New Delhi:

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on November 5 its verdict on pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court judgment that declared the Uttar Pradesh madrasa law as unconstitutional.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on October 22 reserved the judgement on eight petitions, including the lead one filed by Anjum Kadari, against the high court verdict.

On March 22, the Allahabad High Court declared the Act as “unconstitutional” and violative of the principle of secularism and asked the state government to accommodate madrasa students in the formal schooling system.

On April 5, the CJI-led bench provided a breather to about 17 lakh madrasa students by staying the verdict of the High Court scrapping the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.

During the hearing, the CJI observed that secularism means to “live and let live”.

Moreover, regulating madrasas was in the national interest as several hundred years of the nation’s composite culture could not be wished away by creating silos for minorities, he had said.

The Uttar Pradesh government, in response to a query of the bench, said it stood by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 and was of the view that the Allahabad High Court should not have held the entire law as unconstitutional.

Agreeing to the submissions of senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the litigants opposed to the HC verdict, the CJI said, “Secularism means — live and let live.” Referring to the composite national culture, the CJI had asked the state government, “Is it not in our national interest that you regulate the madrasas?” The bench further said, “You cannot wish away several hundred years of history of this nation like this. Suppose, we uphold the high court order and the parents of the children still send them to madrasas then it will just be a silos without any legislative intervention mainstreaming is the answer to ghettoisation.” It had also asked to preserve India as a melting pot of cultures and religions.

“Ultimately we have to see it through the broad sweep of the country. Religious instructions are there not just for Muslims. It is there for Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country ought to be a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, and religions. Let us preserve it that way. In fact, the answer to ghettoisation is to allow people to come to the mainstream and to allow them to come together. Otherwise, what we essentially would be doing is to keep them in silos,” the CJI had remarked.

The bench had wondered what was wrong with the law recognising madrasas imparting religious instructions, mandating they followed certain basic standards but striking down the entire law meant such institutions remained unregulated.

The bench had said it should not be misunderstood as it was equally concerned about madrasa students getting quality education.

However, quashing the entire law was like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it had said, adding that religious instructions were never an anathema in the country.

The top court had heard a battery of lawyers on behalf of the eight petitioners apart from Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj for the Uttar Pradesh government for about two days before reserving the verdict.

Commencing the final arguments on the pleas against the verdict, the bench, had also heard senior lawyers including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid and Menaka Guruswamy for the petitioners.

Senior advocates including Rohatgi, P Chidambaram and Guru Krishna Kumar had also made submission while representing various litigants.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Wednesday said the Constitution is a “powerful tool” to curb disparities and it creates institutions and structures which are meant to guard against inequality.

He said the Constitution provides for checks and balances within these institutions and also stipulates institutional priorities and obligations towards citizens of the country.

Addressing a gathering at the 13th convocation ceremony and founder’s day of the O P Jindal Global University here, the CJI exhorted the students to spot injustice in all its facets in the world around them.

“The Constitution is a powerful tool to curb such disparities. It creates institutions and structures that are meant to guard against inequalities – apparent or invisible,” he said.

“In that sense, it performs a horizontal function – in that it regulates the inter-institutional relationships; and a vertical function – in so far as it regulates the relationship between the State and the people. But this is not all. The Constitution does a lot more than that, it entrenches these values into our social fabric,” Justice Chandrachud said.

He said constitutional theorists attribute stability of democracies to stability of their founding principles.

“However, something we take for granted in our democracy is the stability that our Constitution affords to our civic lives. Constitutional longevity speaks to the wisdom of our framers who were prescient enough to incorporate grounding elements into the Constitution without making it into a rigid normative, and thus a brittle document,” he said.

The CJI said the Constitution, while being a sturdy foundation for our democracy, is also sufficiently flexible.

“For instance, we may understand that inequality is unjust. But we may have diverse ideas of what equality entails. Does similarity of treatment always promote equality or does it sometimes stray us further away? Does the law only target manifest inequality or inequality that lurks in shrouds of protective discrimination and non-interference?” he said.

He said for instance, the law proscribes discrimination on the ground of sex.

The CJI said a law that prohibits women employees to work in certain establishments, apprehending threats to their security is not prima facie malignant.

“Workplace security is a rather laudable legislative objective. However, notice how a seemingly beneficial law effectively clips the wings of women who seek to be employed in some of these establishments. Such a law would not pass constitutional muster because it furthers stereotypical assumptions and perpetuates gender roles in a workplace,” Justice Chandrachud said.

He said in reality, justice means different things in different contexts and it takes a compassionate eye to spot injustices around them.

The CJI said the bottom line was that “we live among many such complexly stacked inequalities”.

“And there are no straightjacket or strictly legal solutions to some of these problems. The solutions, like the issues themselves are nuanced. They require a compassionate, sincere professional solution, which you are all now capable of devising,” he said.

He said problems like climate change, information gap and unequal distribution of basic resources do not have clear solutions neatly boxed in one professional domain or institution and their answers lie in exploration and cooperation.

“In finding the best solutions, we must not be dictated only by concerns of expediency, rationality and pragmatism. Finer strands of accessibility, inclusivity and diversity must be woven into the decisions we make,” the CJI said.

He said our social order was not necessarily perfect in all respects and sometimes, “our present problems may compound with underlying imperfections”.

“This entrenches pre-existing inequalities. Their impact is not only imminent and harmful, but also disparate,” he said. Justice Chandrachud also implored the students to spend their days and lives not only as ambassadors of their alma mater, but also as the voices of reason in a clutter of noise.

“The danger to our societies today is the clutter of noise and we need the voice of reason among the voices of unbridled passion,” he said.

“Take it from a judge who sits through long and cognitively taxing hours of courtroom-conversation, a voice of reason and sincerity resonates loud and clear. You must incorporate the spirit of the Constitution in all that you do,” he said.

Justice Chandrachud told the students that each one of them possesses the caliber to bring transformative change in their areas of expertise.

“The first step in recognising that is seeing yourselves as stakeholders in the diversity and well-being of society,” he said, adding, “Even as Supreme Court judges, we spend all our time learning, unlearning and relearning different ways to approach the law and different interpretations”.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a plea of a 14-year-old alleged rape survivor, seeking termination of her 28-week pregnancy.

As per the Supreme Court’s website, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala will take up her case as the first item on Monday.

On April 19, the top court ordered her medical examination on the plea moved by her mother, challenging the Bombay High Court decision declining to allow the termination of the pregnancy owing to the advanced stage.

It had sought a report from Mumbai’s Sion hospital about the girl’s possible physical and psychological condition if she undergoes medical termination of pregnancy or if she is advised against it.

The bench had directed the medical superintendent of the hospital to constitute the medical board and its report be placed before the court on April 22, the next date of hearing.

The counsel appearing in the court on behalf of the petitioner said the minor is 28 weeks pregnant and is presently in Mumbai.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the government in the matter.

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the upper limit for termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women as well as for those in special categories, including rape survivors, and other vulnerable women, such as the differently abled and minors.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)