The PIL had been filed by Advocate Harinath Ram in view of the “inordinate delay” in the adjudication of the Ram Janam Bhumi Matter, and in “recognition of the prevailing sentiments, surrounding, the entire nation and there is imminent danger of public outburst which can engulf our country in flames of violence on Ram Janam Bhumi issue”.

The delay, he had asserted, “has sent a huge consternation to the general public at large about the effectiveness of the justice delivery system by the apex court of our country.”

The bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S. K. Kaul, however, dismissed the PIL. It also said that further order in the case will be passed by an appropriate bench on January 10.

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer had, on September 27, decided by 2:1 majority that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench.

The request for reference was made by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, the counsel for Sunni Waqf Board, on the premise that the observation in the Constitution Bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui case that “offering namaz in mosque is not an essential feature of Islam” required reconsideration.

The majority of the then CJI Misra and Justice Bhushan had, however, opined that the said observation in Faruqui was not relevant in determining the title dispute of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land. It had held that the observations in Faruqui were made in the context of deciding the issue whether a mosque could claim immunity from land acquisition proceedings.

However, dissenting from this view, Justice Abdul Nazeer had held that the observations in Faruqui case influenced the High Court decision in the title suit, and hence required reconsideration by a larger bench. After declining the plea for reference to larger bench, the majority had fixed the next date of hearing as October 29.

Thereafter, in December 2017, a plea for postponing the hearing after 2019 Lok Sabha polls was made by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, on the ground that the political climate was not conducive for hearing the dispute. However, a bench of then CJI Misra had then turned down the plea, after a dramatic hearing session.

 First published in Live Law.

The post SC Dismisses Plea For Speedy Hearing In Ayodhya Land Dispute Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Terming it an “extremely important and sensitive issue”, Bench comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud  sought a “detailed reply” from four States- Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Delhi.

The Petition, filed by Advocate Sunita Tiwari, contends that the practice of khatna, as performed on every girl child within the Dawoodi Bohra religious community, does not have any reference in the Quran and is carried out without any medical reason. It thereby expresses anguish over the “the atrocity, bodily pain, in-humanness and mental torture faced by the girls and women of Dawoodi Bohra community for their entire life due to the unhygienic and illegal surgeries performed on their person for non medical reasons during their childhood.”

Terming it an “archaic ritual”, it further contends that the practice is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, submitting that the same encompasses the right of every child and woman to live with dignity, honour and without any deformity caused upon them by the others.

The Petition thereby demands implementation of a resolution on the elimination of FGM, passed in 2012 by the UN General Assembly. It also makes reference to the World Health Organisation records which classify FGM as a violation of human rights. According to WHO, FGM reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women and rights of children. The WHO, further, categorically states that no form of FGM has any medical benefits, and that it only causes severe physical, psychological and sexual harm to the young girls on whom it is perpetrated.

“…the practice of Khatna is illegal and against the religious norms/customs and amounts to serious violation of child rights as well as the rights of a woman to live with freedom and dignity and also a violation of human rights, and hence, amounts to cruelty of the first order, which is a heinous crime… The Union of India has failed to protect person and property of its citizens and the society from crimes done in the name of rituals and religion which are otherwise illegal,” it thereafter contends, demanding that appropriate policies and guidelines for prohibition of FGM be put in place on an urgent basis.

The Petition goes on to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the practice is illegal in several countries such as the US, Australia, Nigeria, Gambia and UK. While acknowledging that there exists no specific law in India banning FGM, Ms. Tiwari cites various provisions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with grievous hurt and wrongful confinement, to contend that the act may be punishable under the general law as well. Consequently, it also demands a direction to the Director Generals of State Police to take action on FGM cases under the existing laws, till stricter guidelines are framed in this regard.

Courtesy: Livelaw.in
 

The post SC Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Complete Ban On Female Genital Mutilation appeared first on SabrangIndia.