Latest news with #ConstitutionBench
Hindustan Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
AI must be subordinate to fairness, equity, human dignity: Justice Surya Kant
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant has said justice cannot be reduced to a digital product, warning that artificial intelligence (AI) must always remain subordinate to fairness, equity, and human dignity. 'Justice, unlike software, is not a product to be optimised, but a principle to be honoured. Technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity,' said Justice Kant, who is set to become the Chief Justice of India in November. Speaking at Microsoft's Fireside Chat on 'AI and Law' on June 6, Justice Kant cautioned that while AI promises to enhance access, efficiency, and transparency in the legal system, unchecked deployment could mirror and even magnify existing societal inequities. 'Technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology, and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' he said. Rawlsian theory refers to the philosophy of justice developed by John Rawls, an American political philosopher. The core of the theory is the concept of 'justice as fairness', which aims to reconcile the seemingly competing values of freedom and equality. Justice Kant acknowledged the global nature of the challenges AI presents, particularly issues like algorithmic bias, hallucinated legal citations, and data protection. 'Take, for instance, the fictitious legal precedents that chatbots routinely come up with when faced with complex legal propositions,' said Justice Kant, warning of the risks of relying blindly on AI in sensitive domains like law. He spoke about growing cyber threats to courts and the judiciary, including ransomware attacks and doxing of judges, and said such digital risks were now 'a matter of constitutional resilience.' He said India has responded proactively, with secure e-filing platforms, the National Judicial Data Grid, and virtual hearings backed by multi-layered authentication. 'Cybersecurity is not a matter of IT hygiene, but of constitutional resilience…courts must invest not just in secure infrastructure, but in public confidence,' Justice Kant said. Justice Kant said the adoption of AI must not be driven by novelty or efficiency alone. 'We do so not as passive observers, but as stewards of a future we must shape with wisdom and purpose… Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values.' Justice Kant said India's judicial digital transformation, while ambitious, is being shaped through collaboration between technologists, judges, civil society, and academics via a dedicated Centre for Research and Planning within the Supreme Court. He referred to India's evolving legal-tech landscape and initiatives reshaping the courts including SUVAS, the Supreme Court's translation software that has enabled over 100,000 judgments in 18 regional languages, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems in Constitution Bench hearings for real-time transparency, and LegRAA, a legal research tool that aids without replacing judicial reasoning. 'These technologies are designed explicitly to support, not supplant, human judgment. It preserves the essential human element of jurisprudence, ensuring that final legal Page 6 of 13 interpretations remain firmly rooted in wisdom, compassion, and ethical discernment,' he said. Justice Kant called for building AI systems that reflect functional competence and moral clarity. 'I remain firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests…Let this dialogue between technologists and jurists be not the end, but the beginning of a sustained collaboration, one where justice and technology walk hand in hand, with the citizen always at the centre.'
Hans India
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
From socialism to market economy-Power over private property
The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Recently, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority (8:1) and wrote: 'India's economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to liberalization and market reforms. The Constitution does not endorse any single economic ideology.' He added that calling all private property 'material resources' forces a rigid socialist theory, which no longer reflects India's democratic economic reality. Are there any limits on power of the government over private property? Can the government seize any private property by calling it a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution? On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case. The ruling settled a long-standing constitutional question: It answered with a clear no, thereby reaffirming individual property rights and limiting government power. This judgment has brought clarity to the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights, and overruled earlier judgments that adopted a broad socialist interpretation of Article 39(b). Ignoring the Directive Principles Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. It says: 'The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.' It encourages laws for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but DPSPs are not legally enforceable—they are only guiding principles. Do we have any Property Rights? Before 1978, right to property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, due to frequent land reforms, bank nationalization, and other socialist welfare measures, the Parliament passed the: 25th Constitutional Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C to protect laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, and 31. 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Further expanded Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b) and (c). But in Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this wider protection, ruling that only Article 39(b) and (c) could remain shielded. Where Article 31C was upheld: In the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Article 31C, but with a caveat — laws passed under it must still pass judicial review. This was to prevent misuse of DPSPs to undermine basic structure principles like judicial independence or fundamental rights. Thus, the Court permitted limited curtailment of property rights, but only in pursuit of the common good as envisaged in Articles 39(b) and (c), and not at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. A 32-year fight for justice: Though justice is upheld in some cases, delay is the biggest problem. The current verdict comes from a petition filed by the Property Owners Association (POA) in Mumbai, challenging Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA), 1976, which permitted the government to acquire 'cessed properties' (old private buildings) for restoration. The POA argued this violated their right to property, and that Article 