New Delhi:

S Jonathan Prasad lived a nightmare 11 years back after his 23-year-old daughter Esther Anuhya’s rotten body was found on a Mumbai road. A software engineer with Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Esther had just returned from holidays in her hometown Vijayawada when she was brutally raped and murdered.

Mr Prasad, crushed by the tragedy, found some solace when a Mumbai court convicted Chandrabhan Sanap of the gruesome crime and sentenced him to death in 2015. A decade later, the elderly man’s wounds have been reopened after the Supreme Court acquitted Sanap yesterday. And this time, Mr Prasad does not have the strength to keep fighting.

A Chilling Rape-Murder

Esther was at her Vijayawada home for Christmas and New Year’s Eve in the winter of 2013. On January 5, she returned to Mumbai after a two-week break and was last seen leaving the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus station. When her family could not contact her, they filed a missing complaint and started looking for her in Mumbai. On January 16, a decomposed body was recovered in Kanjurmarg and it was identified as Esther’s. “We looked for my daughter after she went missing. Finally, after 10 days, her body was recovered. No parent should face the kind of trauma I have faced,” Mr Prasad told NDTV earlier.

There were no eyewitnesses and the only clue police had was footage from a CCTV camera at the railway station. The footage showed a man with a moustache carrying Esther’s bag and walking with her. A porter at the station identified him as Sanap. He was arrested in Nashik on March 3 and charged with raping and murdering Esther.

What Police Said

The case was based largely on circumstantial evidence. According to police, Sanap pretended to be a cab driver when he spotted Esther at the station on the winter morning. He offered to drive her to the south Mumbai hostel where she stayed. But on exiting the station, Esther saw Sanap did not have a cab, but a bike. Police said Sanap somehow managed to convince Esther to sit pillion.

On the way, he stopped on a service road on the Eastern Express Highway near Kanjurmarg on the pretext that the bike had run out of petrol. According to police, he dragged Esther into bushes nearby and tried to rape her. When she resisted, he hit her head on a stone many times and strangled her with her dupatta. Sanap then tried to burn Esther’s body in the thick bushes and escaped with her suitcase, which had her laptop and other items.

The Conviction, And The Acquittal

In October 2015, a Mumbai court convicted Sanap of Esther’s rape and murder and sentenced him to death. Awarding the sentence, special judge Vrushali Joshi said it was a rarest-of-the-rare case and qualified for the death penalty. “The case falls under the category of the rarest of rare, hence the accused is awarded the death sentence. He must be hanged by his neck till he is dead,” said the judge. The Bombay High Court subsequently upheld the death penalty. The high court said such a person would remain a menace to society and that the crime warranted the death penalty.

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the prosecution’s evidence was inadequate to sustain the conviction. The facts of the case, it said, compel the court to conclude that “there are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case. “While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances adduced, as held by this Court, should be fully established. There is a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as held by this Court. The circumstances relied upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and we do not find that the chain is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused,” the bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan said.

“I Leave It To God”

At his Machilipatnam home, Mr Prasad said he had heard about the Supreme Court order, but he could do nothing about it. “What can we do? We were not aware of what was happening. We also do not know that he (Sanap) approached the Supreme Court. But what shall we do? I leave it to God and whatever happens, I will not be getting my daughter back,” he told news agency PTI.

The elderly man said the death penalty had given him some closure. “We appreciated that some justice was done. Now that has completely changed. I do not know the reasons. Again, I recollect my sorrowful days 10 years back, how I suffered in Mumbai,” he said. Mr Prasad said police had collected ample evidence and arrested the right person.

Asked if he would pursue the case further and file a review petition in the top court, he replied, “No sir, I cannot do that. The problem is I am 70 plus. It is very difficult for me to move from my place. I am a retired man and my wife is not well, she is a diabetic. So, I don’t think I can approach at this age.”

