‘We will hear Sabarimala Petitions’ says Supreme Court

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it would hear Sabarimala petitions on the extent of strict religious freedom available to residents over various beliefs before applying its mind as to if authorities ought to be pulled up for contempt for not complying to its 13-year-old judgment that police shouldn’t become a tool within the hands of the government and politicians.

The event came when advocate Prashant Bhushan requested for an urgent hearing of contempt petitions pending on the non-execution of the Prakash Singh judgment of September 22, 2006, which had given explicit mandates to unshackle the police from political impacts.

Mr. Bhushan made the dire notice especially within the light of analysis that the Delhi Police didn’t act with alacrity to stop violence and spare lives before and through the riots which shook the capital city of Delhi.

However, CJI Sharad A. Bobde, before whom the solicitation was made, said the court would initially hear the Sabarimala case. A nine-judge Constitution Bench has been formed to make a decision regarding the extent of religious freedom under Article 25 and on what might acclimate as basic strict practices.

It was uniquely on February 26 that Justice K.M. Joseph of the Supreme Court, while hearing the Shaheen Bagh Case, remarked on the “absence of professionalism” by the Delhi Police relating to stopping individuals from making hate speeches, which prompted the Delhi riots.

“In the event that you had not permitted people to urge away after incendiary comments, all this is capable to not have occurred,” Justice Joseph had said.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who was the lead judge in the Shaheen Bagh Case, had additionally portrayed the examples of communal violence in Delhi as “deeply unfortunate”.

A third Supreme Court judge, Justice Deepak Gupta, had at an open gathering, red-flagged the rising number of sedition cases against activists, attorneys and students and marking voices of dissent as “anti-nationals”. Expressing dissent to government’s policies did not amount to acting against the nation, he had said.

The Prakash Singh judgment had held that “responsibility, dedication and commitment of the police need to be just towards the rule of law”.

“The supervision and control have to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures,” the Supreme Court had held in Prakash Singh Judgement in 2006.

The pinnacle court had underlined that the approach of the police ought to be service-oriented. The police should not act in such a way that the rule of law became a casualty. If the police crossed the limits of the law, the guilty among them should be brought to book.

The judgment had mentioned ‘Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police‘ published in 1979 by Bureau of Police Research and Development, cautioning that inordinate control of the politicians and its key personnel over the police has the inborn danger of creating the police, a device for subverting the rule of law, promoting the expansion of dictatorship and shaking the very establishments of government and the democracy.

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -