Keep one post vacant for transgender applicant: HC to police dept
Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has directed Gujarat Police Recruitment Board to keep one unarmed police constable post vacant for a transgender candidate who has sought a separate category for the third gender in the recruitment process. The 35-year-old petitioner from Bhavnagar has obtained a Certificate of Identity issued by the district collector under Rule 5 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Her Aadhaar card identifies her as female. However, as the recruitment board had provided only two categories — male and female — she was advised to apply under the female category. She cleared the physical standard test and physical efficiency test but scored 94 marks in the written examination, against the cut-off of 98.5 marks for the SEBC female category. Subsequently, she represented to the authorities, seeking consideration under a separate third gender category. With no response forthcoming, she approached the HC seeking directions to consider her candidature accordingly. Her advocate, Hannan Qureshi, cited a Supreme Court judgment in a case filed by the National Legal Services Authority, which directed governments to recognise and create a third gender category. The state govt opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had voluntarily opted for the female category during recruitment and raised the grievance only after failing to secure the requisite cut-off marks. After the preliminary hearing, Justice Aniruddha Mayee said, “As per the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they are to be treated as ‘third gender’ for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the state legislature. The state govt have been directed to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.” HC further said, “Prima facie, it appears that in the present recruitment process, transgender have not been categorised as third gender and no special category or criteria for recruitment has been laid down for them. Considering the same, pending the present petition, the respondent no.2 (recruitment board) shall keep one post vacant in the recruitment process.” Further hearing has been scheduled for Jan 5, 2027. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Kerala HC denies anticipatory bail to man accused of deceiving Dalit woman for sex
The case relates to allegations that Udayan had agreed to marry a Dalit woman while suppressing the fact that he was already in a relationship with another woman and had a three-year-old child with her. The Kerala High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 39-year-old man accused of concealing his existing relationship and three-year-old child before fixing his marriage with a Dalit woman, holding that the alleged conduct prima facie amounts to sexual intercourse by deceitful means under section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Justice A Badharudee, on September 28, dismissed the appeal filed by Udayan, the first accused in a case registered at Feroke police station in Kozhikode, and directed him to surrender before the investigating officer. The court said that if he failed to surrender, the investigating officer was at liberty to arrest him and proceed with the investigation. The case relates to allegations that Udayan had agreed to marry a Dalit woman while suppressing the fact that he was already in a relationship with another woman and had a three-year-old child from that relationship. According to the prosecution, a marriage-fixation ceremony was held at the woman’s house on July 6, 2025, after both families had agreed to the proposed marriage. The woman’s family allegedly spent around Rs 10 lakh for the ceremony, which was attended by about 1,000 people. After the marriage was fixed, the woman travelled to Wayanad expecting the marriage to take place and stayed at Almaj Residency. The prosecution alleged that Udayan compelled her to have sexual intercourse on the premise that they had already decided to marry. The prosecution also alleged that the sexual relationship took place after Udayan had concealed his existing relationship and the child born from it. Udayan’s counsel argued that section 318(4) of the BNS was not attracted as there was no delivery of property. It was also argued that section 69 would not apply because the provision, according to the defence, required a promise to marry followed by a subsequent withdrawal, whereas Udayan was still willing to marry the complainant. The defence further contended that the mere existence of another relationship and a child could not, by itself, establish the offences and section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would therefore not apply. The prosecution opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the complainant’s statement and additional statement. It argued that suppressing a relationship in the nature of marriage and a child born from that relationship amounted to “deceitful means” within the meaning of section 69 of the BNS. The prosecution also submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary for a meaningful investigation, including recording the accused’s statement, effecting seizure and recovery of the clothes allegedly worn by him at the time of the incident, and conducting a potency examination. The High Court examined section 69 of the BNS, which criminalises sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means, where the act does not amount to rape, as well as sexual intercourse following a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it. The provision carries imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine. Its explanation states that “deceitful means” includes inducement relating to employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity. The court said section 69 covers two distinct situations: sexual intercourse through deceitful means, and sexual intercourse following a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it. It held that the prosecution need only make out the alleged offences prima facie at this stage for the corresponding offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to be attracted. In this case, the court found that the materials indicated that the marriage had been fixed on the premise that Udayan was unmarried and had no other relationship in the nature of marriage. The court noted that he was aware of his existing relationship and the child born from it, yet concealed both from the woman and her family. The court held that the subsequent sexual intercourse, allegedly induced by the promise and premise of the proposed marriage while the earlier relationship was concealed, would prima facie fall within the first situation contemplated under section 69, sexual intercourse by deceitful means, even if the alleged act did not amount to rape. The High Court also accepted the investigating officer’s contention that custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation. It observed that granting anticipatory bail in the circumstances could impede the investigation, particularly in relation to recording the accused’s statement and carrying out seizure, recovery and medical procedures. The court therefore held that the offences were prima facie made out and that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applied. Consequently, Udayan was not entitled to anticipatory bail. Courtesy : TNM Note: This news is originally published on https:/thenewsminute.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Sending obscene videos on WhatsApp also falls within the scope of ‘public view’: Bombay High Court’s decision in SC/ST Act case, no anticipatory bail for accused