New Delhi:

With the Supreme Court set to complete 75 years on Tuesday, a ceremonial bench of all 34 judges, including Chief Justice Of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, will assemble in courtroom number 1 at 3.30pm to mark the Diamond Jubilee year.

The proceedings of the ceremonial bench will also be live-streamed, according to a circular issued by the court Registrar Mahesh T Patankar.

A ceremonial bench assembled in a similar manner in 2000, when the top court had completed 50 years.

The Supreme Court, which is the apex judicial body, was established on January 26, 1950, with the coming into force of the Indian Constitution. It was, however, inaugurated two days after India became a Republic. 

The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the old Parliament building, where the Federal Court of India sat for 12 years from 1937 to 1950, according to information available in the top court’s official website.  

The inaugural proceedings was attended by the first CJI, Harilal J. Kania and justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and S.R. Das.

The Supreme Court functioned from the old Parliament House till it moved to the present building on Tilak Marg, New Delhi, in 1958. The first President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, inaugurated the present building on August 4, 1958.

On January 28 last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Diamond Jubilee celebration  at the Supreme Court auditorium. He also launched citizen-centric information and technology initiatives that include Digital Supreme Court Reports (Digi SCR), Digital Courts 2.0 and a new website of the top court.

“Whether it is freedom of expression, personal freedom or social justice, the Supreme Court has strengthened India’s vibrant democracy,” PM Modi had said.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has taken a view that police machinery should not serve notices to the accused through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.

“All the States/UTs must issue a Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023. It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023,” said a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal.

The Justice Sundresh-led Bench added that states and Union Territories(UTs) must issue an additional Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices to the accused persons or otherwise, only through the mode of service as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 or BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) 2023.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, amicus curiae (friend of the court) flagged that the service of notice is to be made in person, as contemplated under the law, and not through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.

Luthra added that notice(s) under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973 were sent to the accused through WhatsApp, but the accused did not appear before the Investigating Officers and no action was taken against such erring officers.

Further, he brought to the attention of the top court a Standing Order issued by DGP (Director General of Police), Haryana, permitting officials to serve notices in person or through WhatsApp, e-mail, SMS or any other electronic mode.

The amicus curiae referred to the decision of the top court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), upholding the Delhi High Court’s view that notice served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes is not contemplated as a mode of service under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973 (now Section 35 of BNSS, 2023) since the same is not in accordance with Chapter VI of CrPC, 1973 (now Chapter VI of BNSS, 2023) and hence cannot be treated as a valid mode of serving notice.

He also made reference to Section 532 of BNSS, 2023 which states that all trials, inquiries and proceedings may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means, but does not permit notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 to be served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.

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

New Delhi:

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, in an exclusive interview to NDTV, spoke on a range of issues – from how he almost became an economist, the paltry fees he got for his first case, portrayal of court scenes in Bollywood, to criticisms levelled against judges and the top court, and court vacations.

Here are the key highlights:

Career

Law was not my first choice, to be very honest. I graduated from St. Stephens College in Economics and Mathematics. I did my honors in Economics. And, after I completed my BA, my first choice was actually to pursue a post graduation in Economics at the Delhi School of Economics. But as destiny would have it, you know, I I joined the law faculty, and then there was no going back.

First fee as lawyer

I was fresh out of Harvard Law School. I had an SJD, from Harvard Law School, which is the doctorate in juridical sciences. My first brief, which was a little docket to mention before a division bench of the Bombay High Court, I was given this docket. So I asked the solicitor, how much do I mark on the docket? I mean, since what is my fee?

And, you know, fees in Bombay in those days were marked in GMs, which is gold mohurs (GM). And, you know, one gold mohur was Rs 15. I believe the Calcutta GM was Rs 16. So the solicitor looked at me and said, you know, for this particular work which you are doing in the court for me, the ordinary fee would be five GMs, which would be Rs 75. But since you are first appearing before the High Court, I will give you six guineas for this case. So I realised that notwithstanding a Harvard PhD, what I could mark in those days was about Rs 75 rupees Rs 90 in the mid-eighties.

