Latest news with #Article
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Business
- Express Tribune
PTI chief's order stalls K-P budget
A directive from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Patron-in-Chief not to approve the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) budget without prior consultation with him has become a serious constitutional and administrative challenge for the provincial government. The government now finds itself caught between the leader's directive and constitutional obligations. According to the schedule, the K-P budget must be approved by June 24. Failure to do so before the end of the current fiscal year could empower the Governor to ask the Chief Minister to seek a vote of confidence, or even advise the President to impose economic emergency under Article 234 of the Constitution. The government has held multiple sessions with constitutional experts to resolve the impasse, but no breakthrough has been achieved so far. The PTI Patron-in-Chief had expressed a desire to meet with K-P Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, Finance Advisor Muzzammil Aslam, and other economic experts regarding the budget. However, prison authorities allowed him to meet only the chief minister. In response, the PTI leader issued strict instructions: no budget approval without full consultation with economic advisors. Although the budget has been presented in the K-P Assembly, the party leadership has yet to be consulted. Chief Minister Gandapur has reiterated his stance that the budget will not be passed without explicit approval from the party chief. As debate on the budget continues, approval of departmental demands for grants is scheduled to begin today. According to parliamentary procedures, approving these demands effectively means passing the budget. Meanwhile, the government has again consulted legal experts. Constitutional experts warn that if the budget is not passed by June 30, it would be considered a failure of the government. Under such circumstances, the Governor can invoke Article 234 and advise the President to impose economic emergency, citing both financial and constitutional crises. Additionally, the Governor may direct the Chief Minister to seek a vote of confidence, and the President could refer the matter to the National Assembly. Law Minister Aftab Alam told The Express Tribune that the government is trying its best to ensure timely budget approval in accordance with the schedule. However, he emphasized that the PTI leader's directive stands: no approval without prior consultation. He warned that if a crisis emerges, the federal government would bear responsibility for denying access to the party leadership. The Provincial Assembly Secretariat, when contacted, stated that it is following the approved schedule, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure the budget's timely passage.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Govt cannot insist toilets in petroleum retail outlets be opened for public: HC
The Kerala High Court has issued an interim order stating that the government cannot insist that toilets in private petroleum retail outlets be allowed for use by members of the public. The order came on a petition filed by the Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society and five retailers challenging the move of the government and local bodies to convert these toilets as public toilets. They contended that private toilets they maintained at their retail outlets for emergency use by customers were often being forced to be opened for public use. The Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and many local bodies even pasted posters in some of the retail outlets, giving the impression that these were public toilets. Many members of the public and even those who arrived in tourist buses were thus seeking access to the toilets, disrupting regular functioning of the outlets and sometimes leading to altercations within the high-risk premises. Citing protection under Article 300A of the Constitution, the retailers contended that toilets they built within their premises were private property.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC: Law protects adult woman's right to marry
Prayagraj: Emphasising that the right to marry a person of one's choice is protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, the Allahabad high court has provided protection to a 27-year-old woman, who feared abduction, purportedly because she wanted to marry on her own will. Passing the order on June 13, a division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri strongly condemned the woman's family's resistance to her decision to marry a person of her choice, therming such objections 'despicable'. "It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, from marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21," the court said. While the court clarified that it did not know whether the petitioners, the woman's father and brother, "really intend to abduct" her, it noted that the matter reflected a larger societal issue, i.e., the 'value gap' between constitutional and social norms. "The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the 'value gap' between the constitutional and social norms. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen', the court added. The court was dealing with a petition moved by the father and brother (the petitioners) of the woman (fourth respondent) seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by her under sections 140(3), 62, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Chilh police station of Mirzapur district. In the FIR, she alleged a threat of abduction for wanting to marry a man of her choice. Though the court stayed the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, it also restrained them from interfering in the woman's life or from assaulting, threatening or contacting her or the man she intends to marry or live with. "The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent (woman) over telephone or any other electronic device or using the internet or through friends or associates. The police are also restrained from interfering with the fourth respondent's freedom and liberty in any manner, whatsoever," the court directed. In its order dated June 13, the court also issued notices to the state govt and other authorities and granted them three weeks to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. The matter has been posted for admission on July 18.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
ADM Jabalpur: The top court's fall and redemption
