Supreme Court

इसके साथ ही निकाय चुनाव पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में एक और याचिका दाखिल की गई है.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट में यूपी सरकार की ओर से सॉलिसीटर जनरल तुषार मेहता ने मामले की मेंशनिंग की है. सीजेआई चंद्रचूड़ की कोर्ट में मामले को मेंशन करते हुए सॉलिसीटर जनरल मेहता ने कहा कि मामले को जल्द सुना जाना चाहिए. इसके बाद अब सप्रीम कोर्ट में पार्टी की ओर से इस मामले में एक याचिका दाखिल की गई है. तब कोर्ट ने अपने फैसले में बिना ओबीसी आरक्षण के ही राज्य में निकाय चुनाव कराने का आदेश दिया था. योगी सरकार ने कोर्ट से जल्द सुनवाई की मांग की है. ऐसे में अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट भी मामले की जल्द सुनवाई को लिए तैयार है.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's shock decision to ban Rs 1000 and Rs 500 notes in November 2016, was not flawed or unlawful, the Supreme Court said today in ...

Order: The decision satisfies the test of proportionality and cannot be struck down on that ground. The move could have been executed through an act of Parliament, said the judge. The Supreme Court said there was consultation between the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the government for six months before the notes ban announcement. It has the power to do so for all series of bank notes. One judge, Justice BV Nagarathna, disagreed and called the notes ban notification illegal. So it cannot be struck down.

Supreme Court verdict on demonetisation live updates: A five-judge Supreme Court Constitution bench delivered its judgement today on 58 petitions whi.

"We have construed the term recommendation has to be construed in terms of the statutory scheme and what is contemplated is a consultative process...from the record, it appears that there was consultation between the RBI and the Central government for a period of six months," said Justice Gavai.During the demonetisation period Urjit R. The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of Centre's November 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes, saying that from the record, it appears that there was consultation between the RBI and the Central government for a period of six months. According to Owaisi, the decision (on demonetisation) was wrong as it led to a decline in the growth of the GDP to 4 per cent in 2019-2020 from 8.3 per cent in 2016-17. "The Supreme Court has only pronounced on whether Section 26(2) of RBI Act, 1934 was correctly applied or not before announcing demonetisation on November 8 2016. MP and Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said the Supreme Court's verdict on demonetisation has not specified whether the stated goals of this 'disastrous' decision were met or not. Opposition parties, however, were quick to point out that the SC only looked into the technical aspects of the note ban and had not commented on whether the ban was correct or not.

The Supreme Court in a 4:1 verdict ruled that the Narendra Modi government's demonetisation decision-making process was not flawed as it had consulted RBI.

"Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the law, we are obliged to accept it. "There was consultation between the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India for a period of six months. "It is a historic decision and is in national interest.

Travelling Abroad: याचिकाकर्ता शख्स का कहना था कि अबू धाबी में उसे वहां की पुलिस ने पकड़ लिया ...

चीफ जस्टिस ने कहा कि लोग जिस देश में जाते हैं, जरूरत पड़ने पर वहां के कानूनों के मुताबिक उन पर कार्रवाई हो सकती है. मुख्य न्यायाधीश ने कहा जिस देश में लोग जाते हैं, वहां के कानून के मुताबिक उन पर कार्रवाई हो सकती है. इसमें कहा गया था कि विदेश जाने के दौरान भारतीयों को गिरफ्तार न किए जाने के संबंध में विदेश मंत्रालय दिशा निर्देश जारी करे.

FILE- An Indian woman shows discontinued Indian currency notes and copy of photo identity card as she stands in queue outside Reserve Bank of India to deposit ...

The judges were simply looking at the paperwork that was presented to them on the decision-making process,” points out political analyst Rasheed Kidwai. The court found the decision-making process to be fair and reasonable.” We have to see the impact they had on society.” The government had defended scrapping high value currency notes, saying the measure was meant to root out illegally hoarded cash and to crack down on corruption and terrorist financing. Critics pointed to the hardships it created for ordinary Indians. “The debate on whether it was a good or a disastrous measure cannot be settled by the court.

Dehradun News: हरीश रावत ने कहा कि यदि फैसले को ग़लत माना जाता तो चक्र पीछे घुमाना पड़ता, ...