Tackling various cases

I would think that no judgment which a judge delivers, particularly in the Supreme Court, is easy in itself. Because when the Supreme Court speaks, it speaks for the future. It speaks for the present, and it speaks for the future. 

We always had this confidence in the High Court that there was a court above us to correct a possible error. In the Supreme Court, the great challenges that you know that you speak as a final court of appeal, there’s no court higher than you. And, therefore, there is no case which I feel in that sense for us in the Supreme Court, which is an easy case. 

Task of delivering judgments

As judges, you are conscious of the fact that what you are deciding now will impact our society… When arguments close, that’s the time for reflection for a judge when you’re really left with yourself. When a case is concluded in terms of arguments and, you know, you reserve a case for judgment, that’s when the real process of judging starts because then you are just left to yourself. There is no one else with you but your papers. So, you know, in that sense, judging itself is a very lonely task.

Ruling on electoral bonds

When you decide a case like the electoral bonds case, when it opens, you are conscious of the ramifications of what you are deciding and you are conscious of the impact which the case will have on the polity in the long run – it is obviously something which is present to the mind of the court. But when you are deciding the case in terms of intellectual rigour, you are applying the basic principles which are associated with that body of law. So, in the electoral bonds case, we were applying fundamental principles of manifest arbitrariness or the need for transparency in electoral funding.
Overruling previous top court judgments

As they say that, you know, the Supreme Court is final not because it is right, but it is right because it is final. And, you know, that is why we, in the Supreme Court, have looked at the correctness of some of the past judgments which were delivered. In fact, in 2024, and even earlier, we overruled several judgments which were delivered by our predecessors in the Supreme Court in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. And we overruled those judgments not necessarily because they were wrong. 

Perhaps those judgments may have had some bearing on the society in which they were delivered, in the backdrop of the context in which they were delivered. But those judgments did not make sense today as society has evolved… I overruled a couple of judgments delivered by my own father. And, but that’s part of the process.

Criticisms of courts on social media

In the age of social media, everything that is said in court now becomes a part of a public dialogue in the process of dissection. Our attention spans are so limited today, down to 20 seconds, on social media that people don’t understand the distinction between a dialogue in a court and the final judgment of the court. Even before the final judgment of a court comes, people feel that the dialogue is reflective of your position, and that’s not quite right. 

The criticism of a judge, the targeting of a judge is based not on any concrete material, but just what anybody can say about a court.

Courtroom scenes in films vs reality

The Bollywood scenes about courts are very different from what actually happens in reality in the court. Yes, there is drama, and at times, there is quite a bit of drama, particularly in sensitive cases. But a lot of times, what goes on in court is in that sense, you know, bare bone exposition of facts and law. So it’s very different from how the court is portrayed in Bollywood films of that matter and some of the Hollywood films as well or other films of a different genre.

Supreme Court vacations

The criticism that the court has too many vacations is completely unfounded because it doesn’t, you know. It’s not justified by what is the truth, which is, the judges are working 24*7, 365 days. The first victim of a life on the bench is your own ability to spend time with your own family. So I am making up for lost ground now, you know.

New Delhi:

The criticism that the Supreme Court has a lot of vacations is “completely unfounded” since the judges are working “24*7 and 365 days”, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud has said.

In an exclusive interview with NDTV, Justice Chandrachud also said the Supreme Court of India is among the world’s top courts with the “longest duration of working days”. “You know there are Supreme Courts in other parts of the world where if a judge sits for a week on hearing cases, they would get a week off to actually deliver judgment,” he said.

The debate over the top court’s vacations has cropped up repeatedly. In 2022, then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju told Parliament that “there is a feeling among people of India that the long vacation which the courts obtain is not very convenient for justice-seekers”, and that it is his “obligation and duty to convey the message or sense of this House to the judiciary”. 