The accused contacted a woman and demanded physical relations. When she refused, he sent an obscene video made on his mobile phone to her husband and close relatives via WhatsApp. Nagpur – The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a government employee from Ghughus (Chandrapur district) in an SC/ST Act case. Justice Y.G. Khobragade issued the order on September 29. The case relates to the posting of obscene videos and photos of a married woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste on social media. The case pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 127/2026, in which the accused is Nikhil, son of Madhukar Thepale (28 years old). He is in government service and lives near the Sneh Prabha Mangal office in Ward No. 3 of Ghughus. Advocate Mahesh Rai appeared for the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor G.S. appeared for the state. Umale and the victim’s lawyer, Sanket Joshi, appeared. According to the prosecution, the victim is a married woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The accused and the victim live in the same area and are known to each other. It is alleged that on November 4, 2025, the accused contacted the woman and demanded physical relations. When the woman refused, he sent an obscene video made on his mobile phone to the woman’s husband and close relatives via WhatsApp. According to the FIR, nude photos were also sent to the woman’s sister-in-law from an unknown mobile number. The woman’s sister also received calls and WhatsApp messages from the accused’s mobile number, stating that he wanted to speak with her. In the FIR, the woman has listed the mobile numbers of her husband, sister-in-law, mother-in-law, and the accused. On November 5, 2025, a case was registered at the Ghughus police station under sections 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 2023, sections 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused initially sought anticipatory bail in the lower court, which was rejected. Subsequently, he filed Criminal Appeal No. 599/2025 in the High Court. On February 9, 2026, he withdrew this appeal with the concession that he could file a new application after the charge sheet was filed. The accused then filed Anticipatory Bail Application (ABA) No. 73/2026. On February 21, 2026, the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) and Additional Sessions Judge of Chandrapur rejected this application. The accused approached the High Court for the second time against this same order. On March 12, 2026, the High Court granted interim relief and temporary anticipatory bail on certain conditions. The accused submitted a bond and sureties in the lower court. The charge sheet in the case has now been filed. The accused stated that the SC/ST Act does not apply if the victim is merely sent via WhatsApp. Advocate Rai stated that according to the FIR, the accused demanded sexual intercourse and, after being refused, sent videos and photos to her husband and relatives. According to him, merely sending the sexual favors via WhatsApp does not constitute offenses under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and therefore, the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act does not apply. He argued that the lower court’s order was passed without considering the facts and law, and therefore, it should be set aside. Additional Public Prosecutor Umale, representing the state, and Advocate Joshi, representing the victim, strongly opposed the appeal. The prosecution stated: The accused has been absconding since the FIR was filed. The accused knew the victim’s caste. The incriminating videos and photos are stored on the accused’s mobile phone, but the mobile phone has not yet been seized. Custodial interrogation is necessary to seize the mobile phone and gather further information. Publicly humiliated the victim by circulating nude photos on the mobile phone after she refused his demand for sexual intercourse. After reviewing the records, Justice Khobragade stated that the accused was well aware of the victim’s caste. She also stated that the accused is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, while the victim is a Scheduled Caste. The accused has not denied this fact. The court prima facie held that the accused made nude videos and photos of the woman and circulated them via WhatsApp when his sexual desires were not satisfied. Regarding the absconding of the accused, the court cited Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (ALL MR (Cri.) 3300) and stated that generally, the question of granting anticipatory bail to a fugitive or proclaimed offender does not arise. The court remarked: “The accused in this case has been absconding since the date of registration of the crime; therefore, in my opinion, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.” Regarding the argument of “public view,” the court did not accept the argument of the accused’s lawyer that the accused did not publicly insult the victim with caste-related slurs. The court said: “Making objectionable videos/photos of the victim and sending them to her husband, close relatives, and others through social media such as WhatsApp certainly falls within the scope of “public view” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act.” The court cited the Supreme Court’s case of Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025 AIR (SC) 4083). According to this, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offenses. The court stated in its own interim order that the interim relief granted on March 12, 2026, was on the grounds that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the FIR. However, upon reviewing the material now on record, it states: “Prima facie, the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) appear to be present, as objectionable videos/photos of the victim were circulated on social media from the accused’s mobile phone, which is in the public domain.
Tirunelveli Honor Killing: Madras High Court quashes chargesheet against parents of accused in Kavin Selvaganesh murder case
The court quashed the chargesheet against the parents citing insufficient evidence, while proceedings against Jaipal will continue. Madurai. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the chargesheet filed against Saravanan and Krishnakumari, the parents of the main accused, Surjeet, in the murder case of Dalit IT employee C. Kavin Selvaganesh, which took place on July 27, 2025, in KTC Nagar, Tirunelveli. Justice R. Vijayakumar issued the order while dismissing a petition filed by Jaipal, Surjeet’s relative, seeking quashing of the chargesheet against him. Kavin Selvaganesh, approximately 25 years old, was a resident of Arumugamangalam village in Tuticorin district. He belonged to the Devendra Kula Vellalar (Scheduled Caste/Pallalar) community. After completing his engineering studies, he worked as a software engineer at an IT company like TCS in Chennai. He was a university gold medalist and the first-generation graduate in his family. His mother, Tamilselvi, is a government school teacher. On July 27, 2025, Kavin went with his mother to a private Siddha clinic in KTC Nagar, Tirunelveli, where his girlfriend, Subhashini (a Siddha practitioner), worked. Subhashini belongs to the Maravar (Mukkulathor/Thevar community, MBC). Her brother, Surajit, allegedly called Kavin out of the clinic, saying that their parents wanted to meet him. While escorting him on a bike, Surajit hurled caste-based slurs and stabbed him multiple times with a sickle hidden behind his back. Kavin tried to escape but succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The murder occurred in broad daylight. Kavin’s mother, Tamilselvi, filed a complaint. According to the police, this was a caste-based ‘honor killing’ due to an inter-caste love affair. Surjeet surrendered. Both his parents were sub-inspectors in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force, who were suspended. Saravanan and Jaipal were arrested first, while Krishnakumari was arrested later (in May 2026). The prosecution alleged that the parents were aware of the plan and assisted. The case was handed over to the CBI-CID. The CBI-CID filed a charge sheet in October 2025 based on the statements of 83 witnesses. Kavin’s family had demanded the arrest of the accused’s parents before accepting the body. The High Court had previously ordered an examination of CCTV footage (from the Tirunelveli-Sivalaperi NHAI stretch). In the latest order, the court dismissed the charge sheet against the parents, citing insufficient evidence, while proceedings against Jaipal will continue. This decision raises questions about the quality of investigation and evidence in cases of caste-based violence. Geetha Sunil Pillai Courtesy: Hindi News
Now, the issue of caste discrimination in Prayagraj has heated up, with the High Court taking a serious view of the allegations made by a National Law University student.
