In January this year, a plea was filed in the Delhi High Court by one such inmate, Rajeev Kumar, seeking rehabilitation of the leprosy patients rendered homeless after its August judgment. Post the judgment, Kumar, along with 40 other inmates, was back to begging on the road. A week later, the Court granted the inmates temporary relief by ordering the Delhi government to accommodate everyone back in the premises of the HLTB. However, the inmates say that nothing has happened till now.
The question arises whether the rationale behind prohibiting manual scavenging under the Act of 2013 and then permitting the same under the garb of providing protective gears as per Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers Rehabilitation Rules, 2013, yet again amounts to colourable legislation. We need to ask why the actual number of direct and incidental deaths arising out of manual scavenging in the last 26 years have not been brought to light? Are we inching towards a society with a notional belief that rights and justice devolve not as a birthright but depend on the socio-economic status?
On January 17, 2019, three days after the 10% Quota amendment came into force, the Union Ministry for Social Justice and Empowerment issued an Office Memorandum (OM) detailing the criteria for excluding persons who would not be eligible to lay claim to the 10% reservation of seats and posts. Interestingly, this OM is labelled: "For Internal Circulation Only" and cannot be located on the Ministry's website. However, it is included in multiple OMs issued by other Ministries and Departments to entities under their charge for identifying posts that may be reserved under the 10% quota law.
During the time he was in the Supreme Court, he continued his contribution to multiple areas of administration of justice, most of which are well documented. I have not seen any judge who has drawn and not crossed the fine line between familiarity outside Court and the conduct inside it as Justice Lokur.
If we move beyond the first glance and conduct a closer examination of Constituent Assembly debates, it’s amply clear that the Partition indeed was the running sub-text of the drafting process. In fact, the Constituent Assembly took notice of the unfortunate manner in which the Partition was unfolded, and certain members also referred to the uncountable deaths caused by the partition, a holocaust of massive proportions. The rights of the minorities guaranteed by the Constitution are quintessential examples of the fundamental rights which were deeply influenced by the Partition.
Did Bindu Ammini and Kanakadurga, the two women who took that bold first step and turned it into a giant leap for Indian women across the board, ever realise the colossal sociopolitical impact of their historic journey to Sabarimala temple? On behalf of The Leaflet, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and young lawyer Nehmat Kaur, undertook a journey to meet in person the two brilliant and feisty women, for whom the former knocked the doors of the Supreme Court seeking State protection.
The thumping majority with which the 124th Amendment was passed is a sign of the times. The issue of reservation has always remained a sore one with battle lines drawn out for years. However, the elephant in the room so to speak is that those who have suffered for centuries, by being in the margins, have no other way to become part of the mainstream. Reservation ought to emancipate, it ought to build bridges but even today — it is simply widening the gap. Join me as I take a deep and long look at the recently passed 124th Amendment to the Constitution of India and its impact on the Criminal Tribes.
The challenge in these petitions is mainly based on the ground that economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for reservations under the Constitution. To buttress this argument, petitioners have relied upon the Constitution bench judgment in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. In addition, petitioners have asserted that 50 percent ceiling limit for reservation which has been laid down in M Nagaraj v. Union of India & Ors., cannot be violated as the same has been culminated as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution i.e. equality, in the present case.
At The Leaflet’s ‘State of the Indian Judiciary’ programme on January 23, 2019 at the Constitution Club of India, New Delhi, Indira Jaising gave her opening remarks on Justice Madan B Lokur, whom she referred to as a ‘People’s Judge’. ‘To be a peoples’ judge, what you need is to connect with civil society, on the bench and off the bench, throughout your career. Justice Lokur certainly had that connect. He brought in the entire NGO movement to the court room and gave them space in the heart of a judicial system.’
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A K Sikri, Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah today, January 24, 2019, refused to stay the operation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 which had reversed the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated March 20, 2018 diluting the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989 such as no anticipatory bails and preliminary enquiries in the cases of atrocities reported under the SC/ST Act, 1989.
The Kerala Government to provide round the clock adequate security to two women, Bindu & Kanakdurga, who entered the Sabrimala temple. The counsel for the state of Kerala submitted that a total of 51 women of the age group between 10-50 years have already entered the temple.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising mentioned the petition before CJI Ranjan Gogoi today. The Petitioners have approached the Supreme Court seeking direction from the Court that all concerned authorities be directed to allow women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple without any let or hindrance, and without danger to life and liberty, to ensure security and safe passage, including police security to women wishing to enter Sabarimala temple in future.