Asked whether the world, at large, needs to be sensitised more towards the vacation of the top court, Justice Chandrachud said: “Absolutely. I completely agree with you. For the reason that even during the summers, it’s a partial court working period. The court does not close its shutters.” 

He added: “The criticism that the court has too many vacations is completely unfounded because it doesn’t, you know. It’s not justified by what is the truth, which is, the judges are working 24*7, 365 days.” 

The former CJI said the “first victim of a life on the bench is your own ability to spend time with your own family”. “So I’m making up for lost ground now, you know,” Justice Chandrachud, who concluded his tenure as the 50th CJI after two years on November 10, said.

In a written reply in the Rajya Sabha in February in 2023, Mr Rijiju said the top court has been working on an average of 222 days in a year. He said the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which were notified in 2014, provide that the period of summer vacation shall not exceed seven weeks and the length of the length of the summer vacation and the number of holidays for the court shall be such as may be fixed by the Chief Justice, so as not to exceed 103 days, excluding Sundays not falling in the vacation and during court holidays.

All High Courts, on the other hand, have been normally working for 210 days in a year, according to a statement by the Ministry of Law and Justice in 2011. However, no data on the number of working days in the lower courts is maintained centrally, it said.

Justice Chandrachud said all the judges of the top court work throughout the week, that is, from Monday to Sunday. “There are no weekends for Supreme Court judges because on Saturdays and Sundays, you are doing two things. You are reading for the Monday’s cases, 70 or 80 cases, and you are delivering judgments which have been held back in reserve, either that week or the previous week. In the summer, the so-called summer vacation, it’s not a vacation,” he said. 

He explained that critical constitutional cases or those involving important questions of law are mainly the ones that are dealt with during the vacations. “It’s only when you have a mini break or a longer break, say, a mini break like for Holi or for Diwali that judges get down to doing all this work,” he said. 

“Occasionally, you know, judges would go out of town. But even when they go out of town, say, on a Friday evening and come back on Saturday, they are addressing students of law colleges. They are conducting legal aid camps. So that’s equally a part of the functioning of a contemporary judge. So it’s not that judges have, you know, unlimited time off or, you know, time to spend with their families,” he added. 

In the past, several judges, including former CJI N V Ramana, have said that there is a misconception that judges stay in ultimate comfort and enjoy their holidays. 

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict in a sexual assault and murder case of a four-year-old minor boy in 2016, and substituted it with a 25-year jail term without remission.

Holding the crime was diabolical, a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K V Viswanathan, took note of the mitigating circumstances and observed it was not a case where the possibility of reformation was completely ruled out.

The case does not fall in the rarest of rare category, the bench said.

“Having regard to the nature of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardise the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system,” it said, “a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission would be a just dessert”.

The apex court delivered its judgement on an appeal filed by convict Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar challenging the Gujarat High Court’s April 2019 verdict.

The high court had confirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by a trial court for the offences punishable under various sections of the IPC, including murder besides the Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution, Padhiyar kidnapped the four-year-old boy, sexual assaulted and murdered him in April, 2016, in Gujarat’s Bharuch district.

“Without doubt, the crime committed by the appellant was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomised and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased,” the top court said.

The mitigation investigation report filed before the apex court showed the appellant was 24-years of age at the time of incident, no criminal antecedents and hailed from a low socio-economic household.

The bench said the report from the superintendent of Vadodara Jail indicated the appellant’s behaviour in prison was completely normal and his conduct was good.

It further said the report from a mental health hospital indicated the appellant had no psychiatric problem at present.

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed,” the bench said.

It said though the case of the appellant fell short of the rarest of rare category, considering the nature of the crime, the court “strongly” felt a sentence of life imprisonment — normally working out for 14 years — would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate.

The top court’s verdict noted the prosecution’s case alleging the child was playing near his house when the accused took him on the pretext of getting him ice-cream, and later his mortal remains were found near bushes.