Fifty years after the Emergency, the memory of that period continues to haunt the conscience of India's constitutional democracy. Central to that collective reckoning is the Supreme Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla case in 1976, famously dubbed the 'Habeas Corpus case'. Also Read: HC orders judicial inquiry into construction of 17 illegal buildings in Shil Daighar At a time when the judiciary was expected to act as the guardian of civil liberties, the apex court chose to become an instrument of the executive, handing down a verdict that effectively sanctioned state authoritarianism. The judgment is a cautionary tale of how legal formalism and deference to executive authority can gut the soul of a liberal constitutional democracy. Also Read: Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to alleged 'dunki' agent HT takes a look at the legal, political and moral dimensions of the case, the dissent that stood tall against the tide, and the decades-long journey of constitutional redemption that culminated in its formal overruling in 2017. The context On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a national Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbances. Civil liberties were curtailed, political opponents jailed, and press freedom muzzled. The government invoked Article 359(1), issuing a presidential order suspending the right of citizens to move courts for the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 -- rights guaranteeing equality, life, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest. Also Read: Chhota Shakeel aide discharged from 2022 extortion case due to lack of evidence Against this backdrop, several high courts granted relief to detainees under Article 226, questioning the legality of their arrests under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. The Union government challenged these orders, leading to the Supreme Court's decision in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla. The pivotal legal issue was whether a citizen could seek judicial remedy via habeas corpus (essentially challenge detention) when the enforcement of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) stood suspended. In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that no individual had the locus standi to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The majority judgment, delivered by then Chief Justice of India AN Ray and concurred with by justices MH Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati, held that the suspension of Article 21 rendered the right to life and personal liberty non-justiciable. Even if a detention was illegal, arbitrary or mala fide, the courts had no authority to intervene, stated the majority opinion, asserting that rights existed only insofar as the Constitution recognised and enforced them. This effectively meant that during the Emergency, the State could deprive a person of their liberty or even life without any legal recourse. The verdict was an endorsement of unchecked executive power. It subordinated the judiciary to the will of the government, silenced legal dissent, and undermined the foundational promise of the Constitution: That liberty is not at the mercy of the State. The dissent The lone dissent came from justice HR Khanna, who rejected the majority's formalism and asserted that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution but an inherent natural right. Drawing from natural law and common law traditions, justice Khanna argued that certain rights are so intrinsic to human dignity that they transcend constitutional text. His judgment famously stated, 'Even in the absence of Article 21, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.' Justice Khanna underscored that the Constitution did not create the right to life and liberty; it merely recognised it. As he eloquently put it: 'Rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness.' This means that the executive branch cannot misuse its power and claim protection simply because the President has issued a proclamation. Therefore, he held, even when fundamental rights are suspended by a presidential order, judges still have the authority to review the actions of the executive to ensure they are lawful and not arbitrary. His principled stand cost him the Chief Justiceship as he was superseded by justice Beg despite being senior. The ADM Jabalpur judgment sparked outrage among jurists, scholars, and civil society. It came to symbolise judicial abdication, a moment when the Supreme Court failed in its primary duty to act as a bulwark against executive excess. Though the Emergency was lifted in 1977 and the Janata Party came to power, the damage had been done. Yet, the spirit of justice Khanna's dissent lived on, influencing a more expansive and liberal interpretation of rights in the years to come. Reversal and redemption The judicial journey from ADM Jabalpur to KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) is one of moral and constitutional redemption. It began with Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court overturned the narrow reading of Article 21 established in AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras (1950) which held that each fundamental right operates independently and should therefore be interpreted in isolation. The Maneka Gandhi ruling declared that laws affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, creating a triadic relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 – as against the previous concept of fundamental rights existing in separate silos. Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated that natural justice is 'not a creation of the Constitution but inherent in human values.' In many ways, the Maneka Gandhi case was the jurisprudential response to ADM Jabalpur's moral collapse, reasserting the judiciary's role in preserving dignity and fairness. That trajectory culminated in the 2017 KS Puttaswamy verdict. In KS Puttaswamy, a nine-judge bench in the top court finally buried ADM Jabalpur. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud explicitly overruled the majority view in his father's judgment in ADM Jabalpur. He stated: 'The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. They constitute rights under natural law.' It was a rare and poignant moment of judicial introspection. In 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdown, the Supreme Court again revisited ADM Jabalpur. A bench headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, while ruling on police delays in filing chargesheets, emphasised that the right to liberty remains enforceable even in emergencies. The court noted that the 'retrograde steps' taken in ADM Jabalpur were immediately remedied by the 44th Amendment and formally overruled by Puttaswamy. The 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 responded to the ADM Jabalpur verdict by inserting a critical safeguard -- even during an Emergency, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. This was Parliament's way of ensuring that the excesses sanctioned by ADM Jabalpur would not be repeated. It codified what justice Khanna had asserted all along – that certain rights are non-negotiable. The story of ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla is not just about a flawed judgment but stands as a grim reminder of what happens when courts choose executive convenience over constitutional conscience. It is about the fragility of constitutional rights, the dangers of judicial timidity and the enduring value of dissent. It is a crucial narrative that reveals about a moment when the rule of law bent under pressure, and how that breach was slowly repaired through principled jurisprudence and legislative intervention. Justice Khanna's dissent, once sidelined, now occupies a place of honour in India's constitutional canon. It reminds us that in times of crisis, the judiciary must rise above expediency and remain faithful to the moral foundations of the Constitution.
