Loan moratorium: SC adjourns hearing to Oct 5 as govt seeks more time

 The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned for October 5 the hearing on the two petitions seeking an extension of the moratorium period on repayment of loans and to waive off the interest on the interest on loan amount in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. Solicitor General representing the government told the court that the issues are under active consideration of the Government and a decision is likely to be taken within 2-3 days.

The apex court had earlier adjourned the hearing on September 10 directing that all decisions taken by the RBI, the Government of India, or the banks be placed before it for consideration. The court had given time to RBI to file the affidavit.

The SC in the previous hearings said that those accounts that had not been declared non-performing assets (NPAs) as on August 31 should not be declared bad loans until the case was disposed of.

The court, hearing a petition filed by lawyer Vishal Tiwari, sought directions, till the court reopens, to all the banks to adhere to extend the moratorium period for lawyers/ service sector, transport and tourist industry, including drivers and other covered under these sectors and defer their EMI payment on term loans. It also sought that in case, such acts are committed by the lending

Institutions then, strict action shall be taken against them in accordance with the law.

ALSO READ: Loan moratorium case: Adverse SC verdict could heavily affect banks in Q2

"The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic in India has brought a drastic financial difficulty along with the health disaster that is going on in this country. Various people have lost jobs during this situation of biological emergency and various professionals and others have gone through real financial hardship," the plea said.

The Centre and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) informed the Court that the moratorium on repayment of loans could be extendable to up to two years under certain conditions and that sectors most distressed by the economic slowdown were being identified. It argued that the waiver of interest on deferred EMIs during the moratorium period would be against the basic canons of finance and unfair to those who repaid loans on schedule.

No coercive action against Facebook VP till Oct 15: SC to Delhi panel

 The Supreme Court Wednesday directed a Delhi Legislative Assembly panel not to take coercive action against Facebook India VP and MD Ajit Mohan till October 15 in connection with a summon asking him to depose before it with regard to north east Delhi riots.

The panel is probing the social media firm's role in spread of alleged hate speech.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari issued notices to the secretary of the Legislative Assembly; the ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs, Electronics and IT; Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, represented by the Secretary General, and Delhi Police, asking them to respond to the plea.

The apex court's order came on the plea by Mohan and others challenging the September 10 and September 18 notices issued by Delhi Assembly's peace and harmony committee that sought his presence before the panel which is probing the Delhi riots in February and FB's role in spread of hate speech.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

AGR dues: DoT withdraws order seeking no coercive action against telcos

The telecom department has withdrawn its order that asked for no coercive action against telecom companies defaulting on statutory dues payment after the Supreme Courton Friday took a strong view of non-compliance with its order.
The order also directs field offices to take "immediate necessary action" in compliance with the October judgment of the Supreme Court.
The direction by the DoT says its previous order dated January 23, 2020 "stands withdrawn with immediate effect".
"It is directed to take immediate necessary action in compliance with the judgement dated October 24, 2019 of the Supreme Court," said the fresh order issued by the DoT soon after the apex court made its observations on Friday.
The department's move came after the Supreme Court on Friday directed the managing directors and directors of telcos and other firms to explain why contempt action be not taken against them for non-compliance of its order to pay adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of Rs 1.47 lakh crore to the Department of Telecommunications.
Taking strong note of the non-compliance of its order, a bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice M R Shah expressed anguish over the order passed by DoT's desk officer, staying the effect of its verdict in AGR matter.

The Ayodhya verdict: 'Balance of probabilities'

The facts, evidence and oral arguments of the present case have traversed the realms of history, archaeology, religion and the law. The law must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion. For a case replete with references to archaeological foundations, we must remember that it is the law which provides the edifice upon which our multicultural society rests.
In the present case, this Court is tasked with an adjudicatory task of unique dimension. The dispute is over immovable property. The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence. The law provides us with parameters as clear but as profound as ownership and possession. In deciding title to the disputed property, the court applies settled principles of evidence to adjudicate upon which party has established a claim to the immovable property.