बता दें कि नोटबंदी के खिलाफ दायर याचिकाओं पर सुनवाई के बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपना फैसला सुना दिया है. इसी को देखते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने ये फैसला सुनाया है. Dehradun News: सुप्रीम कोर्ट (Supreme Court) के 2016 में नोटबंदी के फैसले को सही मानने पर हरीश रावत (Harish Rawat) का बड़ा बयान आया है.

लखनऊ जिला जेल के जेलर एसके अवस्थी ने अंसारी से मिलने आए लोगों की तलाशी लेने के लिए धमकी ...

हाई कोर्ट ने अंसारी को दोषी ठहराते हुए कहा था कि उसकी एक खूंखार अपराधी और माफिया डॉन के रूप में प्रतिष्ठा है, जिसके खिलाफ जघन्य अपराधों के 60 से अधिक मामले दर्ज हैं. अदालत ने धारा 506 के तहत अपराध के लिए अंसारी को सात साल की जेल और 25,000 रुपये का जुर्माना भी लगाया था. इसी के साथ सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार को नोटिस जारी किया है.

The judgment, authored by Justice B R Gavai, was agreed to by judges S Abdul Nazeer, A S Bopanna, and V Ramasubramanian. Justice B V Nagarathna faulted ...

Former law minister and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad said demonetisation proved to be the “biggest blow” to terrorism by curbing terror funding. However, several reports of distress among citizens due to long queues and cash shortages emerged, compounded by frequent changes in rules by the RBI over the next couple of months. In fact, the majority has steered clear of the question whether the objectives were achieved at all.” The decision was made in an arbitrary manner and without application of mind. “Parliament should have discussed the law on demonetisation and it should not have been done by a gazette notification. “(The) demonetisation decision does not suffer from any legal or constitutional flaws.

The Supreme Court, on Monday, observed that there is no provision in the Constitution of India which prohibits lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be ...

Mr. However, he stated that the Apex Court acknowledges the larger principle that in suitable cases Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment as judges of High Courts. Pandey mentioned that the Supreme Court had also recognised that the quality of lawyers of the Supreme Court Bar Association is higher than the State Bar Councils. Ashok Pandey, apprised the Bench that names of four advocates practicing in the Supreme Court have been recommended in the list of recommendations from Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, on Monday, observed that there is no provision in the Constitution of India which prohibits lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as judges of High Courts. Oka noted the same while hearing a petition contending that as per Article 217 of the Constitution, a person who has been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice to the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as a judge of that High Court.

On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 4:1 verdict upheld the government's decision to invalidate high-value banknotes in November 2016 saying the ...

On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 4:1 verdict upheld the government's decision to invalidate high-value banknotes in November 2016 saying the decision-making process was not flawed. “The Supreme Court by a majority judgement dismissed all the 58 writ petitions that challenged the historic demonetisation scheme...it said this whole exercise was done for a valid cause to check fake currency, terror funding and black marketing. The verdict triggered a war of words, with the ruling BJP calling Congress anti-poor while hitting at it for promoting the informal economy. Hitting out at the Modi government, Owaisi said the demonetisation led to a decline in the growth of the GDP to 4 per cent in 2019-2020 from 8.3 per cent in 2016-17. “We want to tell the Prime Minister why don't you celebrate 'Demonetisation Day'. As the BJP on Monday hailed the Supreme Court's verdict rejecting a clutch of petitions challenging the demonetisation as a big win for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi challenged the saffron party to celebrate ‘Demonetisation Day’.

Other headlines: The AAP alleged that one of the accused in Delhi hit-and-run case is a BJP leader, and IMF head said third of world to face recession this ...

