‘We will hear Sabarimala Petitions’ says Supreme Court

Must Read

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Legal Profession

In recent times, we have seen the introduction of artificial intelligence on a small yet phenomenally successful scale in...

Approaching the von Neumann Bottleneck: Neuromorphic Computing & beyond

“There are one trillion synapses in a cubic centimeter of the brain. If there is such a thing as...

Is India Truly Following the Footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi?

On October 2, 2020, it was the 151st birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. India couldn’t celebrate it due to...

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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -