4
edits
no edit summary
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Row&Jackson (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit possible libel or vandalism |
||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
He demitted the office on 11 September 2021.<ref name=":0" /> | He demitted the office on 11 September 2021.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
==Notable | ==Notable judgements== | ||
===Defamation and Freedom of Speech=== | |||
=== Yakub Memon's Appeal === | |||
In an unprecedented overnight hearing at 3:20 am IST on 30 July 2015, a 3 judge bench comprising Justices [[Dipak Misra]], '''Prafulla Chandra Pant''' and [[Amitava Roy]] rejected [[1993 Mumbai serial blasts]] convict [[Yakub Memon]]'s appeal to stop his execution. | |||
The bench said: "If we have to stay the death warrant, it would be a travesty of justice. We do not find any merit in the writ petition". Few hours later, Memon was hanged.<ref>{{Cite news |title=SC dismisses Yakub Memon's plea, upholds his execution for July 30 |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sc-dismisses-yakub-memons-plea-upholds-his-execution-for-july-30/articleshow/48267311.cms |access-date=2023-03-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chronicle |first=Deccan |date=2015-07-30 |title=Yakub Memon case: SC rejects final appeal after dramatic late-night hearing |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/150730/nation-current-affairs/article/yakub-memon-case-sc-rejects-final-appeal-after-dramatic-late |access-date=2023-03-02 |website=Deccan Chronicle |language=en}}</ref> | |||
===Defamation and Freedom of Speech === | |||
In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India. a two judge [[Bench (law)|bench]] of the Supreme Court of India, which included Justice '''Pant''' and Justice [[Dipak Misra]], has upheld that [[defamation]] is a criminal offense. Many have seen the verdict as a blow to [[Freedom of speech|freedom of speech and expression]] in India.<ref name="Wire June 2016">{{cite news|url=http://thewire.in/40001/on-defamation-macaulay-has-the-last-laugh-on-india/ |title=On Defamation, Macaulay Has the Last Laugh on India |work=The Wire|date=2 June 2016|accessdate=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="The Hindu May 2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/A-blow-against-free-speech/article14321176.ece |title=A blow against free speech |work=The Hindu|date=16 May 2016|accessdate=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="The Hoot May 2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehoot.org/free-speech/judgements/awful-reasoning-and-tortuous-verbosity-9367 |title=Awful reasoning and tortuous verbosity |work=The Hoot|date=17 May 2016|accessdate=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="Tribune 2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/editorials/a-blow-to-free-speech/236339.html |title=A blow to free speech |work=The Tribune|date=14 May 2016|accessdate=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="Mint May 2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/beekHMzutk7PQJG0fiOTuI/Supreme-Courts-curious-approach-on-defamation.html |title=Supreme Court’s curious approach on defamation |work=Mint|date=19 May 2016|accessdate=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="The Hindu May 2016 2">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/a-disappointing-verdict/article8596820.ece |title=A disappointing verdict |work=The Hindu|date=14 May 2016|accessdate=23 November 2016}}</ref><ref name="HT May 2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/if-truth-is-justice-sc-needs-to-reconsider-criminal-defamation-verdict/story-6OB8a9h9UvA3RfF2pE3HkJ.html |title=If truth is justice, SC needs to reconsider criminal defamation verdict|work=Hindustan Times|date=17 May 2016|accessdate=23 November 2016}}</ref><ref name ="SCI May 2016">{{cite web |title=SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS.|first=Deepak|last=Misra|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2016-05-13_1463126071.pdf|accessdate=21 November 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Judgements {{!}} Supreme Court of India |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/44579.pdf |access-date=25 February 2023}}</ref> | |||
=== Religious Conversion and Scheduled Caste Status === | |||
In Mohammad Sadique vs Darbara Singh Guru, a bench of JJ [[Ranjan Gogoi]] and '''Prafulla Chandra Pant''', quashed the order of [[Punjab and Haryana High Court]], and upheld the claim of Mohammad Sadique to be a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) and [[Punjab Legislative Assembly]]. | |||
Guru in the [[2012 Punjab Legislative Assembly election|Punjab Legislative Assembly elections of 2012]] filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal whereas Sadique was a candidate from Indian National Congress. Both contested from the Bhadaur constituency of Punjab, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes. The outcome of the election was that Sadique won from Bhadaur and was elected [[Member of the Legislative Assembly (India)|Member of the Legislative Assembly]]. Guru challenged the outcome before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pleading that Sadique professed Islam and so, could not be a member of the Scheduled Caste (SC), nor could he have contested from Bhadaur. The High Court delivered the verdict in Guru's favour, annulling his membership of State Legislature and held that he was a Muslim, not a member of Scheduled Caste.<ref>{{Cite web |date=7 April 2015 |title=Darbara Singh Guru vs Mohammad Sadique |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54454384/ |website=Indian Kanoon}}</ref> Aggrieved by the verdict, Sadique moved the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]]. | |||
In Supreme Court, a bench of JJ [[Ranjan Gogoi]] and '''Prafulla C Pant''', observed that Sadique, even before his conversion to Sikhism, had inclination towards it and was a ‘Ragi’ and used to perform Kirtan at Alamgir Sikh Gurdwara. He even gave sufficient justification for why he did not change his name after his conversion to [[Sikhism]], as he was already popular as a singer with that name. The bench noted, “A person can change his religion or faith but not the caste to which he belongs to, as caste has linkage to birth." The bench believed that Sadique had become a [[Sikhs|Sikh]], was a member of the 'Doom' community and thus, was also a member of the Scheduled Caste, allowing Sadique to function as a Member of Punjab Legislative Assembly for his remaining term.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Essentials |first=Law |title=Mohammad Sadique v. Darbara Singh Guru decided on 29.04.2016 |url=https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/mohammad-sadique-v-darbara-singh-gurudecided-on-290420161 |access-date=2022-12-21 |website=Law Essentials |language=en-IN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-04-29 |title=SC upholds Cong MLA Sadique’s election: ‘Religion can change, not caste’ |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/sc-upholds-cong-mla-mohammad-sadique-s-election-in-punjab-can-change-religion-not-caste/story-GMx3eg7cuP0Is35vn6MiNL.html |access-date=2023-03-02 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Service |first=Tribune News |title=SC upholds Mohammad Sadique''s election as MLA |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/sc-upholds-election-of-mohammad-sadique-as-mla-229497 |access-date=2022-12-22 |website=Tribuneindia News Service |language=en}}</ref> | |||
=== Compromise in Rape === | |||
In State of MP vs Madanlal, a bench of JJ Dipak Misra and '''Prafulla C. Pant''' held that there is no compromise legally permissible in rape cases between the accused and the victim, establishing that rape is a non-compoundable offence and it’s an offence against society which cannot be left for the parties to compromise and settle. A heinous crime such as rape, to be compromised or settled later would be against the honor of the victim and the society which matters the most.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 July 2015 |title=State of MP vs Madanlal |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84388891/ |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ramya |first=Sree |date=2019-06-23 |title=State of M.P vs. Madanlal |url=https://lawtimesjournal.in/state-of-m-p-vs-madanlal/ |access-date=2023-03-02 |website=Law Times Journal |language=en-us}}</ref> | |||
=== Gujarat Shrine Restoration === | |||
He was a part of the bench with Justice [[Dipak Misra]], which held that destruction of places of worship by a dominant group is not a violation of the Article 21, Right to Life.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 March 2023 |title=Gujarat Shrine Restoration |url=https://www.scobserver.in/cases/state-of-gujarat-v-islamic-relief-committee-of-gujarat-shrine-restoration-case-background/ |website=SC Observer}}</ref> | |||
==Works== | ==Works== | ||