On July 24, the distinguished election expert and former Dean from Panjab University, the 77-year-old Dr. Garg has written directly to the Chief Justice of India, not as a legal professional, but as a concerned citizen grappling with profound anguish over the future of Indian democracy. 

His carefully crafted letter lays bare his concerns, arguing that for him, this isn’t merely about administrative protocols. Instead, it represents a critical fight to safeguard the fundamental right to vote, a right he believes is being systematically eroded, particularly for the poor and marginalised. 

His application, a potent indictment of the ECI’s actions, reveals a series of glaring inconsistencies and alleged breaches of electoral laws, all in an effort to avert what he perceives as the potential disenfranchisement of millions and a severe blow to the nation’s democratic ideals.

The contradiction at the heart of the matter: ECI’s shifting stance

Dr. Garg’s letter began by exposing a troubling inconsistency in the ECI’s directives. He pointed out that on May 1, 2025, the ECI had issued instructions acknowledging its responsibility, under Rule 9 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to electronically obtain and verify death registration data from the Registrar General of India. This indicated a clear understanding that the onus of verification lay with the Commission itself. However, less than two months later, on June 24, 2025, the ECI issued a subsequent order for the “Special Intensive Revision” in Bihar. 

This new directive, Dr. Garg argued, completely contradicted their earlier stand. Instead of the ECI verifying data, the burden of proving eligibility, even for already registered voters, was now inexplicably shifted onto the electors themselves. This sudden and significant change, he contended, was not only arbitrary but also a clear violation of the ECI’s own admitted duties and established legal procedures.

Alleged violations of core electoral Laws: unlawful demands and procedures

Dr. Garg’s letter meticulously detailed how the ECI’s “Special Intensive Revision” appeared to violate fundamental provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA, 1950), and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He specifically highlighted that the core of the ECI’s alleged overreach, according to Dr. Garg, lay in its arbitrary creation and use of an “Enumeration Form,” a proforma entirely different from the legally prescribed Form 4 under Rule 8 of the 1960 Rules. 

This new form not only varied in format but also in content, introducing an unauthorised demand for 11 specific documents to prove identity and citizenship. 

Dr. Garg argued that this was a direct contravention of Section 23(4), (5), and (6) of the RPA, 1950, which stipulates that while Aadhaar may be sought for identity, it cannot be a mandatory requirement for inclusion or deletion of names, and alternative documents should be allowed. The ECI’s unilateral demand for such an extensive list of documents, without any legal amendment, rendered the entire exercise invalid.

Disregard for established legal framework

Dr. Garg mentioned that the ECI is mandated to carry out electoral roll preparation and revision in a “prescribed manner” and “in accordance with the provisions of Rules made” under the RPA, 1950, as stated in Section 21. He stressed that Section 19 clearly lays down the conditions for registration – being 18 years of age and ordinarily resident in a constituency. 

Furthermore, he cited Section 20(1A), which clarifies that temporary absence from residence doesn’t cease one’s ordinary residency. The ECI’s current revision, by demanding extensive documentation and shifting verification burden, appeared to flout these foundational principles.

The citizenship conundrum: a question of authority

Perhaps one of the most contentious points raised was the ECI’s perceived attempt to delve into matters of citizenship, an authority, Dr. Garg argued, that lies beyond its purview. The ECI’s instruction requiring proof of birth and parental origin based on specific dates (before July 1, 1987; between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004; and after December 2, 2004) aligned suspiciously with the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended. 

This, Dr. Garg contended, implied that the ECI was attempting to implement aspects of the CAA-NRC, a function that rightfully belongs to Parliament and other competent authorities, not the Election Commission. He posed the critical question: 

“Has the Election Commission been appointed to define and judge the citizenship rights?”

Invalidating past elections and creating constitutional crisis

Dr. Garg forcefully argued that by referring to January 1, 2003, as a qualifying date for the current revision – essentially reviewing electoral rolls from 23 years prior – the ECI was acting outside its constitutional mandate. Articles 324, 326, and 328 of the Constitution authorise revisions based on the immediate previous list, not decades-old records. If the ECI’s actions were upheld, he argued, it would implicitly question the validity of all central and state legislatures, presidential, and vice-presidential appointments, and all laws and decisions made since 2003. This, he warned, would plunge the nation into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Ground realities: the unseen victims of bureaucracy

Beyond the legal intricacies, Dr. Garg passionately highlighted the real “ground realities” that would inevitably victimise millions of genuine voters.

The demand for birth certificates, especially for those born before 1987, was deemed “impracticable and totally unlawful.” He noted that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act only came into existence in 1969, meaning records for earlier births would simply not exist for a vast majority. 

He presented data showing abysmally low birth registration rates in Bihar (6.3% in 2005-06) and a national average of only 41.4%, with birth certificates found in just 27.1% of cases. 

“How could individuals born decades ago produce documents that never existed or were rarely issued?”

The Digital Divide and Illiteracy Barrier

Dr. Garg emphasised India’s significant literacy gap, especially in states like Bihar, where female literacy was as low as 22.89% in 2001. Demanding matriculation certificates or passports from a population where only 10.55% were matriculates or above in 2001, and only 6.5% possessed a valid passport as of 2023, was a recipe for widespread exclusion. Many remote and impoverished citizens lack access to digital records or the means to obtain such documents.

The threat of doubtful voters and loss of rights

The direst consequence, as articulated by Dr. Garg, was the potential for millions to lose their citizenship and become stateless based on arbitrary deletions from the electoral rolls. Such an outcome would strip them of ration and other essential benefits, and even fundamental rights. He warned of “demographic changes for political aims” and the alarming possibility of “around 25,000 votes per constituency… stolen” through dubious deletions.

ECI’s procedural failures and discrepancies

Dr. Garg’s letter also pointed to glaring operational failures and inconsistencies within the ECI’s execution of the revision. He highlighted:

• Failure to adhere to forms and rules: The ECI had allegedly bypassed legally prescribed forms (Forms 6, 7, 8, etc.) and rules (Rules 13, 15, 16, 19, 26 of the 1960 Rules) for inclusion, objection, and correction of names.
• Printing and distribution shortfalls: The ECI’s own press releases indicated a massive shortfall in printing voter forms – only 79 million out of a required 158 million by July 10, 2025. Furthermore, there was a reported lack of double-form distribution and receipts for electors, both mandatory.
• Dubious data and forged signatures: Dr. Garg alleged instances of forged signatures, forms uploaded without field visits, and a “double-edged sword” warning system that pushed electors to submit documents even if their forms were uploaded without them.
• Mathematical inconsistencies: He even cited discrepancies in the ECI’s own reported figures, where totals in press releases didn’t add up, indicating a “glaring picture of casualness even at the top.”
• Unverified deletions: The ECI claimed that over 4.1 million electors were “not found at their place” and 3.4 million were “deceased or permanently shifted” without conclusive verification. Dr. Garg argued these were “doubtful removals” designed for “horse trading.”

Dr. Pyara Lal Garg concluded his powerful application with a heartfelt prayer to the Supreme Court. He sought answers to critical questions of law that pierced to the very heart of India’s democratic framework:

• Is this revision a flagrant breach of election law?

• Is it a nefarious design to undermine universal franchise?

• Does it violate fundamental provisions of the RPA, 1950, particularly against the poor and marginalised?

• Does the ECI possess the authority to implement the CAA-NRC or define citizenship rights?

• Will this revision retroactively invalidate past elections and legislative bodies?

• Is the ECI, by abandoning the principle of inclusion, trampling the concept of universal adult suffrage, a cornerstone debated and enshrined by the Constituent Assembly?

Related

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

Bihar’s untraceable electors spiral by 809% in just one day, ECI reports 1 lakh ‘missing’, 15 lakh Bihar voters yet to submit forms

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

The post Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The opinion of independent experts should be also be taken into consideration by the apex court before it assesses the actual impact of this law on our forest cover, the letter states.

The text of the open letter may be read here:

Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India on the Conflict of Interest of the Central  Empowered Committee

Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India,

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We have expressed our anguish several times in the past regarding the steady reduction of India’s forest cover, due to changes in certain laws and policies of the government, as well as their actions. What is causing us great concern now is a matter of conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India’s forests even further down the road.

A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted in the year 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) on the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was set up for the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on matters of forests and wildlife and to provide technical advice on the subject to the Supreme Court. It consisted of three former officers of the MOEF, and two non-government persons, the first an expert on forests and wildlife and the other an advocate of the Supreme Court who was also an environmentalist. In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest.

In 2023, since Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) seemingly had complete autonomy in choosing the members of the CEC, it nominated in all the four posts of members, four former government officers, three of whom are retired Indian Forest Service officers and one, a retired scientist, who had also worked for many years until his retirement in the MoEFCC. There are no independent experts on the Committee.

Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently.

A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government.

In 2023 a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA), 2023, as, according to them, the Act would hasten the decline of forests in India, already greatly reduced since a decade or two earlier. In hearings in this case, so far, the Supreme Court has given four landmark orders, upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996 and directing that such forests be identified and geo- referenced as per the SC orders of 1996 and 2011 (Lafarge case). The case is pending for a final hearing and decision in the Supreme Court.

However, we fear that the outcome of this case, as well as those of others filed against the FCAA 2023, may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC, and the likelihood that the Supreme Court may give weight to the advice of the CEC before taking a final decision in the matter.

We would like to point out that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 was prepared and defended before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) by a CEC member then at the helm in the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change. The Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) 2023 which is being challenged in the Supreme Court, was also notified at that time, as were the rules under the Act and the consolidated guidelines (notified on November 29, 2023 and December 12, 2023.

Similarly, several memoranda that permitted using degraded, notified forests and unclassed/ revenue forests for compensatory afforestation in exchange for diversion of forest land were issued during the tenure of some of the CEC members while they held top positions in the MoEFCC. Such orders are against the Godavarman judgement of 1996, but they were issued nevertheless. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, cannot but be in line with the previous positions held by these officials in the government. The advice of the CEC in any case which challenges the FCAA 2023 (with which they were closely associated while in the government), will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed, and will thus be a clear conflict of interest.