On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it.
As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857. The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century. After the setting up of the grill-brick wall, the structure of the mosque continued to exist and there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.
The report of the Waqf inspector of December 1949 indicates that Muslims were being obstructed in free and unimpeded access to mosque for the purposes of offering namaz. However, there is evidence to show that namaz was offered in the structure of the mosque and the last Friday namaz was on December 16, 1949. The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December, 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act, which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship. During the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque, which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.
We have already concluded that the three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable.
Suit 5 (which was brought before civil judge, Faizabad by the deity (Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman) and the birth-place (Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya), by the next friend for a declaration of title to the disputed premises and to restrain the defendants from interfering with or raising any objection to the construction of a temple) — has been held to be maintainable at the behest of the first plaintiff (the deity of Lord Ram) who is a juristic person. The third plaintiff (next friend) has been held to be entitled to represent the first plaintiff.
We are of the view that on the one hand, a decree must ensue in Suit 5, Suit 4 (which was instituted on 18 December 1961 by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya. It has been averred that the suit has been instituted on behalf of the entire Muslim community together with an application under Order) must also be partly decreed by directing the allotment of alternate land to the Mu­slims for the construction of a mosque and associated activities. The al­lotment of land to the Muslims is necessary because though on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims, the Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on 22/23 December 1949, which was ultimately destroyed on 6 December 1992. There was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims.
This Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied. Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims . The area of the composite site admeasures about 1,500 square yards. While determining the area of land to be allotted, it is necessary to provide restitution to the Muslim community for the unlawful destruction of their place of worship.
This exercise, and the consequent handing over of the land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board, shall be conducted simultaneously with the handing over of the disputed site comprising of the inner and outer courtyards as a consequence of the decree in Suit 5. Suit 4 shall stand decreed in the above terms. Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993 empowers the Central Government to direct that the right, title and in­t­erest in relation to the area or any part thereof, instead of cont­i­nuing to vest in the Central Government shall vest in the au­thority or body or trustees of any trust which is willing to co­mply with the terms and conditions as government may impose.

Supreme Court upholds Karnataka law for SC/ST reservation in promotions

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Karnataka law granting a quota in promotions for state government employees from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.
A bench of Justice U U Lalit and Justice D Y Chandrachud said: "Following the decision in B.K. Pavitra, the state government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench.

"The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B.K. Pavitra in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature."
The judgment pertained to the principal challenge through a batch of cases against the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018. According to this Act, employees belonging to SC/ST will get one-time promotion, and it was referred as a "catch-up" clause.
In 2002, the Karnataka government enacted a very similar law. However, it faced a challenge to its constitutional validity. In 2006, a Constitutional Bench had upheld its validity, but raised the issue of availability of quantifiable data and asked the state to diligently collect data to determine backwardness of the SC/STs.
In 2011 and 2017, the Act was again challenged.
In 2017, the Supreme Court held that it was necessary for "the state to place material on record that there was compelling necessity for such exercise of such power and decision of the state was based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised".
Addressing this apex court observation, the Karnataka government appointed the then Chief Secretary K Ratna Prabha to head a committee for studying the backwardness and inadequacy of representation of SC/ST employees. Based on the recommendations of this committee, the state government moved the Reservation Bill, which later became an Act in 2018.
The court noted merit in the submission of Karnataka that progression in a cadre based on promotion cannot be treated as the acquisition of creamy layer status.
"The Reservation Act 2018 adopts the principle that consequential seniority is not an additional benefit but a consequence of the promotion which is granted to the SCs and STs," it said.
The petitioners argued that the SCs and STs cannot be split or bifurcated and the adoption of the 'creamy layer' principle would amount to a split in the homogenous groups of the SCs and STs.
Dismissing the petitions, the court observed that it found no merit in the batch of writ petitions as the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 has been upheld.

Supreme Court rules it's not a crime to be a homosexual in India anymore

A five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench on Thursday unanimously decriminalised consensual gay sex. The apex court termed part of IPC's Section 377, which criminalises consensual unnatural sex, irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary. The court also partly struck down Section 377 as violative of the right to equality.
The historic judgement came on a batch of writ petitions filed by dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri and business executive Ayesha Kapur and 20 former and current students of the IITs.

"Any kind of sexual activity with animals shall remain penal offence under Section 377 of the IPC," it said while adding that Section 377 of IPC was a weapon to harass members of LGBT community, resulting in discrimination.
The Supreme Court further added that the section is arbitrary and 'untenable'.
ALSO READ: History owes apology to LGBT persons for discrimination: 10 points SC made
The apex court said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of freedom of speech and expression. It said that the homosexual community has the same rights as everyone else.
ADVERTISING