[Karnataka businessman](https://scroll.in/latest/1041038/karnataka-businessman-shoots-himself-dead-blames-bjp-mla-in-note)shoots himself dead, blames BJP MLA in note: The police have filed a case of abetment to suicide against the MLA, Aravind Limbavali, and five others. [gun attack](https://scroll.in/latest/1040984/jammu-and-kashmir-four-dead-six-injured-in-gun-attack-by-suspected-militants-in-rajouri)in by suspected militants in Jammu and Kashmir’s Rajouri: In another explosion in the same village on Monday morning, a child died and five others were injured. [Recession](https://scroll.in/latest/1041034/recession-will-hit-one-third-of-world-economy-in-2023-says-imf-chief)will hit one-third of world economy in 2023, says IMF chief: The US, the European Union and China are all slowing simultaneously, International Monetary Fund chief Kristalina Georgieva said. We request you to support our award-winning journalism by making a financial contribution towards the Scroll Ground Reporting Fund. [church](https://scroll.in/latest/1041050/chhattisgarh-mob-vandalises-church-attacks-police-in-narayanpur-district), attacks police in Chhattisgarh’s Narayanpur district: Superintendent of Police Sadanand Kumar suffered a head injury in the violence. [Supreme Court](https://scroll.in/latest/1040990/demonetisation-cannot-be-struck-down-says-supreme-court)upholds demonetisation by 4:1 majority: Meanwhile, the [Congress](https://scroll.in/latest/1041027/dissenting-verdict-on-demonetisation-is-a-welcome-slap-on-centres-wrist-says-congress)said the dissenting verdict is a ‘welcome slap’ on Centre’s wrist.

आज विश्लेषण में सबसे पहले बात आरक्षण पर सुनवाई फिक्स... निकाय पर डबल चैलेंज की.

लेकिन अब सरकार ने जो याचिका दाखिल की थी उसपर सुप्रीम कोर्ट सुनवाई के लिए मान गया है... लेकिन आरक्षण की इस लड़ाई में समाजवादी पार्टी भी कूद पड़ी है जिसने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल की है... क्योंकि हाई कोर्ट ने जो फैसला सुनाया है उसपर सरकार कोर्ट और वोट के बीच फंस गई है...

The Supreme Court said on Monday the Centre's 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes was not hasty and such measures are required to ...

Charles Dickens’ words may apply to 2023, the year ahead. [Demonetisation](/topic/demonetisation)decision had a reasonable nexus with its objectives, such as eradicating black money, terror funding etc., and it is not relevant whether those objectives were achieved or not. [RBI](/markets/rbi)does not possess independent power under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the 2017 Act in isolation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4(1) to accept the demonetised notes beyond the period specified. [2023 Could Be Anything, from Boom Year to Crash](/epaper/delhicapital/2023/jan/02/et-front/2023-could-be-anything-from-boom-year-to-crash/articleshow/96667919.cms) [B V Nagarathna](/topic/b-v-nagarathna), in her dissenting verdict, said the action of demonetisation of currency notes was "vitiated" and the notification issued in this regard in November 2016 was "unlawful". Following are the important quotes from the Supreme Court judgment:

The Supreme Court (4:1) observed that the demonetisation cannot be held invalid merely because some citizens have suffered through hardships or that the ...

"The problems associated with the measure of demonetisation would make one wonder whether the Central Board of the Bank had visualised the consequences that would follow. Whether the Central Board of the Bank had attempted to take note of the adverse effects of demonetisation of such a large volume of bank notes in circulation? "While adjudging the illegality of the impugned Notification, we would have to examine on the basis as to whether the objectives for which it was enacted has nexus with the decision taken or not. The court was addressing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that, on account of a hasty decision of demonetisation by the Central Government, citizens had to suffer at large. "The contention that the impugned notification is liable to be set aside on the ground that it caused hardship to individual/citizens will hold no water. The individual interests must yield to the larger public interest sought to be achieved by impugned Notification."

मंत्री, सांसद और विधायकों की अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता की सीमा तय करने की मांग पर ...

किसी आपराधिक मामले पर टिप्पणी करते हुए तो असंवेदनशील बयान भी दिए गए हैं. सुप्रीम कोर्ट यह तय कर सकता है कि मंत्रियों, सांसदों या विधायकों को किसी आपराधिक मामले पर गैर जिम्मेदाराना बयान देने से रोकने के लिए दिशानिर्देश बनाने चाहिए या नहीं. मंत्री, सांसद और विधायकों की अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता की सीमा तय करने की मांग पर जस्टिस सैयद अब्दुल नजीर की अध्यक्षता वाली संविधान पीठ आज अपना फैसला सुनाने वाली है.

Finance Minister Niramala Sitharaman on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court judgement upholding the decision of the Modi government to demonetise high value ...