An indication of this is already evident in the recent SC order on ‘zudpi’ forests (scrub forests) of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court’s order of May 5, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC’s advice which recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for ‘compensatory afforestation’ considering ’zudpi’ forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees. Actually, ‘zudpi

forests are scrub forests/grasslands rich in wildlife specifically adapted to such vegetation. ‘Zudpi’ forests support important, endemic and endangered species such as the Indian grey wolf, Great Indian bustard, lesser Florican, Blackbuck, Indian fox etc., besides serving as corridors for tigers, leopards, bears and other wildlife, and helping mitigate human-wildlife conflict in an area severely affected by the same. Diverting of ‘zudpi’ forests for non -forestry purposes is also violative of the Supreme Court’s Godavarman order of 1996 as well as the more recent orders of the Court dated February 3, 2025 and March 3, 2025 in the case against the FCAA 2023, which is still under litigation. It is gratifying to note that the Honourable Supreme Court did not accept the CEC recommendations in toto.

We would like to recommend to the Honourable Court that in order to give fair and unbiased advice, a CEC needs to be composed not just of experts who are retired officials of the government but of renowned experts from outside as well, of which there are many in the country. As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest.

We request the CJI to ensure that such a CEC is not allowed to advise the Honourable Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country’s forests, wildlife and ecological security.

Signatories:

The post Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

-CJI Chandrachud to SG Tushar Mehta

The Supreme Court on Monday, July 31, said that the sexual violence incident in Manipur cannot be justified by saying that “this and this happened elsewhere”.

“We are dealing with something of unprecedented magnitude of violence against women in communal and sectarian violence. It cannot be said that crimes are happening against women and in Bengal also. But here the case is different. We cannot justify what happened in Manipur by saying that this and this happened elsewhere,” said Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.

The apex court made these remarks while hearing a petition filed by two women from the Kuki community who were paraded naked by a mob of men on May 4.The incident occurred in B. Phainom village in Kangpokpi district, a day after the ongoing ethnic clashes between the Meiteis and Kukis began. However, while the Print had reported this in May 2023, the video went viral only on July 19, following which there was widespread outrage at the brutality and impunity with which the women were assaulted.

Since May 2023, when matters were first mentioned before a vacation bench of the Supreme Court, there has been a lot of confusion surrounding the steps that will be taken by the Supreme Court of India regarding the ongoing violence in Manipur. The Supreme Court has now demanded answers from the State and Union Governments. 

In the past few days, many different reports have surfaced, some of which suggested that the cases registered against the crimes committed in the state will no longer be handled by the Manipur police, but rather be taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Reportedly, requests were also being made to conduct an independent investigation into the crimes committed to ensure justice is meted out. It is essential to note here that CBI is a central agency, under the direct aegis of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)  and there have been allegations that the violence ensuing the state of Manipur for the past three months is targeted against a minority community and is alleged to be “state-sponsored”.

On July 31, eleven days after the Supreme Court had first taken suo-moto cognizance after a video of two Kuki women being paraded naked surfaced on the internet, the SC heard a batch of petitions filed in relation to the violence in Manipur. Many essential questions were raised in the hearing today, regarding the inaction and compliance of the police with the perpetrators, the necessity of independent probe, and unprecedented magnitude of violence against women. The petitioners also dealt with the issue of taking statements from the survivors of rape and sexual violence, and the need to ensure that the survivors who come forward are protested. The Supreme Court also called for evolving a broad mechanism to deal with violence against women in violence-hit Manipur.

CJI questions police inaction, government indifference

The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, demanded answer from the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, regarding the inaction of the police in the incident of Kuki women being paraded naked. 

“What stood in the way of police registering the FIR immediately on May 4?” CJI asked SG Mehta, who was representing the State Government. 

To this, SG replied that May 18 was the date Zero FIR was registered. He also informed the Bench that within 24 hours of the video surfacing, seven arrests were made.

On the same, the CJI continued and asked, “Was the local police unaware that such an incident took place? And why was the FIR transferred to the Magistrate on the June 20? After one month”, as reported by LiveLaw.

Questions were raised by the bench, also comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, regarding total number of FIRs filed during the period of ongoing violence.

“You also said there are about 6000 FIRs. What is the bifurcation? How many involve offences against women? How many involve other serious offences like murder, arson, burning down houses? What is the bifurcation between offences against body, offences against properties, offences against places of worship?” the CJI sought to know, as reported by LiveLaw.

CJI also raised concerns about the condition of victims in relief camps and emphasised the need for a compassionate system to record their testimonies. He pointed out three months have elapsed since the violence broke out and key evidence must have got destroyed in this period. 

According to CJI Chandrachud, the viral video incident cannot be viewed as a stand-alone crime and was a result of systemic violence against women. 

He stated: “There are statements by the victims that they were handed over to the mob by police. This is not a situation like ‘Nirbhaya’. That was also horrific but it was isolated. This is not an isolated instance. Here we are dealing with systemic violence which IPC recognises as a special offence. In such case, is it not important that you should have a specialised team? There is a need in the State of Manipur to have a healing touch. Because the violence is continuing unabated”, as reported by LiveLaw.

During the hearing, the court discussed the idea of forming a committee to speak with the victims and record their testimonies before beginning with criminal procedures. Regarding this, the bench sought to know the details of the extent of legal aid provided to the victims and the measures undertaken by the state and union government for rehabilitation.

The bench has asked the SG and Attorney General for India to seek guidance from the relevant authorities about the concerns highlighted by the court. 

