Restitution provisions place a disproportionate burden on women and violate Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, say petitioner
On February 28, 2019, the Supreme Court stayed its February 13, 2019 order which could have caused possible eviction of 11.8 lakh tribal and traditional forest-dwellers. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Naveen Sinha and M R Shah has also asked the states to file affidavits stating clearly the procedure followed while rejecting the claims.
We appeal to the governments on both sides to refrain from further hostilities, overt or covert, and to resolve their differences within the framework of international law and human rights.
On February 27, 2019, the Central Government moved to the Supreme Court seeking to stay possible eviction of 11.8 lakh tribal and traditional forest-dwellers whose claims for right over forest land have been rejected under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Forest Rights Act). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned, before the bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha, the applications on behalf of the Central Government and the State of Gujarat for urgent hearing. The Court agreed to hear the matter tomorrow, February 28, 2019.
CJI asked both the parties there stand on the mediation as the way to resolve the dispute. CJI asked, “what would be the views of parties if we invoke section 89 of the CPC that is Settlement of disputes outside the Court?” Justice Bobde offering the mediation in the matter asked that “even if there is a 1% chance, it should be done” and sought the view of the parties.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph has agreed to hear the review petitions filed by Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shouri and Prashant Bhushan against the Supreme Court’s judgment dated December 14, 2018 dismissing a batch of petitions seeking court monitored probe into the Rafale deal. Review petition filed by AAP leader Sanjay Singh will be taken up for hearing together.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan who is facing contempt of court proceedings for his tweet on a sub-judice matter has now filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking recall of the contempt notice on a ground that the bench which issued the notice to him had jurisdiction of hearing criminal contempt as per the roster issued under the signature of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) who happens to be the Master of Roster.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna today, February 25, 2019 issued a notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kajal Mishra And Preeti Kedar Gokhale, daughters of army personnel seeking protection of Human Rights of Armed Forces personnel.
A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna today, February 25, 2019 has agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sona Khan, K.P. Fabian Prof Atul Sharma and others seeking expunction of observations recorded in the judgment of Justice Sudip Ranjan Sen Meghalaya High Court wherein Justice Sen had said among other things that India should have been declared a Hindu Rashtra at the time of partition.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna today, February 25, 2019 dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking direction from the Court to all the political parties requiring them to not field a candidate to contest election if he/she has more than two children.
CIC relying upon the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act held: “Thus, the EVM which is available with the respondent in a material form and also as samples, as admitted by the respondent during the hearing, is an information under the RTI Act."
Central Govt. has on February 21, 2019 notified ‘The Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019’ that amends the Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (8 of 1939), the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956) so as to omit the provisions contained therein which are discriminatory to the leprosy affected persons. All these personal laws which have been amended by the said Amendment Act contained leprosy as a ground for seeking divorce.