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.
The Supreme Court’s Collegium consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Kurian Joseph and Jutsice A K Sikri, had reiterated his name for the appointment as judge of the Supreme Court on July 16, 2018 after Centre government had returned his name for reconsideration in April 2018.
The advocates for petitioners and interveners seeking decriminalisation of adultery (Section 497 of IPC) said that there is no compelling state interest or a valid rational behind the state to penalise an act of consensual sex between adults; that origin of adultery lies in treating women as property of the man, and that it is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Indian Constitution.
Senior advocate Jaising presented that rights of the deity are restricted for to matters, limited to maintenance of properties and the taxation related issues. Jaising held that this principle has been consistently maintained in the Indian legal jurisprudence since the time of Privy Council and the Judicial Committee decisions, so must apply in Sabarimala as well, and shouldn’t infringe upon fundamental rights of women as citizens.
The MoS Law and Justice P P Chaudhary skirted the reply to the question which specially sought to know steps taken by the government to facilitate removal of Justice Shukla, therefore, making it appear that the government has not taken any initiative to remove the tainted judge.
Provisions that permit personal data processing without express consent are clearly overbroad in comparison to comparable frameworks such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) brought forth by the European Union (EU). The non requirement of necessity and proportionality with respect to personal data processing by the State prima facie seems regressive and violative of the tests laid down by the Puttaswamy verdict.