A committee of women judges

Additionally, the top court contemplated the formation of a committee of retired woman judges to probe incidents of sexual violence against women in Manipur.

“Merely entrusting to CBI or SIT (Special Investigation Team) would not be enough. We will have to picture a situation where a 19-year-old woman who has lost her family is in a relief camp. We cannot have her going to the magistrate. We have to ensure that the process of justice goes to her doorstep. We will constitute a committee of women judges and members of civil society, who will in turn get the assistance of members of civil societies,” the court said.

The court made these remarks while hearing the Union government’s plea on transferring the case of the two women to a different state.

The hearing will be continued at 2 pm tomorrow. The details sought by the bench are also to be submitted by tomorrow. 

Submissions made by the petitioners before the Bench

Women against transfer of case to CBI: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal:

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of the two Kuki women who were paraded naked by a mob of Meitei men on May 4, 2023. Mr. Sibal stated that the women were against the CBI probe into the case as well as the transfer of the trials to Assam. 

They (Union govt) have transferred the matter to CBI and they want to move the matter out of Assam. We’re against both”, Sibal said, as reported by Livelaw. 

As stated in the Livelaw report, Mr. Sibal raised questions on the conduct of the police in the violence that took place against the two women. He stated provided that based on the statements of the victims under Section 161 CrPC, it is clear that the “police collaborated with the perpetrators of violence”. 

“The police took them towards the crowd. First they stated that there was no ignition and then they abandoned them with the crowd. And they did what they did”, Sibal said in the court. 

Mr. Sibal also highlighted that the father and brother of one of the women were killed and their bodies are yet to be recovered. 

“One of the women- her father, brother killed. We still don’t have the bodies.”

Further highlighting the inaction of the police, Mr. Sibal stated that even though the incident took place on May 4 and a Zero FIR was registered on May 18, it was only after the video went viral and the Supreme Court took cognizance of the case did the police take action. He said that many such incidents would have happened; however, the Union Government, even today, does not know how many FIRs have been filed. “This shows the sad state of affairs”, he exclaimed, as stated in the LiveLaw report.

Mr. Sibal highlighted that the investigation must be by an agency in which the victims have confidence and which can be unbiased. He wondered how the facts supplied by the State police, which collaborated with the criminals, can be relied upon. 

Regarding the AG’s assurance regarding personal monitoring of the investigation, Sibal said, “How will the law officer or AG monitor? Monitor what?” The officers have not even informed the AG and SG how many FIRs have been registered! That’s the sad state of affairs”, as reported by LiveLaw.

Solicitor General at this juncture intervened to say that the Union Government has no objection to a Court-monitored investigation.

First thing is to build confidence: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising emphasised that the women are still scarred and that it is crucial for them to be able to speak openly about their experience with others in whom they have confidence. She proposed that women who have prior experience assisting rioting victims of sexual assault be asked to speak with the victims.

“Victims of rape don’t talk about it. They don’t come out with their trauma. First thing is to build confidence. Today we don’t know that if the CBI starts investigation, women will come out. First there should be a High Powered Committee – with women from civil societies who have experience in dealing with survivors…”, she said, as reported by LiveLaw.

“How many times a rape victim has to be made to repeat her story? She has to tell it to the police, tell it to the CBI, it is an endless process”, she urged, highlighting the vicious cycle of trauma a survivor of sexual violence has to go through. 

She raised a demand for constituting a High Powered Committee, and suggested the names of Syeda Hameed, Uma Chakraborty, Roshni Goswami. She said that the above mentioned women have experience in dealing with such cases and have access to local communities there. She persuading the bench to constitute a committee of women who can interact with the victims. She suggested that this committee can then submit a report to the Court and based on that further decision can be taken.

While agreeing that the concerns raised by Ms. Jaising are “worthy of being considered”, CJI DY Chandrachud asked for her suggestions on how the process of arrest can fit in with the framework for investigation as per the CrPC. To this, Ms. Jaising replied that investigation has to be as per the CrPC, but the recording of the statements can be done by the high-powered committee. She also emphasised on ensuring that no evidence is lost during the investigation. 

SIT should look into the larger conspiracy about rapes in Manipur: senior advocate, Colin Gonsalves

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves suggested the names of five retired DGPs that could form the SIT conducting the investigation in the said case. Gonsalves highlighted that the five DGPs named by him did not have any political connection. In his arguments, he also stressed that the officers should not be from Manipur. 

He also highlighted that the statements of the victims point out that they were with the police company before the crime happened. He alleged that the sexual crime was not an isolated event and that there was a “larger conspiracy” behind it involving police complicity.

“There is a conspiracy and it is directed by people who were not on spot. The SIT should look into not only immediate perpetrators but also the larger conspiracy about rapes in Manipur. They’re happening in a collective and coordinated fashion”, he said, as highlighted by LiveLaw.

Advocate Gonsalves also provided that there is a lack of confidence and trust associated with the investigation of the CBI as the Central Government had turned a blind eye to the plight of the people of the Manipur. 

“There is not much faith in CBI- the reason for that is that the Central government closed its eyes on Manipur. The people in Manipur, the victim, could not distinguish between State govt and Central govt- they acted in unison. Kindly consider not having CBI at all“, Gonsalves said, as reported by LiveLaw.