Parliament cannot be left aloof on an issue of such critical importance for the country," Justice Nagarathna said. The court cannot supplant the wisdom of executive with its wisdom"," she said. In another tweet, she said the apex court has remarked that "the central government's decision was after RBI board's approval which shows in-built safeguard against centre's powers. There is a reasonable nexus to bring such a measure & it satisfies the test of proportionality. "Welcome the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement today on Demonetization. "There were consultations between the Centre & RBI for a period of 6 months.

Supreme Court rules that the government was empowered to take the decision and that due process was followed.

उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल कर इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के फैसले ...

नई दिल्ली, जागरण ब्यूरो। उत्तर प्रदेश के स्थानीय निकाय चुनाव में ओबीसी आरक्षण के मुद्दे पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट चार जनवरी को सुनवाई करेगा। सोमवार को शीर्ष कोर्ट ने प्रदेश सरकार की याचिका पर चार जनवरी को सुनवाई करने पर सहमति दे दी। उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल कर इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के फैसले को चुनौती दी है। हाई कोर्ट ने निकाय चुनाव की ड्राफ्ट अधिसूचना रद कर दी थी और राज्य सरकार को ओबीसी आरक्षण लागू किए बगैर स्थानीय निकाय के चुनाव कराने का आदेश दिया था। उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने याचिका में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के गत 27 दिसंबर के आदेश को चुनौती देते हुए कहा है कि हाई कोर्ट का ड्राफ्ट अधिसूचना रद करने का फैसला सही नहीं है। उस अधिसूचना में उत्तर प्रदेश के स्थानीय निकाय चुनाव में सीटों पर ओबीसी आरक्षण भी लागू किया गया था, लेकिन हाई कोर्ट ने ट्रिपल टेस्ट लागू किए बगैर स्थानीय निकाय चुनाव में ओबीसी आरक्षण लागू करने को सही नहीं माना था और ड्राफ्ट अधिसूचना रद कर दी थी। उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दाखिल कर इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के फैसले को चुनौती दी है। हाई कोर्ट ने निकाय चुनाव की ड्राफ्ट अधिसूचना रद कर दी थी और राज्य सरकार को ओबीसी आरक्षण लागू किए बगैर स्थानीय निकाय के चुनाव कराने का आदेश दिया था।

The Supreme Court identified six issues in the challenge to the government's demonetisation decision. Both the majority judgment and the dissent gave their ...

“Insofar as the decision to be taken by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act is concerned, it is to be taken on the recommendation of the Central Board. The majority view stated that the earlier notifications have to be read as part of the 2017 law, giving it a “contextual and harmonious construction”. We, therefore, find that there is an inbuilt safeguard in sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act inasmuch as the Central Government is required to take a decision on the recommendation of the RBI,” the court said. However, it agreed with the Centre’s contention that the decision had to be made in secrecy and in haste for it to be effective. The petitioners argued that the word “any” would have to be given a restricted meaning to mean “some” and not “all” legal tender of a given denomination. Since the same is possible theoretically, in my view, such an extensive power cannot be exercised by issuance of a simple gazette notification in exercise of an executive power of the Central Government as if it is one under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act.

Justice Nagarathna dissents from majority judgment, says DeMo of high-value currency notes was 'vitiated and unlawful'

“The decision-making process is also sought to be attacked on the ground that the decision was taken in a hasty manner. The period provided for exchange of notes vide the impugned Notification dated November 8, 2016 cannot be said to unreasonable.” “Such measures undisputedly are required to be taken with utmost confidentiality and speed. The Congress added that it was “misleading and wrong” to say the top court had upheld the demonetisation. The power can be exercised for all series of bank notes.” “The decision had a reasonable nexus with its objectives, such as eradicating black money, terror funding, etc, and it is not relevant whether those objectives were achieved or not,” the court said, adding such decisions required to be taken with the utmost confidentiality and speed. Of this, 99.3 per cent or Rs 15.31 lakh crore was returned to the banks, dealing a body blow to the Centre’s contention that black money would be exposed. In a big win for the Narendra Modi government, a constitution bench by a 4:1 majority held that demonetisation is not bad in law merely because some citizens suffered hardships. The court said that it cannot be disputed that the final say with regard to economic and monetary policies of the country lay with the central government. People waited hours for their turn to get some cash. On the issue of hardships suffered by citizens during the demonetisation, the apex court said that if the RBI notification had a nexus with the objectives to be achieved, then merely because some citizens had suffered hardships would not be a ground to hold the notification to be bad in law. The demonetisation was blamed for people losing their livelihoods and small businesses having to shut shop.