39(b) had been wrongly used to justify taking over all private property. The case spanned decades and multiple bench references, eventually resulting in this nine-judge bench being formed. Govt cannot acquire private property per se: The Court ruled that not every private property can be called a 'material resource of the community'. Article 39(b) does not give the government a blanket power to seize all private assets for the 'common good'. Material resources- Limited, not universal: The court clarified that 'material resources' must meet specific criteria such as: Belonging in public trust; Having community impact; being scarce or capable of causing harm by monopoly and possessing intrinsic public value like water and minerals, among others. Thus, private homes or businesses do not automatically qualify. Balanced approach to 'distribution' The term 'distribution' under Article 39(b) includes: Government acquisition and redistribution to private parties — only when it benefits the common good. So, laws under 39(b) must meet both public interest and proportionality tests. Survival of Article 31C: The Court confirmed Article 31C still protects laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from Fundamental Rights challenges, but not from judicial review. This limits the misuse of Article 31C as a shield. The court recognized the dramatic shifts like private property, from traditional assets to data and space exploration. The judgment emphasizes the need to respect evolving market realities. Are we reinforcing a market-oriented economic model? It is interpreted that this judgment offers protection for marginalized communities against the unjust acquisition of their small farms and forest lands while promoting responsible management of essential public resources. The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Justice Iyer's opinion was relied on by subsequent Constitution Benches in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing and Mafatlal Industries judgments in 1982 and 1997, respectively; hence, necessitating a reference to the nine-judge Bench. The CJI quoted a 'harsh' observation made by the Chief Justice about Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in a 'proposed judgment'. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting view in Ranganath Reddy (1977) that all private wealth could be treated as public resources. The judgment noted that while Justice Iyer's ideas were rooted in the socialist vision of the 1970s, India's voters have since chosen liberal economic policies. Rejecting the view of Justice Iyer as one presenting a 'particular ideology', the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Chandrachud said India has moved on from socialism to liberalisation to market-based reforms. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge, whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. In separate opinions, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, he had observed that 'the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution'. Dissenting: Justice B.V. Nagarathna: 'Judges must not decry the contributions of their predecessors. The institution is greater than individuals.' Justice Dhulia praised Justice Iyer's humanist vision, saying: 'The Krishna Iyer Doctrine was built on fairness and empathy. In dark times, it illuminated our path.' Though he dissented on interpretational grounds, he recognized the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, balancing rights and welfare. Finally, the November 5, 2024 Supreme Court ruling is a turning point in the constitutional understanding of property rights in India, saying: Individual property rights are protected. The government cannot seize private property arbitrarily. Article 39(b) remains relevant but must be applied with caution and clear public purpose. Article 31C survives, but judicial review cannot be ousted. The Directive Principles must align with fundamental rights, not override them. Courts remain vigilant in preserving constitutional balance between economic justice and individual liberty. This landmark judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's role as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that the state acts for public welfare without violating basic rights. It also recognizes the evolving nature of economic policies in a vibrant democracy, where people, not dogmas, shape the nation's path. (The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
India Today
08-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Assam to skip tribunals, use 1950 law to deport illegal immigrants: Himanta Sarma
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday announced that the state will no longer be required to rely on Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) to identify and deport illegal immigrants, invoking a 1950 law to expedite the to reporters in Nalbari district, Sarma said the state government plans to act under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950, which remains legally valid and empowers district commissioners to issue immediate expulsion Supreme Court, during the hearing of the Clause 6A matter under a Constitution Bench, clearly observed that Assam does not always need to go through the judiciary to identify and deport foreigners," the Chief Minister said. "There is an existing law — the Immigrants Expulsion Order — which permits district authorities to act directly. We were unaware of this until recently, as our lawyers had not flagged it. But we will now act on it," he BJP leader also pointed out that many pushbacks had already taken place, but in cases pending before the courts, the state had refrained from acting. "The numbers are increasing, and they will continue to rise if we don't act. From now on, when someone is identified as a foreigner, and the case is not already in court, we won't wait — we will push them back. And if needed, we will do it repeatedly," he acknowledged that the NRC (National Register of Citizens) exercise had slowed down the state's efforts in identifying and deporting undocumented migrants. With the Supreme Court's recent observations and the rediscovery of the 1950 order, he said the government is preparing to resume and intensify its currently operates 100 Foreigners Tribunals, first set up in 2005, to adjudicate the citizenship of people flagged by the Assam Police's Border Wing. These tribunals have long been the primary mechanism for determining citizenship status, particularly of those suspected to be Bangladeshi nationals residing illegally in the Chief Minister clarified that the new approach would not interfere with ongoing legal proceedings but would apply in cases where no judicial process is currently Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
08-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Assam govt to invoke a forgotten law to identify and expel illegal migrants