There has to be a SIT for confidence building: Advocate Shobha Gupta

Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for ‘We, the Women of India’, also submitted her suggestions to the bench. She also raised the demand for the constitution of an SIT to instil confidence in the people of Manipur to come forth with their complaints. Gupta has been the counsel for rape survivor Bilkees Bano (Gujarat, 2002).

Agreeing with Advocate Jaising’s recommendation to send a commission to meet with the victims, Gupta stated that the commission could obtain the first-hand accounts of the victims and survivors, under the auspices of the Supreme Court She further stated that the FIRs should be filed based on the testimonies of the committee so that the victims are free to avoid going to the police. 

“There has to be an SIT for confidence building measures. A team should be sent from here under aegis of SC- to meet and get victims’ first hand statements. On basis of that FIRs should be noted- we did in Delhi riots also. So victims don’t have to go to police,” she said, as reported by LiveLaw.

Ms. Gupta also emphasised on provided rehabilitation to the victims, alone with offering legal help through NALSA, and fast-tracking the trials.

She also pressed FIRs against police officers, and stated “I am pressing FIRs against police officers who were present- they actually lodged FIR saying 1000-1500 assailants had barged in village yet there was no one to protect them.”

Why would a woman come forward if the government doesn’t take any action? Advocate Vrinda Grover

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for ‘Women in Governance India’, provided the Bench with more cases of Kuki women being targeted and subjected to sexual violence. She clarified that her clients have visited 163 relief camps, and she brings facts from the ground.

“Women in governance, which is a network of academics etc. have visited 163 relief camps so what I’ve mentioned are facts from ground,” Grover said, as reported by LiveLaw.

Ms. Grover informed the bench about an incident of two Kuki women being assaulted, tortured and killed in May. She further provided details regarding another incident of a gang rape of an 18 year old. 

“Two women were working at car wash in Imphal. A crowd come, tortured, murdered. Their bodies are lying in a morgue in Imphal. The families are in camps. The mother has lodged FIR, there is no one in govt who has come and said what fate of remains is. There is another girl- 18 year old, she was also gang raped. There was a zero FIR but that is where the matter stands. The matters halt at FIRs,” Grover said, as reported by LiveLaw.

Ms. Grover provided that in most of such cases, no action beyond the registration of FIR have taken places. Expressing anguished, she asked “Why would any woman tell if the police is not going to take any action?“

She emphasised that even as there are sexual crimes committed in many groups, “targeted sexual violence against Kuki women” is concerning. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, objected to the said submission, stating that he is against the naming of any particular community as it could lead to more violence.

In response to this, Grover said that the crimes’ targeted aspect could not be disregarded and cited Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, which treats rape committed during communal strife as a separate offence.

“It is essential to highlight this targeted violence…the offence is also rape committed during communal strife…we cannot turn a blind eye towards it“, she said, as provided by LiveLaw. 

She pointed out that the FIRs only invoke Section 376 IPC, although the offence of gang rape is a standalone offence under Section 376D IPC. Grover also highlighted that atrocities against Scheduled Tribes are dealt with separately under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 

“In these FIRs, SC/ST sections are not mentioned, neither are the atrocities mentioned. There is specific compensation in such cases,” as reported by LiveLaw.

With this, Ms. Grover furthered her plea for SIT monitored by this court, from outside the state. Highlighting the issue of ration, she further demanded that there should be an independent, impartial report on what is the status of relief camps.

These instances show police working against victims: Advocate Nizam Pasha 

Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Zomi Students Federation, informed the Bench that his application referred to fourteen instances of crimes against women, which show police complicity. 

“These instances show police working against victims- either not lodging FIRs or turning the victims to the mobs…there are acts of complicity by the police either by commission or omission“, Pasha said while urging that these instances also be transferred to the SIT, as reported by LiveLaw.

Mr. Pasha also made the following suggestions:

• One stop centres should be strengthened in Manipur by providing them with manpower and infrastructure. 
• Instead of jurisdictional magistrate, magistrate of whichever district victim located in should record statement under Section 164 of CrPC.
• Compensation must be given at the stage when 164 statement is recorded. 

The matter is expected to be now taken up after four days, not the four months that SG Tushar Mehta had requested.

Related:

Demands Unyielding: Opposition and Citizens persist in seeking PM Modi’s response on Manipur violence and Assam CM’s resignation

Behind the violence, grabbing Hill lands for palm oil manufacture: Manipur

Words of anguish resonate all-India, streets protests spill over, raising cries for justice: Manipur

Manipur Violence: Supreme Court warns union and state government to take action, or they will

Manipur Violence: Video showing 2 Kuki women being paraded naked opens the eyes of the government, PM Modi and Irani make first statements

“246 churches burnt in 2 day, somebody strong is playing games in Manipur”: Father Jacob G Palackappilly

Manipur violence: EU Parliament “denounces the nationalistic rhetoric deployed by leading members of the BJP party”

Manipur violence: SC provides interim protection in sedition case against lawyer who accompanied fact-finding team

Manipur Violence: SC bench seeks updated status report from State on rehabilitation, law & order situation

One in Manipur, another in Kashmir: Veterans slam two faces of Indian Army

Manipur is Burning but who cares?

Bishops of India must protest & speak out for peace, against injustices in Manipur & India: Jesuit priest

Denial of internet an assault on fundamental freedoms – a deep dive into Manipur’s incessant internet ban

Manipur women stage protest at Jantar Mantar to end violence in state

The Invisible Split: A report documenting reports of “ethnic cleansing” in Manipur, 2023

120 Churches destroyed, Christians insecure: Manipur

No Compensation Enough for Traumatised Kukis Fleeing Manipu

The post SC on Manipur violence: “What stood in the way of police registering the FIR immediately on May 4?” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over 300 individuals, including legal eagles, human rights defenders, academics and ordinary citizens have written to Chief Justice of India NV Ramana expressing “deep distress at the imprisonment of Teesta Setalvad, RB Sreekumar and others.”

“They are being hounded because they chose to pursue justice for the over 2000 people who were killed in Gujarat in February 2002,” say the signatories including legal luminaries like Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Anand Grover, CU Singh, Sanjay Hegde, historian Ram Guha, scholars R Doraiswamy, Shamsul Islam and Syed Naqvi, journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, activists Kavita Krishnan, Subhashini Ali, Tushar Gandhi, Kavita Srivastava, John Dayal, Lenin Raghuvanshi, Frazer Mascarenhas, Brinelle D’Souza, and lawyers Anas Tanwir, FA Ayyubi, Avani Bansal and many others.

They further say, “Subsequent to the Jaffri judgment, in a media interview, the home minister of the country, chose to comment on the court’s observations, in a manner calculated to cause arrests by the Gujarat police,” adding, “This sequence of events has sent a chilling message for the practice of law in the courts and for the rule of law in the country. It appears that a petitioner or a witness, who diligently pursues a cause in the courts, runs a risk of being “put in the dock” if the court deems the cause as devoid of merits.”

They have now called upon the Supreme Court to “suo-motu clarify” that its judgment in the Zakia Jafri case “was not intended to have any adverse consequences whatsoever.” They warn, “The absence of such clarification may lead to further consequences when bail is sought, by those whom we believe to have been unjustly imprisoned.”

The entire letter may be read here:

Related:

Release Teesta Setalvad: Adivasi women demand justice for their sister activist
Teesta questioned for around four hours: Javed Anand
Nation unites to demand Teesta Setalvad’s release

The post Suo motu clarify Zakia Jafri case judgment’s intention to not prosecute Teesta Setalvad: Citizens to CJI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over 4,000 eminent and concerned citizens, women’s rights and progressive groups have endorsed an open letter demanding that the CJI apologise and retract his remarks of asking a rapist if he would marry the survivor and for condoning marital rape. The letter calls CJI SA Bobde’s remarks regressive, and states that ‘propriety demands you step down without a moment’s delay’.

Several news portals reported the exchange between the Judge and the petitioner’s advocate whereby the judge has asked the petitioner if he would marry the minor girl, he was accused of raping. The girl had alleged that the accused was a distant relative raped her and continued to stalk and threaten her. The accused had promised that he would marry the girl once she attains majority but he backed off from his promise hence, the FIR was lodged. The letter states, “It fills us with rage that women bear the burden of having to explain the meaning of ‘seduction’, ‘rape’ and ‘marriage’”.

The letter also refers to another case where the CJI had, reportedly, commented, “If a couple is living together as man and wife, the husband may be a brutal man, but can you call the act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife as rape?” The letter states that this comment “legitimises any kind of sexual, physical and mental violence by the husband” and “normalises the torture Indian women have been facing within marriages for years without legal recourse”.

The letter states that this will lead to “further silencing of girls and women” and it sends a message to rapists that “marriage is a license to rape”.

CPI (M) Politburo member Brinda Karat also wrote to the CJI asking him to withdraw his remarks. “There is a prevailing retrograde social approach that the victim of rape is a ‘bad’ woman and if the rapist marries her, she gains respectability in the eyes of society. Comments of the apex court should not give the impression of supporting such approaches,” she said. Karat said that the message that comes across is that “a rapist can escape jail if after the crime he agrees to marry his victim whether she wants to or not”.

Related:

Do courts still see marriage as resolution for rape?

SC stirs the hornet’s nest on rape by intimate partner

The post Women’s rights activists demand CJI’s apology for alleged comments appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court three-judge Bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian refused to quash disciplinary proceedings against a Madhya Pradesh Judge in a sexual harassment case filed by a junior judicial officer, reported Bar & Bench.

CJI SA Bobde noted that “sexual harassment allegations cannot be brushed aside under the carpet”, while refusing to quash the plea but granted him the liberty to appear before the inquiry.

Senior Advocate Balasubramaniam, who appeared for the petition was reportedly told by the Bench, “You are walking on a very thin ice, you can fall any time. You may have a chance that you may be acquitted. But as matters stand now, you are convicted.”

LiveLaw reported that after hearing the arguments, the Bench stated that it will write a short order dealing with the petitioner’s contention and dismiss the Special Leave Petition. However, on the Senior Counsel Balasubramaniam’s request for liberty to withdraw, the Court granted him permission to withdraw the case with liberty to participate in the inquiry.

During the previous hearing on this matter, Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastava, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, had read out some WhatsApp messages sent by the petitioner judge to the complainant/judicial officer who was harassed.