In a 4:1 majority verdict, the top court said the decision-making process cannot be faulted either, merely because the procedure emanated from the government ...

“In my view, the power of the Central government being vast has to be exercised through a plenary legislation rather than by an executive act by issuance of notification. The verdict has nothing to say on whether the stated objectives of demonetisation were met, AICC general secretary Jairam Ramesh said. Merely because on two earlier occasions, the demonetisation exercise was by plenary legislation, it cannot be held that such power would not be available to the Central government,” Justice BR Gavai, who read the majority judgment, said. “…under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the RBI Act, the initiation of the process of demonetisation and the exercise of power originates from the Central Board of the Bank which has to recommend to the Central Government and the latter may accept the recommendation and in such event it would issue a gazette notification,” the dissenting judge noted, citing that in the instant case, it was the Centre which “initiated” the process. The top court’s judgment came on a batch of 58 petitions challenging the demonetisation move. It boosted income tax and cleansed the economy, he claimed. According to the majority view, however, the decision had a reasonable nexus with its objectives, such as eradicating black money, terror funding etc. According to RBI data, CIC stood at Rs 32.42 trillion or 12.6% of the GDP as of December 23, 2022, against Rs 18 trillion or 11.7% of GDP on November 8, 2016, the day demonetisation was announced. Also, the economic cost of the move in terms of loss of growth pace has been estimated as substantive, besides unquantifiable human suffering. The proposal should have been discussed in Parliament and conducted through legislation, she said. The Supreme Court on Monday said the government’s controversial 2016 decision to scrap all high-value currency notes which were then in circulation doesn’t suffer from any legal or constitutional flaw. [black money](https://www.financialexpress.com/about/black-money/) doesn’t appear to have been achieved.

The majority judgement authored by Justice BR Gavai said the 2016 notification of demonetisation "satisfies the test of proportionality.

In any case, mere errors of judgement by the government seen in retrospect are not subject to judicial review." "If the impugned notification (on demonetisation) had a nexus with the objectives to be achieved, then, merely because some citizens have suffered through hardships would not be a ground to hold the impugned notification to be bad in law." "It cannot be expected that RBI and the government will act in two isolated boxes. It also said the "period (52 days) provided for exchange of notes vide the notification cannot be said to be unreasonable." The bench found little force in the contention of the petitioners that the proposal of demonetisation, under the RBI Act, should have emanated from the central bank and not the Centre. Demonetisation - when proposed by the government rather than the RBI central board - is a "far more serious issue."

Supreme court collegium: సుప్రీంకోర్టు కొలీజియం వ్యవస్థపై వివాదం ఇంకా కొనసాగుతూనే ఉంది.

[కొలీజియం](https://zeenews.india.com/telugu/tags/collegium)దేనని కేంద్ర న్యాయశాఖ తెలిపింది. ఇందులో ఎస్టీలు 1.3 శాతం, ఎస్సీలు 2.8 శాతం, ఓబీసీలు 11 శాతం, మైనార్టీలు 2.6 శాతం ఉన్నారని కేంద్ర న్యాయశాఖ వివరించింది. కేంద్ర న్యాయశాఖ నివేదిక ద్వారా కులాల కుంపటిని సైతం రాజేసింది. ఇప్పుడిదే అంశంపై కేంద్ర న్యాయశాఖ పార్లమెంటరీ కమిటీకు సమర్పించిన నివేదిక కొత్త వివాదాన్ని రాజేస్తోంది. కేంద్ర న్యాయశాఖ మంత్రి కిరణ్ రిజిజు ఇప్పటికే పలు సందర్భాల్లో కొలీజియం వ్యవస్థకు వ్యతిరేకంగా వ్యాఖ్యలు చేశారు. సుప్రీంకోర్టు కొలీజియం వ్యవస్థ మరోసారి వివాదాస్పదంగా మారింది.

