said, referring the case to the Board for passing appropriate orders and directed the man to appear before the Board on September 15, 2025.
News18
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- News18
News 18 Afternoon Digest: Passenger Plane With 50 On Board Goes Missing, 9 Killed, 14 Injured In Cambodian Attacks & Other Stories
Last Updated: We are also covering: SC Says 'Won't Make Same Mistake' On HC's Bail Relief To Actor Darshan, First Visuals Show Missing Russian Aircraft's Debris and other stories. In today's News18 afternoon digest, we bring to you the latest on the Russian plane crash, the Renukaswamy murder case, Thailand-Cambodia Border Clash and other top stories. Debris Found After Passenger Plane With 50 On Board Goes Missing In Russia's Far East, All Feared Dead A passenger plane with nearly 50 people on board went missing in Russia's far east on Thursday. According to IFAX, the debris of the plane was found in the eastern Amur region. Multiple reports suggested all people on board the plane died and that there were no survivors. However, there was no official confirmation on the same. Read More The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on the Karnataka government's plea challenging the High Court's decision to grant bail to actor Darshan and others in the Renukaswamy murder case. The court questioned the manner in which the High Court gave the order granting bail to actor Darshan and others. Actor Shilpa Shirodkar, who starred in hits like Hum, Aankhen, and Khuda Gawah, has opened up about her new way of life post her Bigg Boss 18 stint. Shilpa mentioned that after staying in the Bigg Boss 18 house, she doesn't spend much time in the kitchen and only uses three ingredients to cook her food. This move even left her husband surprised. Read More With a full four days left in the Manchester Test, India are in danger of being reduced to 10 batters against England after Rishabh Pant copped a blow to his right foot that forced him off the field on the opening day. While the severity of Pant's injury is still unknown, former cricketers including Ravi Shastri, Ricky Ponting, Michael Atherton are concerned that the reaction from Pant indicates it could be quite serious and potentially end his England tour prematurely. Read More view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 24, 2025, 13:48 IST 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.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Mint
7/11 Mumbai blasts: SC stays HC acquittal verdict, but 12 freed men won't return to jail—here's why
7/11 Mumbai blasts: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the July 21 Bombay High Court's judgment that acquitted the 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. July 21. The top court, however, did not stay the release of all the 12 acquitted persons in the case. The Supreme Court noted the Maharashtra government's concern that the July 21 Bombay High Court ruling could adversely impact several pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The Supreme Court bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notices to all 12 men and sought their replies on the state's appeal. 'We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, there will be a stay of the impugned judgment,' the court said in its brief order. In its July 21 verdict, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case of 2006. All the 12 accused have already walked free following their acquittal earlier this week. The HC quashed the judgment of a special MCOCA court, which handed over the death sentence to five and life term to seven people accused of conspiring and executing the Mumbai train bomb blasts on July 11, 2006. Convicts Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan were handed over the death penalty for planting the bombs. Among other convicts, Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh, and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh were granted life terms. Maharashtra government challenged the Bombay HC judgement in the Supreme Court with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis calling the HC judgement 'very unfortunate.' In the Supreme Court, however, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that he was not seeking an order to direct the accused persons, who have been released from prison following the judgment, to surrender. However, he requested a stay of the judgment, saying that some of the observations made by the High Court in the judgment can impact other pending trials under the MCOCA, legal news website LiveLaw reported. "Your lordships may consider saying, the judgment is stayed, however, they will not be required to come back to the prison," SG said. The SC accepted the contention and said the Bombay HC ruling shall not carry precedential value until further orders. In its order, the SC bench said it was not necessary to bring the 12 acquitted persons back to jail. "We have been informed that all the respondents have been released and there is no question of bringing them back to the prison," the SC bench court said. We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Seven bombs had ripped through the local lines in Mumbai on November 7, 2006. A total of 189 citizens lost their lives and nearly 820 innocents sustained severe injuries in these blasts, which are also known as the infamous "7/11 Mumbai Blasts." (With inputs from LiveLaw)