A Dalit student at Rajendra Prasad National Law University in Prayagraj has accused the warden of caste discrimination. The Allahabad High Court, considering it serious, has formed an independent inquiry committee. Dalit student alleges caste discrimination at Prayagraj NLU; High Court orders investigation New Delhi: Caste discrimination is a serious issue in universities, where the foundation for students’ futures is laid. Considering the alleged caste discrimination and harassment of Dalit students at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University in Prayagraj as serious, the Allahabad High Court has ordered a judicial inquiry. The case relates to a petition filed by a BA LLB (Hons.) student and a PhD scholar. The students allege that the Head of the Law Department and the Warden of the Boys’ Hostel made comments regarding their caste and reservations and influenced their academic evaluations. The veracity and authenticity of the matter is yet to be established, and therefore, no allegations have been proven at this time. Dalit students allege discrimination; what’s the whole matter? This case arose following a petition filed by two students at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University in Prayagraj. One petitioner is a PhD scholar at the university, while the other is a fifth-semester LLB (Hons.) student. Both students reside in the university hostel. They allege that the Dean of the Law Department and the hostel warden abused their authority and subjected them to caste-based insults. They also suspect that their answer sheets in their examinations were evaluated more strictly based on caste. Hearing in the High Court, then an inquiry committee formed A single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar in the Allahabad High Court heard the students’ petition. The petition stated that the students had previously filed a complaint with the Vice Chancellor, but despite repeated reminders, no action was taken against Dr. Sharma. The petition alleges that the warden made comments on several occasions about the students’ caste and the reservation benefits they received. During the hearing, the Court stated that the allegations are serious and require an impartial investigation, after providing the accused academic, who is also the warden, a full opportunity to present his or her side and be heard. The Court appointed Judge Archana Singh of the Small Causes Court in Prayagraj and Chief Judicial Magistrate Arun Kumar Yadav to investigate the allegations. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 24. The High Court has ordered the person concerned to be relieved of all administrative responsibilities until the investigation is completed. They are also directed not to be involved in the evaluation of the petitioner student’s answer sheets. The investigation will require the Committee to determine whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe students have been subjected to caste-based humiliation or discrimination by Respondent No. 6 or any other person employed or profitably employed by the University, and whether the University has taken action in accordance with applicable regulations to address the complaints. Focus and Scope of the Inquiry Committee The Inquiry Committee, appointed by the court, is to investigate whether alleged caste-based humiliation or discrimination occurred against SC/ST students and whether the university responded to complaints in accordance with applicable regulations. The Inquiry Committee will also hear the warden’s side of the case and attempt to gather evidence. The Committee has been directed to take necessary steps to protect the identities of the students testifying. A deadline has been set for the Committee. It has been directed to submit its investigation report to the Court in a sealed envelope before the next hearing on September 24. What are the legal aspects under the Constitution and the SC/ST Act? Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the State from discriminating on the basis of caste and allows for special provisions for backward classes, including SC/STs. Article 14 of the Constitution provides constitutional protections related to the principle of equality, and Article 17 provides constitutional protections related to the abolition of untouchability. Depending on the circumstances and specific facts of the allegations in the case, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 may also be relevant, but the court order has not definitively confirmed the applicability of any specific criminal section in this case. The Legal Path Forward First, a committee constituted by the Allahabad High Court must investigate the allegations and the actions taken by the university and submit its report, after which the High Court’s stance will be decided. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 24, 2026. Only then can we hope that the truth will emerge. Authored by: Manish Raj About the Author Manish Raj is currently serving as Consultant Legal Editor at Navbharat Times Online. He began his journalism career 24 years ago with a leading national news broadcast media channel like Rashtriya Sahara. Courtesy: Hindi News
The High Court has sought a report from the Punjab government on the death of a Dalit laborer, raising demands for a CBI investigation.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a firm stance on the suicide of a laborer in Sangrur who confronted Minister Harpal Singh Cheema over the drug issue, and demands for a CBI investigation have gained momentum. New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday summoned a detailed status report from the Punjab government regarding the suicide of Dalit laborer Gulzar Singh. The court scheduled the next hearing for October 6th and directed the state government to submit complete details of the investigation. While emphasizing the need for a fair investigation, the division bench also questioned how, based on the current circumstances and facts, the state Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema could be implicated in the case. The court’s direction came during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the chief spokesperson of the Scheduled Caste wing of the Shiromani Akali Dal. The petitioner has questioned the functioning of the Punjab Police and demanded that the investigation be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another