ബി. ബാലഗോപാല്‍/മാതൃഭൂമി ന്യൂസ്. 02 January 2023, 02:19 PM IST.

കെ. ഖനനം ഉള്പ്പടെ ഭൂമിക്ക് താഴെയുള്ള പ്രവര്ത്തങ്ങള്ക്ക് പട്ടയ ഭൂമി കൈമാറാന് 1964-ലെ ചട്ടങ്ങളില് വ്യവസ്ഥ ഇല്ലെന്നും സംസ്ഥാന സര്ക്കാരിന്റെ സത്യവാങ്മൂലത്തില് വ്യക്തമാക്കിയിരുന്നു. 1964-ലെ ചട്ടപ്രകാരം കാര്ഷിക, ഗാര്ഹിക ആവശ്യങ്ങള്ക്ക് മാത്രമേ സര്ക്കാര് ഭൂമിയുടെ പട്ടയം നല്കാന് കഴിയൂ എന്ന് വ്യക്തമാക്കി സംസ്ഥാനം സുപ്രീം കോടതിയില് സത്യവാങ്മൂലം ഫയല് ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.

In a 4:1 split, the court held that the decision to withdraw Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes did not violate any legal or constitutional provisions.

Since the entire exercise was “carried out in twenty-four hours”, she noted, the Reserve Bank did not have the time “to apply its mind to such an issue”. They said that demonetisation could not be “set aside on the ground that it caused hardship”. Even in that situation, she said, an independent recommendation for demonetisation has to originate from the Reserve Bank. It added said that the Centre was the country’s “highest executive body”, which is accountable to the legislature. Merely because the Centre first asked Reserve Bank to recommend demonetisation did not make the move illegal, it said, as long as there was “effective consultation” between the two. Whether such a move was necessary or had less harmful alternatives, the court noted, was best left to experts, such as the Reserve Bank. The court also said that the move was not disproportionate, since it was undertaken for legitimate purposes, such as curbing black money. It held that the government does have the power to demonetise all currency notes of a particular denomination through an executive order. Section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act says that the Centre can demonetise “any series of bank notes” on the bank’s recommendation. They argued that just because the proposal came from the government, that did not make the move illegal since the final recommendation came from the Reserve Bank. It can only withdraw a series of notes, that too on the Reserve Bank’s independent recommendation. However, one judge, Justice BV Nagarathna, said that the government could only do this by passing a law or bringing an ordinance and had limited powers of withdrawing notes through an executive notification.

It said a minister's statements, even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for the protection of the government, cannot be attributed vicariously to ...

They argued that the issue being considered by the bench was largely academic and very abstract, and the possibility of a law being drafted to deal with areas of hate speech or other kinds of remarks, if needed, would be the responsibility of Parliament. Justice B V Nagarathna wrote a separate judgment and said freedom of speech and expression is a much-needed right so that citizens are well informed and educated on governance. But if it leads to omission or commission of offence by a public official, then remedies can be sought against it.

Justice V Ramasubramanian, who is a part of the five-judge constitutional bench, said the protection of fundamental rights relating to free speech and life ...

No additional restriction can be imposed against the right to free speech.” Justice V Ramasubramanian, who is a part of the five-judge constitutional bench, said, “Protection of fundamental rights relating to free speech and life and liberty can be effected against private persons and non-State actors too.” Justice V Ramasubramanian, who is a part of the five-judge constitutional bench, said the protection of fundamental rights relating to free speech and life and liberty can be effected against private persons and non-State actors too.

The Supreme Court said a case could be made of violation of constitutional rights only if a minister's comment leads to certain acts.

"Disparaging statements by ministers in official capacity can be vicariously attributed to the government. Any citizen who feels attacked by such speeches or hate speech by public functionary can approach court for civil remedies," said Justice BV Nagarathna. "Hate Speech in the sense strikes at the foundational values by making the society unequal ands also attacks citizens from diverse backgrounds especially in a country like us that is Bharat… A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice SA Nazeer said the minister is liable for the statement himself. Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a separate dissent judgement on the matter. The court said this while hearing pleas seeking restrictions on the freedom of speech of lawmakers and parliamentarians.

Delivering its verdict on the right to freedom of speech, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said additional restrictions against free speech cannot be imposed ...

