The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave petitioners time to respond to a Gujarat government affidavit which showed that the Special Judge and the CBI in Mumbai opposed the premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case while the Centre and Gujarat authorities went ahead to approve the proposal to set them free early.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar scheduled the next hearing on November 29.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had sought time to file a reply. The court asked Gujarat and a lawyer appearing for the accused to hand over copies of their counter affidavits to all the lawyers involved in the case.
The affidavit filed on late Monday by the State of Gujarat revealed that while the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai and the Special Judge (CBI) of Greater Bombay opposed the premature release, all the authorities in Gujarat and the Home Ministry recommended their release.
“All the prisoners have completed 14 plus years in the prison under life imprisonment and opinions of the authorities concerned have been obtained as per the premature release policy of 1992 and submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated June 28, 2022 and sought the approval of the Government of India. The Government of India conveyed the concurrence/approval of the Central government under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for premature release of 11 prisoners in a letter on July 11, 2022,” the 57-page affidavit has said.
The State clarified that, contrary to popular perceptions, the early release of the 11 convicts was not as per a circular allowing remission to prisoners as part of the celebration of ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav’.
The State government has maintained that it followed the 1992 Premature Release Policy. The remission was granted on August 10, 2022.
The State said it was the Supreme Court itself which had allowed it to consider the case of the 11 prisoners under the Premature Release Policy of 1992. The court had in May 2022 held that remission would be considered as per the policy which was in vogue at the time of conviction.
The court’s judgment had come in a plea filed by one of the 11 convicts, Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah. The court had even directed the Gujarat government to consider the application of Shah within two months, the affidavit said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Gujarat, and advocate Rishi Malhotra, for the accused, have both challenged the locus standi of “third party petitioners” to challenge the premature release”. They dubbed the petitioners as “interlopers”.
Centre files affidavit on Uniform Civil Code in SC, says different religions following different laws affronting national unity
Citizens belonging to different religions and denominations follow different property and matrimonial laws which is an “affront to the nation’s unity”. Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code) divests religion from social relations and personal law, the government has maintained in the Supreme Court.
The preliminary submissions are part of recent affidavits filed by the Union Law Ministry to petitions, which were filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking directions from the apex court to the government to remove “anomalies” and frame uniform divorce law and uniform guidelines for adoption and guardianship of children.
The government said the power to make laws is exclusively that of the legislature. The court cannot give a “mandamus to Parliament to make certain laws”.
“This is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of the people to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the court. It is for the legislature to enact or not enact a piece of legislation,” the Ministry said. It added Upadhyay’s petition was not maintainable.
The Ministry said it had requested the Law Commission to examine “various issues relating to the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)” and make recommendations considering the sensitivity and in-depth study involved of various personal laws governing different communities.
The 21st Law Commission had uploaded a consultation paper titled ‘Reform of Family Law’ subsequently in August 2018. But the term of the 21st Law Commission had come to an end on August 31, 2018.
“The subject matter will be placed before the 22nd Law Commission for its consideration when the Chairman and Members of the Commission are appointed. As and when the report of the Law Commission in the matter is received, the government would examine the same in consultation with the various stakeholders involved,” the Law Ministry said.
Though the 22nd Law Commission was constituted way back in 2020, the chairperson has not been appointed so far.
Elaborating on the common civil code, the government said the Directive Principles of State Policy “creates an obligation upon the state to endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the country under Article 44 [of the Constitution]”.
It said the expression ‘Uniform Civil Code’ denotes the fields of personal law relating to marriage, divorce, maintenance, custody and guardianship of children, inheritance and succession and adoption.
The Ministry said the purpose of Article 44 was to strengthen the object of the ‘Secular Democratic Republic’ enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. “This provision is provided to effect integration of India by bringing communities on the common platform on matters which are at present governed by diverse personal laws,” the affidavit said.
Ankita Bhandari murder case: Slain receptionist’s father dissatisfied with SIT investigation, demands CBI probe
The father of slain receptionist Ankita Bhandari expressed his dissatisfaction with the ongoing probe in the case and demanded a CBI investigation into her killing. Headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) P Renuka Devi, a special investigations team (SIT) has been investigating the case since September 25. A chargesheet in the case is likely to be filed shortly, officials said.
Ankita Bhandari’s father Virendra Bhandari, mother Soni Devi and brother, at Srikot Village in Pauri Block in Pauri Garhwal District of Uttarakhand State. File | Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar
“I demand from Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami to order a CBI probe into Ankita’s murder. I am not satisfied with the ongoing investigations by the SIT,” her father Virendra Singh Bhandari said at the start of a Tiranga Yatra from his home at Dobh Srikot in Pauri district on Monday.
The yatra is being carried out by students and social workers of the area to demand justice for Bhandari. It will conclude at the Vanantara Resort where Bhandari worked in the district’s Yamkeshwar block near Rishikesh.
Bhandari was allegedly killed by resort owner owner Pulkit Arya, manager Saurabh Bhaskar and assistant manager Ankit Gupta when she resisted their attempts to force her to offer “extra services” to a VIP guest. The murder had triggered a massive public outrage.
Arya, now in jail along with the other two accused, is the son of former BJP leader Vinod Arya, who was expelled from the party soon after the murder came to light.
Indus Waters Treaty: World Bank appoints neutral expert, chairman of Court of Arbitration
The World Bank has appointed a “neutral expert” and a chairman of the Court of Arbitration regarding the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power plants, in view of disagreements and differences between India and Pakistan over the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.
Announcing the appointments, the World Bank said on October 17 that it is confident that the highly qualified experts appointed as Neutral Expert and as members of the Court of Arbitration will engage in fair and careful consideration of their jurisdictional mandate, as they are empowered to do by the Treaty.
Michel Lino has been appointed as the Neutral Expert and Sean Murphy has been appointed as Chairman of the Court of Arbitration. They will carry out their duties in their individual capacity as subject matter experts and independently of any other appointments they may currently hold, the World Bank said in a statement.
There was no immediate reaction from India to the appointments.
India and Pakistan signed the treaty in 1960 after nine years of negotiations, with the Washington-based World Bank being a signatory. The treaty sets out a mechanism for cooperation and information exchange between the two countries regarding their use of the rivers. However, India and Pakistan disagree over whether the technical design features of Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power plants contravene the Treaty.
Pakistan asked the World Bank to facilitate the establishment of a Court of Arbitration to consider its concerns about the designs of the two hydroelectric power projects, while India asked for the appointment of a Neutral Expert to consider similar concerns over the two projects, the statement said.
“The World Bank continues to share the concerns of the parties that carrying out the two processes concurrently poses practical and legal challenges. The World Bank is confident that the highly qualified experts appointed as Neutral Expert and as members of the Court of Arbitration will engage in fair and careful consideration of their jurisdictional mandate, as they are empowered to do by the Treaty,” it said.
Under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), all the waters of the eastern rivers—Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi—amounting to around 33 million acre feet (MAF) annually is allocated to India for unrestricted use. The waters of western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—amounting to around 135 MAF annually have been assigned largely to Pakistan. India is permitted to construct the run of the river plants on western rivers with limited storage as per criteria specified in the treaty.
In Brief:
A Delhi court on Tuesday refused to cancel the bail of Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav on a plea moved by the CBI in connection with the IRCTC scam.
Special Judge Geetanjali Goel, however, asked Yadav to be more careful and choose appropriate words. The CBI had claimed that at a recent press conference, Yadav had attempted to subvert the process of law and thwart the entire investigation as well as the consequent trial, and “blatantly abused the liberty granted to him.” The court passed the directions after hearing arguments during which Yadav claimed that he did not violate any condition set in the bail granted to him earlier.
Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.