The government of Assam is all set to revive a 75-year-old law that enables the state authorities to push back illegal immigrants upon identification without the need to approach the judiciary every time read more The Assam government is working on reviving the use of a 75-year-old previously overlooked law in a bid to push back illegal immigrants from the state. As per the law, the state will be able to remove illegal migrants without any form of judicial intervention and immediately after their identification. On Saturday, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma noted that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (October 2024), had maintained that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in regards to illegal immigrants, The Times of India reported. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order (1950), and during a hearing on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court said this Act is still valid. Under its provisions, even a district commissioner can issue an order for immediate pushback of illegal immigrants,' the Assam CM said on Saturday. 'For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us about this, and we weren't aware of it either,' Sarma added. He revealed that in the past few days, the entire matter has come to light, and the state government will now discuss it seriously. The process of identifying foreigners will be sped up: Assam CM The Assam CM noted that the process of identifying illegal immigrants and pushing them back from the state will be sped up now that the government is aware of the law. 'The process of identifying foreigners, which had paused due to NRC-related matters , will now be sped up a bit,' he said. 'This time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we don't send them to a tribunal. We will straightaway push them back. Preparations for this have been ongoing over the last few days,' he added. Sarma also maintained that those who have moved courts will not be pushed back for now. In his statement, Sarma was referring to the five-member Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud . On October 17, 2024, the bench upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority, with Justice JB Pardiwala giving the sole dissenting opinion. In their joint order, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra said that the provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, 'shall be effectively employed for identification of illegal immigrants.' About the 1950 law The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 (IEAA) empowers the central government to order the expulsion of any person or class of persons who came into Assam from outside India, either before or after the commencement of the Act. The act can be implemented to deal with someone who stays in Assam and is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any Scheduled Tribe in Assam. The constitutional bench also noted that the IEAA granted 'the Central Government the power to direct the removal of immigrants who are detrimental to the interests of India.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If there is any other piece of legislation, such as the IEAA, under which the status of an immigrant can be determined, we see no reason why such statutory detection shall not also be given effect to, for deportation. We thus hold that the provisions of IEAA shall also be read into Section 6A and be applied along with the Foreigners Act, 1946, for detection and deportation of foreigners,' the judges stated in their order. It is pertinent to note that the law was enacted even before the immigrants from West and East Pakistan were considered foreigners under the Foreigners Act . According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act was enacted to deal with the large-scale immigration of migrants from East Bengal to Assam.
Business Recorder
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Lawyer tells SC there is disconnect between SC Rules and SC Act
ISLAMABAD: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was told that there is a disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to Supreme Court's order removed, said till the time new rules are framed the judges have to follow the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. However, he told the bench that there is disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. It would be considered that the review petitions are being heard by a 13-member bench, though on the first day of hearing after preliminary arguments the two judges had dismissed the petitions and opted not to sit in the bench, adding the Court order was signed by all the 13 judges. He contended that on May 6 when the case was heard no objection was raised by any lawyer on the constitution of the bench. All the 13 members of the bench heard the case, and 11 judges issued notices to the respondents, while two judges declined. Makhdoom said the review petitions have been filed against the majority (eight judges) judgment, but the Court order was signed by all the 13 members. He said suppose tomorrow five more judges take a stance that the petitions are non-maintainable then votes of two judges will be counted and included with five judges' decision, and the Court order would by 7 to 6, but will be signed by all the 13 judges. Justice Mazhar said it was argued by the respondent's counsel that though the two judges have dismissed the review petitions, they should not be excluded from the bench. Makhdoom said if the request of the other side is accepted it will be contrary to the law laid down in the judgments of Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Panama cases. He said the two judges have decided the merit of the case; therefore, now what they will say as already explicitly have expressed their opinion, adding there is no provision of second review. 'My task is to persuade the remaining judges and not two who have recused themselves,' he said. Justice Amin again said that they have not excluded them, but as per their wish the bench was reconstituted. Earlier, Hamid Khan, representing Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued on live-streaming of the proceeding of review petitions, saying the original case was live-telecast on all TV channels, and the entire nation benefited from it. Justice Mazhar stated that the proceedings were shown live as a pilot project, as at that time Full Court in administrative side had given its approval. He said after the 26th Amendment condition has been imposed in Article 191A for framing of rules, adding unless the draft rules are approved by the Full Court, this cannot happen. Hamid Khan then argued that till the decision on petitions against 26th Amendment, the reserved seats should be adjourned. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