Advising political parties, Justice Nagarthana said, "It is also for the respective political parties to regulate and control the actions and speech of its functionaries and members. However, she said if any remark made by the minister was not consistent with the stand of the government, it would be treated as his personal remark and ruled that rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (right to freedom of speech and expression; and right to life and personal liberty) can't be claimed before constitutional courts against private persons and non-state actors, except in habeas corpus cases. Delivering its verdict on the right to freedom of speech, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said additional restrictions against free speech cannot be imposed except those mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Justice B V Nagarathna, who was also part of the bench, wrote a separate judgement and said freedom of speech and expression is a much-needed right.

On hate speech she said, “Hate speech strikes at the foundational values of the Constitution by marking out a society as being unequal. However differing from majority, Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that statements made by minister traceable to affairs of govt are vicariously attributable to the government. Majority comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian ruled that statement made by a Minister cannot be attributed vicariously to the government.

... MPs & MLAs': Supreme Court. Justice Nagarathna, who gave a dissenting verdict in the demonetisation case, also differed here on finer details.

Because the truth is worth it.) Nagarathna) said that the grounds mentioned in Article 19 (2) are exhaustive already. [ ](https://www.thequint.com/news)and [ Breaking News ](/)at the Quint, browse for more from [ what-we-know](https://www.thequint.com/what-we-know) can approach court for civil remedies," she added. The 5-judge bench (Justices S. Any citizen who feels attacked by such speeches made or hate speech by public functionary etc.

A five-judge Constitution bench said no additional restrictions against free speech can be imposed except those mentioned under Article 19(2) of the ...

Article 19(2) relates to the powers of the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the country, public order, decency, morality etc. The court was hearing a plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gang-raped in July 2016 on a highway near Bulandshahr. The judgement came on a question of whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary's right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Supreme Court has also held that additional restrictions cannot be imposed on the right to freedom of speech of ministers, MPs and MLAs under Article ...

The court additionally held in its verdict Tuesday that a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the state or its instrumentalities. Expressing concern over the cases of hate speeches, Justice Nagarathna noted in her dissenting opinion that common law remedies are available to the citizens despite fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 may not be horizontally applicable in constitutional courts. The top court, while asking Khan to submit an unconditional apology, had noted that the matter raises serious concerns regarding state obligation and freedom of speech and expression and referred the matter to a Constitution bench in 2017.

Supreme Court: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि किसी मंत्री के बयान को सरकार के साथ नहीं जोड़ा जा सकता ...

मंत्रियों के बयान के मसले पर चर्चा करते हुए बेंच ने कहा है कि मंत्री के बयान को सरकार का बयान नहीं कह सकते. अनुच्छेद 19 (अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता) और 21 (जीवन का अधिकार) जैसे मौलिक अधिकारों का हनन होने पर सरकार के अलावा निजी व्यक्तियों के खिलाफ भी हाईकोर्ट या सुप्रीम कोर्ट दरवाजा खटखटाया जा सकता है. जजों ने कहा कि संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19 (2) में लिखी गई पाबंदियों से अलग बोलने की स्वतंत्रता पर कोई और पाबंदी नहीं लगाई जा सकती.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Modi government's 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes, ...

It is the Chief Justice of India who is constitutionally authorized to constitute a constitution bench and refer cases to it. The provision for a Constitution bench has been provided in the Constitution of India under Article 143. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Modi government’s 2016 decision to demonetise Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes, saying the decision was about executive policy and could not be reversed.

Supreme Court agrees to hear Madhya Pradesh Government's plea against High Court order.

“Section 10 makes it obligatory for a citizen desiring conversion to give a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate, which in our opinion is ex facie unconstitutional… Mehta submitted that the 1977 verdict had held that the word ‘propagate’ in Article 25 of the Constitution did not give “the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets”. The Chief Justice Bench has sought details of all such cases and their status in various High Courts. He said the High Court had gravely erred in not considering the larger public interest involved against the conduct of illegal religious conversions through force or deceit. Mehta said, conversion largely happened in the country by marrying a person of another faith. A person who wants to organise a conversion and refuses to give such a declaration would suffer penal consequences, which includes imprisonment of three to five years and costs of not less than ₹50,000.

At a Supreme Court hearing today on whether people can take food to cinema halls, the judges wondered at one point, "Should we start taking jalebis to the ...