independent agency. An FIR in this matter is currently registered at the Didba police station in Sangrur district. The case has been filed under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, naming five local residents, including the village sarpanch. According to the petition, the entire controversy began on September 6th when Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema visited Turbanjara village in Sangrur to lay the foundation stone for development projects. During this event, Gulzar Singh expressed his anguish over his son’s drug addiction and directly questioned the minister about the spread of ‘chitta’ (synthetic drugs) in the area. It is alleged that following this incident, police personnel arrived at Gulzar Singh’s home that evening and questioned him. Following this, the panchayat members threatened him and used casteist slurs against him. On September 7th, the Panchayat reportedly summoned Gulzar Singh and put him under intense pressure to apologize unconditionally to the minister. Hurt by this humiliation and pressure, he consumed poison. The next day, on September 8th, he died while undergoing treatment at a hospital in Ludhiana. His family alleges that the administration hastily cremated his body without their consent. The family and the petitioner claim that Gulzar Singh, in his video-recorded dying declaration, had blamed Minister Cheema and the village sarpanch for his death. This incident has created a major political storm across Punjab. The Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Shiromani Akali Dal have united and are continuously demanding the resignation of Minister Harpal Singh Cheema. Recently, Congress leaders organized a large protest march towards the minister’s residence in Chandigarh, which the police had to disperse using water cannons. Meanwhile, National Commission for Scheduled Castes Chairman Kishore Makwana also visited Sangrur and met with the victim’s family, assuring them of justice. Rajan Chaudhary Courtesy: Hindi News
UP govt seems determined to use Goonda Act as tool of harassment: Allahabad HC
A Lucknow bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said the Goonda Act is a “very powerful” legislation and must be invoked with great caution, only in clear cases and for maintaining public order. LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over alleged misuse of the Goonda Act in the state, observing that cases coming before it indicate that the state government appears determined to use the stringent law as a tool of harassment. A Lucknow bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said the Goonda Act is a “very powerful” legislation and must be invoked with great caution, only in clear cases and for maintaining public order. The court made the observations while quashing the order of the Gonda district magistrate declaring a person named Zahid Ali a “goonda” and externing him from the district for six months. The court also set aside the appellate order passed by the divisional commissioner upholding the DM’s decision. The Gonda District Magistrate had, on May 11, passed the order under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, relying on two criminal cases and a beat information report. One of the criminal cases dated back to 2010 and the other to 2020. The high court found that Ali had already been acquitted in the 2010 case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, on August 26, 2017. It observed that a case in which a person had already been acquitted could not subsequently be used as a ground to declare him a goonda. The court further noted that there was a gap of nearly six years between the 2020 criminal case and the 2026 order declaring Ali a goonda. It said no rational nexus could be established between the two. The high court also took exception to the police report mentioning the case in which Ali had already been acquitted, observing that it indicated that an incorrect picture of the petitioner had been placed before the DM. The court said that mere involvement in a single criminal case of 2020 could not establish that Ali was a habitual offender or habitually committed or abetted offences. The bench also refused to accept the beat information report as a valid basis for invoking the Goonda Act. No criminal case had been registered on the basis of the information, nor had Ali been given an opportunity of hearing in relation to it. Relying on such material, the court said, would violate the principles of natural justice. The court also found that the commissioner had treated the acquitted case as a pending case against Ali, reflecting a failure to properly exercise discretion. Holding that the orders passed by both the DM and the commissioner were legally unsustainable, the high court quashed them and allowed Ali’s petition. Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/thenewindianexpress.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Telangana high court directs police board to accept transgender applications
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Tuesday directed the Telangana State-Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB) to accept applications from transpersons for the posts of police constables and sub-inspectors during the ongoing recruitment drive, after questioning the govt over the continued use of a binary classification of gender in its recruitment portal.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohinuddin passed the interim order while hearing a writ petition filed by a group of transpersons challenging the availability of only two options — male and female — in the gender category in the TSLPRB’s online application portal. The bench also questioned the govt as to why it had not issued guidelines or directions to various departments to move away from the binary classification of gender. Further directing the board to file its response to the petitioners’ contentions, the bench posted the matter to Sept 16 for further hearing. TSLPRB recently issued a notification for recruitment to around 5,000 posts in the police department. So far, transpersons have been appointed to the traffic wing of Hyderabad traffic police and as volunteers for HYDRAA to assist the personnel in enforcement. “Forcing applicants to choose either ‘male’ or ‘female’ in the gender category is not only illegal but also an act of forcing transpersons to submit a false declaration about their gender identity at the very threshold of the recruitment process,” the petitioners contended. The petitioners also referred to recommendations of Telangana Backward Classes Commission for providing horizontal reservation to transgender persons in the state. Last date extended Meanwhile, Rajashekar Reddy, counsel for the Police Recruitment Board, informed the court that the last date for submitting applications had been extended to Sept 16. Taking note of this, the bench directed the board to accept the petitioners’ applications if they were able to submit them through the online portal. If the portal did not permit such applications, the board was directed to receive physical applications and provide an acknowledgement. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Bombay high court refuses to junk defamation case, says Rahul Gandhi’s remarks against PM Modi must be decided at trial