Time of India
5 days ago
- General
- Time of India
HC: Marriage annulment order by church tribunals have no civil effect
Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa has held that an order by a church court declaring a canonical marriage null and void has no civil consequences. The order follows a 2019 judgment by the same high court declaring the unconstitutionality of Article 19 of decree law no. 35461 — a Portuguese-era law that gave recognition to judgments and marriage annulments by the patriarchal and metropolitan tribunals. The current case concerns a petitioner from Taleigao who married a Santa Cruz man at the Santa Cruz church in 2017. Based on the marriage certificate issued by the Archdiocese of Goa, the civil registrar transcribed the canonical marriage into the register of marriage of that year. In the Catholic church, a canonical marriage is one that's considered valid by the Church and adheres to the rules and requirements outlined in canon law. In court, the petitioner said that her canonical marriage was in accordance with decree law no. 35461, applicable to the state of Goa. Two years later, in 2019, she initiated a process of annulment of her marriage before the patriarchal tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa, and this was granted in 2020 by a 'definitive sentence' declaring her canonical marriage as null and void. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Costco Shoppers Say This Wrinkle Cream Is "Actually Worth It" The Skincare Magazine Undo She claimed that this 'definitive sentence' was then ratified by a decree of ratification by the metropolitan tribunal of the Archdiocese of Bombay in Mumbai. She stated that since this conclusively declares the marriage null and void, she is entitled to have her entry in the book of the civil registration of marriages cancelled. However, when she approached the civil registrar, Panaji, in 2021, for the cancellation of the entry of registration of her marriage in the marriage register, the registrar referred to a previous judgment of the high court delivered in another petition. The registrar contended that since the high court's decision was under challenge in the Supreme Court under civil appeal, her application would be processed after the decision in that matter, and after the order of the ecclesiastical (church) tribunal was ratified by the high court. Subsequently, she approached the high court. The point for determination before the high court was this: do the orders of an ecclesiastical court declaring the annulment of a marriage under canon law have civil effects after the provisions of Article 19 of decree law no. 35461? A division bench comprising justices Valmiki Menezes and Nivedita Mehta answered this in the negative. 'We are of the opinion that in view of the position that Article 19 has now been struck down in its entirety, the order/affirmative sentence of the ecclesiastical tribunal in Nov 2020, confirmed by the decree of ratification in Sep 2021, would have no civil effects. Consequently, the civil registrar of Tiswadi, by communication in March 2022, has rightly refused to endorse the entry in the register of marriages of the marriage of the couple. Consequently, we dismiss this petition'. During arguments, senior advocate J E Coelho Pereira, amicus curiae, stated that Article 19 provided for the enforcement of such orders only if they were endorsed by the high court. He submitted that under Article 19, it was the high court which was competent to enforce such an order and direct the civil registrar to make an endorsement in the marriage register. Coelho Pereira contended that the absence of Article 19 of the decree law renders orders passed by the ecclesiastical court with no civil effects; therefore, the entries in the marriage register cannot be cancelled to give such civil effect. Another amicus curiae, senior advocate M B D'Costa, submitted that under Article 2 of the decree law, parties have an option to opt for registering their marriage under civil law or under the canonical form of marriage by subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the church under canon law. He said that if the parties choose the latter form, the provisions of Article 2 take away the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the annulment or divorce of that marriage, and in such an event, it is only the ecclesiastical court that would have jurisdiction.