Today's case dates back to July 18, 2018 when the Jammu and Kashmir High Court set aside a ban on food and drinks from outside in movie theatres. The judges said the High Court had overstepped its brief and asserted that cinemas have already been directed to provide, especially for children, free food and clean water. The court was hearing a petition that called for a ban on food from outside at cinemas.

The majority judgment upheld demonetisation after considering six primary issues. Justice B.V. Nagarathna wrote a dissenting opinion holding the ...

The court referred to the judgment of a Constitution Bench in Jayantilal Ratanchand Shah Vs RBI (1996), which upheld the validity of 1978’s Demonetisation Act. The court noted that to adjudicate the illegality of the notification, it would have to examine whether its objectives were in nexus with the decision or not. The court also noted that the notification has been validated by the 2016 Ordinance and then the 2017 Act. The court has noted that measures such as demonetisation are to be taken with utmost confidentiality and speed.4. The Court has further concluded that merely because on two earlier occasions, a demonetisation exercise was carried out by passing a legislation, it cannot be held that such a power would not be available to the Union Government.2. The petitioners contended that under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act, the power vested with the Union Government would amount to conferring excessive delegation, since it can demonetise any series of notes.

UP News: लखनऊ (Lucknow) में पूर्व ब्लॉक प्रमुख अजित सिंह की हत्या (Ajit Singh Murder) मामले में सुप्रीम ...

इस मामले में अजीत की पत्नी रानू सिंह ने मऊ में जौनपुर के पूर्व सांसद धनंजय सिंह, आजमगढ़ के माफिया कुंटू सिंह उर्फ ध्रुव सिंह, अखंड सिंह और गिरधारी विश्वकर्मा उर्फ डॉक्टर के खिलाफ तहरीर दी थी. पुलिस ने लखनऊ में 6 फ्लैट, दो फॉर्महाउस, गोमती नगर में लैब कई संपत्तियों को चिह्नित किया गया था. यूपी सरकार ने लखनऊ पुलिस से यह केस लेते हुए जांच की जिम्मेदारी एसटीएफ को दे दी थी.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जम्मू कश्मीर सिनेमा हॉल ऑनर्स एसोसिएशन की ओर से याचिका दाखिल की गई ...

[India News](https://www.amarujala.com/india-news) in Hindi related to live update of politics, sports, entertainment, technology and education etc. Stay updated with us for all breaking news from India News and more [news in Hindi](https://www.amarujala.com/). [Hindi News apps](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.org.AmarUjala.news), iOS [Hindi News apps](https://itunes.apple.com/in/app/amar-ujala-hindi-news/id1028364855) और [Amarujala Hindi News apps](https://www.amarujala.com/amar-ujala-app-download?utm_source=storypromo&utm_campaign=Storyappdownload) अपने मोबाइल पे

The Supreme Court ruled on January 3 the owners of cinema halls are entitled to set the terms and conditions for the sale of food and beverages and can ...

is for the owner of the property to decide, subject to statutory rules which regulate his activity," the CJI said. The owner of the hall is entitled to have terms and conditions so long as such terms and conditions are not contrary to public interest, safety and welfare," it said. Ltd, argued the receipts issued by theatre owners have a specific condition mentioned on them to the effect that no outside food is allowed. "Viewers visit a cinema hall for the purpose of entertainment. Advocate Sumeer Sodhi, appearing for one of the appellants G. Chandrachud and Justice P.S.

The multiplex owners challenged a decision of July 18, 2018, passed by the J&K high court permitting moviegoers to bring outside food inside the cinema hall ...

The bench recorded this submission while setting aside the direction of the J&K HC restricted to that portion of the order allowing outside food. According to them, the back of the ticket provided a restriction on bringing outside food. Having reserved right of admission, it is open for the owner to permit or not permit any food inside the hall. If somebody brings jalebis or tandoori chicken inside the hall, it is for the owner to decide that I do not want my hall to be dirty as somebody may wipe their hands on the seats.” They further argued that due to the prohibition, moviegoers are forced to purchase food inside the theatre at exorbitant rates. The multiplex owners challenged a decision of July 18, 2018, passed by the J&K high court permitting moviegoers to bring outside food inside the cinema hall.