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Congress politician Rahul Gandhi that challenged summons issued to him by a magistrate on a defamation complaint over his alleged 2018 statements against PM Narendra Modi related to the Rafale fighter aircraft deal.“In absence of any manifest illegality, perversity in the impugned order, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering overall facts and circumstances, this court finds no infirmity in the impugned order,’’ said Justice Nitin Borkar. The criminal defamation complaint was filed by BJP functionary Mahesh Shrishrimal before a Girgaon magistrate stating that Gandhi’s statements were made in a rally in Rajasthan and had hurt the sentiments of all BJP members. The magistrate issued summons against Gandhi in August 2019. Gandhi received the summons in July 2021 and then moved the high court seeking quashing of the proceedings. On December 16, 2021, the high court, in an interim order, had deferred the proceedings before the magistrate. Shrishrimal’s advocate Rohan Mahadik opposed Gandhi’s petition insisting that the statements targeted all BJP members. Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, for Gandhi, argued that the complaint was frivolous, non-maintainable, and intended to harass adversaries. He said only an aggrieved person could file it. Advocate General Milind Sathe countered that an individual BJP member also qualifies as an aggrieved person with locus standi and legal right to file the complaint. He urged that the complaint should not be quashed at the preliminary stage. In the order, Justice Borkar said: “On prima facie reading of the defamatory statement, inter alia, describes the Prime Minister, who is also the prominent face of the said political party, as having engaged in the acts of theft while being the Commander of Thieves.” Justice Borkar said: “Therefore, at this threshold, it cannot be said that the alleged defamatory imputation is incapable of extending to those clearly identified with the party and its leadership, including its office-bearers.” Whether the imputations were confined to the PM alone, or whether and to what extent they cast the shadow upon BJP members and functionaries “is a matter requiring an appreciation of evidence and context…a determination that must await trial rather than be conclusively answered by this court… “, said the high court. After the order, Gandhi’s advocate requested a stay on the order for eight weeks to approach the Supreme Court. After Mahadik opposed it, Justice Borkar stayed the order for six weeks. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Preventing Dalits From Temple Entry Amounts to Untouchability’: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has held that preventing a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste from entering a temple or participating in a temple festival on caste grounds amounts to the practice of untouchability and violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while hearing a petition filed by V Sundaram in connection with the Arulmigu Muthu Mariamman Temple chariot festival at Ramanayakkanpalayam in Salem district. ‘Nobody Can Be Prevented on Caste Grounds’ The petitioner had sought equal participation for members of the Milagu Kattan Adidravidar Community in the temple festival and directions to prevent certain individuals from excluding them. The Tamil Nadu government told the court that a peace committee meeting had been held and that everyone had been allowed to participate in the festival irrespective of caste or creed. It also said that disputes over “Karaikarargal rights” could be taken before a civil court. Sundaram’s counsel, however, urged the court to ensure that members of the community would not face similar exclusion during future festivals. The High Court referred to the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, and said that a person cannot be stopped from entering a temple because of caste. “This Court has also repeatedly passed orders that on the basis of a non existing thing called ‘caste’ nobody can be prevented entry or participation in the temple festival,” the court observed. The court further said that preventing a Scheduled Caste person from entering a temple on casteist grounds would amount to the practice of untouchability. “If any person prevents another person from entering the temple on casteist grounds, particularly if a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is prevented from entering the temple, such an act would amount to the practice of untouchability and would constitute a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chakravarthy said. The court added that those responsible for such acts could be prosecuted in accordance with law. State Assures No Discrimination The Tamil Nadu government assured the court that there would be no discrimination in participation in the temple festival in future years. The court clarified that disputes concerning the right to conduct or administer the festival could be pursued before the competent authority under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments framework or before the appropriate civil court. Since the festival was already underway and people from all communities had been allowed to participate, the court closed the petition. Courtesy : TOP Note: This news is originally published on https:/theobserverpost.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights