The Petitioner contended that the EC’s circular is contrary to the mandate of Article 80 (4) of the Constitution of India and the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another v. Union of India. They further argue that the EC’s circular is unconstitutional as the Rules relied upon to make the voting provisions do not even remotely conceive of NOTA.
The Supreme Court has stated that the Allahabad High Court misdirected itself and dismissed the prayers of the Petitioners despite compelling facts and circumstances of the case, as well as a lack of due appreciation of the evidence and law. In the case, the accused is the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath.
Adding to the historical tussle between the Indian Legislature and Judiciary, the Constitutional Bench is now questioning the eligibility of politicians involved in criminal allegations. The back-and-forth observed in the hearing is evident in realizing the anxieties surrounding the overlapping powers of the institutions.
A Standard Operation Procedure (SoP) to dispose of the claims and objections after the release of NRC as proposed by the Central Government was placed before the Supreme Court. As per the Government, the disposal of claims and objections will be done through holding of hearings. Claimants will be required to bring evidence including recorded oral evidence to support their claim.
Tribunal in its long report running into 2,700 pages has recommended for changes in the Act of 1956 and as well as in the functioning of Central Water Commission as it found many shortcomings in its report. It has in total allocated 38.25 tmc of water of inter-state river Mahadayi, which consists of 24 tmc to Goa, 13.4 tmc to Karnataka and 1.33 tmc to Maharashtra.
279 teachers voted in favour of him being relieved, 8 voted in favour of the VC staying. In total, 300 out of 586 listed faculty turned up for the referendum. Eight votes were invalid and five voters abstained from voting. Out of the 51% of the faculty participating in the referendum, only 2.67 percent of the faculty wanted VC Jagdesh Kumar to remain in his office. While a staggering 93 percent of the faculty wanted him to vacate his office.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising and advocate Sunil Fernandes — appearing for the petitioner, a relative of Talib Hussain — submitted that the moment there’s torture perpetrated against the accused/prisoner, the custody becomes unlawful. Supreme Court has issued a notice to the J&K Police to file a reply to the allegations. The matter will be next heard on August 21, 2018.
Another eyewitness and a close aide of Talib Hussain has alleged that he was brutally beaten on August 5. ‘There is a huge bump in his skull. Blood is visible through the bandaged head. However, there are no records in the hospital.’ Talib’s aide further alleged that none of his relatives are allowed to visit Talib Hussain in the jail.
While requesting the Court to stay the Order, KK Venugopal, Attorney General of India submitted that, ‘The insensivity of the Court towards social justice cause and judicial dilution of a stringent protective social justice legislation by resorting to judicial excess in total disregard to the legislative intent has been committed in passing of the directions.’
Jaising has specified in her written submissions that the M Nagaraj case erred in law to hold that Article 16(4-A) and (4-B) flow from Article 16(4). She insisted that such provisions draw source from Article 14 and 16 (1) instead of Article 16(4). She has next expressed her concern that the phrases "controlling factors" and "compelling reasons" as laid down in the M Nagaraj case have not been prescribed by the Constitutional language.
The police had been restrained from arresting Hussain by the J&K High Court in a case of domestic violence filed by his estranged wife. While the court order was issued on July 30, the sister-in-law of his wife filed a complaint of rape, committed allegedly a month and a half ago, on the very next day.