To this, LiveLaw had quoted the CJI saying, “To flirt with a junior official is not an acceptable conduct for a judge.” The WhatsApp messages were found to be “offensive and improper.”

The sexual harassment complaint against the Madhya Pradesh judge was registered in 2018. He had earlier approached the Supreme Court to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the High Court, but the top court had declined to entertain it, asking him to approach the High Court instead.

As the High Court refused to entertain his plea, he once again approached the apex court, which stayed the disciplinary proceedings against the judge in September last year, according to a report in Bar & Bench.

In the previous hearing in the top court on February 16, the Bench had recorded that the High Court is proceeding with the matter even though the petitioner has retired from service as it wanted to “send a strong message”. The Bench was also told that a charge-sheet has been filed in the departmental proceedings, which the petitioner has not chosen to challenge.

“This matter before the Gender Sensitisation Committee has come to an end with the lady refusing to participate. Now the High Court wants to proceed. It is duty bound to proceed also, in a departmental enquiry. Is there any law which can prevent the High Court from proceeding with enquiry? Right to departmental enquiry is an inherent right of the employer even if there is no provision in the service law”, remarked the CJI.

Related:

Sexual harassment complaint against same gender may seem odd but it’s not improbable: Calcutta HC
Right of reputation can’t be protected at the cost of Right to life: Delhi court acquits Priya Ramani

The post Sexual Harassment: SC refuses to dismiss disciplinary proceedings against retired judge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has received an unusual petition in the form of a letter. While most of the recent PILs in Supreme Court speak of payment of wages to migrant workers, action against spread of fake news, release of prisoners from over crowded prisons, this letter petition addressed to the Chief Justice of India calls for a ban on Tablighi Jamaat and its activities.

This letter has been written by Ajay Gautam, founder of Hum Hindu, a body “against politics of Muslim appeasement”. He has urged the court to take cognizance of his letter as a Public interest Litigation. The Tablighi Jamaat congregation has been criticised widely for continuing the meeting with around 2,000 people, even after prohibitory orders were issued by the Delhi government, against gatherings of more than 50 persons.

The petition states, “It is submitted that Hundreds of foreigners of 61 countries who were came on tourist Visa joined above gathering for propagating Islam in India. It is further submitted that hundreds of foreigners who joined the gathering came from where the Coronavirus already spread in large numbers. It is further submitted that the above named organization hid this information from the concerned agency.”

The petition further states, “Thousands of participators/Jemaateis including foreign nationals were evacuate/arrested/detained by the police from hundreds of mosques/Madarsas who were hide themselves after many advisories issued by agencies. That thousands of participators/Jemaateis are still out of reach from the hands of agencies and spreading this pandemic among the citizens in every part of India.”

The petition further alleges that this was all a part of a planned conspiracy and that the Jamaat members used COVID19 as a bio weapon to wage a war against the Union of India. The petition further makes demands such as institution of a CBI level probe in the role of the Jamaat in spreading COVID19 across the country; and additionally, their role in the north east Delhi riots which took place in February.

The petition also goes on to allege that the building of Markaz in Nizamuddin is an illegal structure and seeks demolition of the building as well as a ban on the activities of the organization, Tablighi Jamaat.

This letter petition has come right after a legitimate PIL was filed by a Mumbai based organization called Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind seeking strict action against news media for communalizing the Tablighi Jamaat incident and spreading false news.

The letter petition sent by the founder of a Hindutva organization reeks of Islamophobia and speaks the same language which the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind petition has criticised as harming the secular fabric of the country. In the current scenario, when the Supreme Court is only hearing “urgent matters”, one can only wait to see whether the apex court finds this petition worthy of its time and limited resources.

The Letter petition can be read here.

Related:

SC orders Teltumbde-Navlakha to surrender in one week
Plea in SC seeking strict action for communalizing of Tablighi Jamat incident by news media
Muslims in Assam fear they may have to bear the brunt of Tablighi Jamaat’s mistake

The post Bizarre letter to CJI seeks demolition of Markaz building, CBI probe in “COVID conspiracy” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

63-year-old Bobde graduated from SFS College Nagpur and studied law at Dr. Ambedkar Law College at Nagpur University. He enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra in September 1978 and practiced at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. He has also appeared before the principal seat at Mumbai and also before the Supreme Court. In 1998, he became a senior advocate. In March 2000, he was appointed as an Additional Judge at the Bombay High Court. In October 2012 he was appointed Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. On April 12, 2013, Justice Bobde was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court.
 

Key judgments

Justice Bobde was a part of the five-judge bench that recently delivered the Ayodhya verdict. He was also part of the 9-judge-bench that delivered the landmark privacy judgment.

In 2016, when activist Harsh Mander challenged the Bombay High Court order upholding the discharge of BJP Chief Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, Justice Bobde and Justice Ashok Bhushan rejected his plea and questioned his locus standi in the matter. In December 2014, just days after the mysterious death of Judge BH Loya, a trial court in Mumbai had given a clean chit to Shah in the case and the decision was upheld by the Bombay HC.

Also, in 2016, Justice Bobde was part of a bench along with justices TS Thakur and AK Sikri that suspended the sale of firecrackers ahead of Diwali in the National Capital Region due to concerns about pollution and air quality. He along with Justice SA Nazeer had also presided over the case when firecracker manufacturers pleaded against a ban on firecrackers in Delhi. Here Justice Bobde reportedly observed that they did not intend to generate unemployment for firecracker industry workers if there were to be a complete ban on firecrackers. He had also reportedly observed that, “People are gunning for firecrackers, but the bigger pollutant is vehicles… Had the normal pollution level been low, then we could have managed better.”   

While in February 2017 Justice Bobde was a part of a bench that turned down a woman’s request to abort her foetus suffering from Down’s Syndrome, in August 2017, he was also part of a bench that allowed medical termination of pregnancy in a case where the fetus did not have a skull or scalp.  

Justice Bobde was also a part of a 7 judge bench that presided over the Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen where he sided with the majority that held that an appeal for votes based on the religion of the voter or the candidate constituted an offense under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

The Wire cites legal research firm Manupatra’s Judge Analytics to say that Justice Bobde has been a part of 424 benches that have delivered verdicts, but he himself has actually authored only 62 judgments. 

When Bobde was practicing law, he appeared for Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray who had then been accused to making bribery allegations against a judge at a Dussera rally. Speaking to Indian Express, Nagpur based advocate Prateek Rajurkar explained Bobde’s arguments in defense of Thackeray saying, “He argued that under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the consent of the Advocate General was necessary for a private person to approach this court as it operates as a filter to eliminate vexatious or frivolous litigations, which are calculated to harass the opponent or for political vendetta, and then to save time of the court. However, in this case, no consent has been received from the Advocate General.” The Bombay HC rejected this argument and sentenced Thackeray to a week in prison, but when the Shiv Sena appealed against it in the Supreme Court, the apex court upheld Bobde’s arguments.

The post All you need to know about new CJI Sharad Bobde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post MPs submit petition for Impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The CJP would like to place on record the facts regarding the hearing of the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya intervention application filed by 32 citizens that took place on February 8. Various newspapers and websites are presenting a mis-representation of the proceedings that took place in the Supreme Court. An article on India Today’s website suggests that this IA filed by concerned citizens on the issue was ‘denied.’

Interestingly, the same report states a little later in the piece, the SC merely said that the matter in this IA and several others too would be decided at a later date. One way or another, the matter has not been settled and for prominent English language dailies such as Times of India and a few Hindi electronic media networks to suggest otherwise, appears curious.

Senior counsel, Chander Uday Singh and Aparna Bhat appeared for the petitioners. The SC bench headed by CJI Dipak Mishra merely said that the matter of whether a bunch of interventions would be heard or not would be decided at a later date.

Thirty two eminent personalities and activists including Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, Medha Patkar, Anil Dharker, Teesta Setalvad and Aruna Roy have intervened in the politically sensitive Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case. In this IA, filed on December 1, 2017, they have urged the special bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the 2.77 acres of disputed land shall not be given either to Hindus or Muslims but be used for a non-religious public use.

“We are public spirited citizens from various walks from life and across the length and breadth of India who feel it is critical as a commitment to the foundational value contained in this Constitution, to intervene and inject urgency and a sane voice in this dispute,” they argued in their petition.

“Apart from the parties of this dispute, there are vast majority of Indians, voiceless and unheard who have been mute victims to the festering sores and violence caused by this dispute.

The SC is hearing a bunch of appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into three parts, with one-third going to Ram Lalla represented by Hindu Mahasabha, a third to Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one-third to Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. The three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The other parties in the case are Shia Waqf Board and Uttar Pradesh government.

Political and religious leaders mainly from the far, extremist Hindu right are pushing for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya where the Babri mosque was destroyed by a mob, instigated by leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) today occupying high constitutional posts, on December 6, 1992.

The 32 petitioners also include slain filmmaker Safdar Hashmi’s brother Sohail Hashmi, documentary maker Anand Patwardhan, academics Ganesh Devy, Jayati Ghosh, Kalpana Kannabiran, Muniza Khan and G Haragopal, editors Om Thanvi and Kumar Ketkar, businessman Cyrus Guzder, writer Kiran Nagarkar, Rupa Mody whose son, Azhar Mody went missing during the 2002 Gujarat riots and many other eminent personalities from diverse backgrounds.

“We are public spirited citizens from various walks from life and across the length and breadth of India who feel it is critical as a commitment to the foundational value contained in this Constitution, to intervene and inject urgency and a sane voice in this dispute.

This application says, “It is our apprehension that if the Hon’ble court adjudicates the present Civil Appeals in favour of either the contesting communities, it is bound to forge extreme opinion amongst the communities on both sides which may result in aggravated incidents of violence as had been perpetuated earlier by the involvement of various political parties posing a serious threat to the secular fabric of the country.

“In light of the history of communal violence associated with the land, adjudication of the appeals in favour of either parties is bound to draw sharp reactions on both ends of the spectrum,” they contended.

The petition challenges the order passed by the Allahabad High Court that the area covered under the erstwhile central dome of the now demolished mosque in Ayodhya was the birthplace of Ram. The petition claims that the order was passed despite the absence of archaeological evidence and by selectively accepting and rejecting historical evidence. SC deferred the hearing of the title dispute case to March 14 since compilation of documents was not over.
 
 

The post SC delays, DOES NOT DENY Intervention Petition in Ayodhya Dispute by CJP and 32 citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.