"The constitution is a dynamic document, having the primary objective of establishing a dynamic and inclusive society," the judgment of CJI Misra and J Khanwilkar.
All the 5 judges on the constitution bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, concurred on the matter.
CJI Misra quoted Schopenhauer, JS Mill and others on the freedom and liberty of an individual. He said, "We have to vanquish prejudice, embrace inclusion, and ensure equal rights", according to LiveLaw. TV reports quoted him as saying LGBT community has equal rights, and that Section 377 is irrational.
All the 5 judges on the constitution bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, concurred on the matter.
CJI Misra quoted Schopenhauer, JS Mill and others on the freedom and liberty of an individual. He said, "We have to vanquish prejudice, embrace inclusion, and ensure equal rights", according to LiveLaw. TV reports quoted him as saying LGBT community has equal rights, and that Section 377 is irrational.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had reserved its verdict on July 17 after hearing various stakeholders, including gay rights activists.
The Centre, which had initially sought an adjournment for filing its response to the petitions, had later left to the wisdom of the court the issue of the legality of the penal provision with regard to the aspects of criminalising consensual unnatural sex between two consenting adults.
The Centre had said that the other aspects of the penal provision dealing with minors and animals should be allowed to remain in the statute book.
Section 377 refers to 'unnatural offences' and says whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
The issue of section 377 was first raised by an NGO, Naaz Foundation, which had in 2001 approached the Delhi High Court that had decriminalised sex between consenting adults of the same gender by holding the penal provision "illegal".
This 2009 judgement of the high court was overturned in 2013 by the apex court which had also dismissed a review plea. It had in 2013 restored the criminality of the sexual relationship between persons of the same sex, after the Delhi High Court' had decriminalised it in 2009.
The five-judge bench on July 10 had made it clear that it was not going into the curative petitions and would adjudicate on fresh writ petitions in the matter.
The writ petitions were opposed by the Apostolic Alliance of Churches, Utkal Christian Association and some other NGOs and individuals including Suresh Kumar Kaushal who had also challenged the 2009 verdict of the high court in the apex court.

Put sensitive cases before bench of 5 senior-most judges: Retd judges to CJ

Four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, on Sunday wrote an open letter to the chief justice of India, saying they agree with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over allocation of cases and the crisis needs to be resolved "within the judiciary".
The letter by former apex court judge P B Sawant, ex- chief justice of Delhi High Court A P Shah, former Madras High Court judge K Chandru and ex-Bombay High Court judge H Suresh was given to the media. It also went viral on social media.
Justice Shah confirmed having written an open letter along with the other retired judges and told PTI, "We have written the open letter which the other judges named in the letter have also consented to."
He said that the view expressed by the retired judges is "quite similar to the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) that till this crisis is resolved, the important matters should be listed before a five-judge Constitution bench of senior judges".
Justice Shah said that earlier he was not sure about the consent given by the other three judges and, therefore, he initially denied having written any letter but now all of them have given consent to it.
The letter quoted the judges as having said, "The four senior puisne Judges of the Supreme Court have brought to light a serious issue regarding the manner of allocation of cases, particularly sensitive cases, to various benches of the Supreme Court.
"They have expressed a grave concern that cases are not being allocated in a proper manner and are being allocated arbitrarily to particular designated benches, often headed by junior judges, in an arbitrary manner.
This is having a very deleterious effect on the administration of justice and the rule of law."
The four retired judges said that they agree with the four judges of top court that though the CJI is the master of roster and can designate benches for allocation of work but this does not mean that it can be done in an "arbitrary manner" such that, "sensitive and important cases" are sent to "hand-picked benches" of junior judges by the chief justice.
"This issue needs to be resolved and clear rules and norms must be laid down for allocation of benches and distribution of cases, which are rational, fair and transparent," they said, adding that this must be done "immediately to restore public confidence" in the judiciary and in the Supreme Court.
The letter further said that "however till that is done, it is important that all sensitive and important cases including pending ones, be dealt with by a Constitution bench of the five seniormost judges of this Court".
It added, "Only such measures would assure the people that the Supreme Court is functioning in a fair and transparent manner and that the power of the Chief Justice as master of roster is not being misused to achieve a particular result in important and sensitive cases. We, therefore, urge you to take immediate steps in this regard.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Supreme Court crisis: Bar Council delegation meets Justice Chelameswar

A Bar Council of India delegation led by its chairman Manan Kumar Mishra met with Justice Chelameswar on Sunday and will meet with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra and other judges to discuss the unprecedented crisis that has hit the judiciary.
According to sources, the seven-member delegation has already met some of the judges of the top court and are scheduled to meet remaining judges including Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra during the course of the day.
ALSO READ: Shekhar Gupta: Judiciary on trial: It is up to CJI Misra to end this crisis
The BCI had yesterday formed a seven-member delegation to meet and discuss with the apex court judges issues arising out of the press conference by the four senior-most judges of the top court.
Bar Council of India delegation leaves after meeting Justice Chelameswar, member says 'will react after meeting Chief Justice of India & other three judges in the evening' pic.twitter.com/G2bGdXyn74
— ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2018
On January 12, four senior-most judges of the Supreme court -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI at a press meet in Delhi on Friday raising litany of problems including assignment of cases.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court crisis: Bar Council forms team and top 10 developments
ALSO READ: Supreme Court judges' rare public feud endangers investor confidence