“The deceased, aged between three-and-a-half and four years, was a small child, just out of toddlerhood and at the preschool stage. This is very significant because when the appellant has from the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased taken the deceased one would expect that the small child would be brought back and dropped at the house,” it said.

It also came on record that the convict offered no explanation about what had happened after he spent time with the child and it wasn’t the man’s case that he handed over the child to someone else or dropped the boy home.

The bench said the lack of explanation by the appellant was to say the least “baffling”.

The top court observed it was well settled if the accused was last seen with the deceased, particularly when the time gap between the last seen stage and occurrence of death was so short, the accused must offer a plausible explanation about how he parted his company with the deceased, and it must be satisfactory.

While maintaining his conviction for the offences, including that of murder and under the provisions of the POCSO Act, the bench set aside the sentence of death for the offence under Section 302 (murder) and substituted it with the rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without remission.

While partly allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the Rs 20,000 fine imposed on him by the trial court, considering his socio-economic condition.

(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 on Monday passed a slew of directions for early disposal of mercy petitions filed by convicts, and directed that a dedicated cell shall be constituted by the home department or the prison department of the state governments/Union Territories for dealing with such petitions.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said the dedicated cell shall be responsible for the prompt processing of mercy petitions within the time frame laid down by the respective governments.

“An officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell shall be nominated by designation who shall receive and issue communications on behalf of the dedicated cell. An official of the law and judiciary or justice department of the state governments/Union Territories should be attached to the dedicated cell so constituted,” the bench said.

The directions came as the court upheld an order of the Bombay High Court which commuted the death penalty of two convicts in the 2007 Pune BPO employee gang-rape and murder case to life term for a period of 35 years on the grounds of an inordinate delay in executing them.

The top court said all the prisons shall be informed about the designation of the officer-in-charge of the dedicated cell along with his address and email ID.

“As soon as the superintendent of prison/officer in-charge receives the mercy petitions, he shall immediately forward the copies thereof to the dedicated cell and call for the details/information (like criminal antecedents, economic condition, etc.) from the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station and/or the concerned investigating agency.

“On receipt of the request made by the jail authorities, the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station shall be under an obligation to furnish the said information to the jail authorities immediately,” the bench said.

As soon as mercy petitions are received by the dedicated cell, copies of the pleas shall be forwarded to the secretariats of the governor of the state or the President of India, as the case may be, so that the secretariat can initiate action at their end, it said.

“All correspondence, as far as possible, be made by email, unless confidentiality is involved; and the state government shall issue office orders/executive orders containing guidelines for dealing with the mercy petitions in terms of this judgment,” the bench said.

(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 on Tuesday took strong exception to the termination of women civil judges in Madhya Pradesh, criticizing the criteria used for their dismissal and remarking that men would understand the situation if they experienced menstruation.

The remarks were made during a hearing related to the termination of six female civil judges in the state.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh made this comment while hearing a case related to the termination of female civil judges in Madhya Pradesh.

Six female civil judges were terminated, with two of them yet to be reinstated.

The top court’s observation came when it noted the criteria adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in dealing with the female judges.

The state counsel said that the judges were terminated due to poor disposal rates of cases.

In response, The top court said that they will have the same criteria for male judges. “I wish they had menstruation; then only they would understand,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The top court also said that if the women are suffering physically and mentally then don’t say they are slow and send them home. The top court listed the matter on December 12 for further hearing.

The SC was hearing a suo motu petition on the issue of the termination of six women judges by the Madhya Pradesh government.

In June 2023, the Madhya Pradesh government terminated the services of the six judges following a recommendation by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The judges were reportedly terminated on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance during their probation period.

Following the administrative committee and a full court meeting finding their performance during the probation period unsatisfactory, the State Law Department issued orders for terminating the services of judges.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Election Commission’s response on a PIL challenging its decision to increase the maximum number of voters from 1,200 to 1,500 at every polling station, saying no elector should be excluded.

While asking the poll panel to clarify its stand, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, “We are concerned. No voter should be excluded.” The bench therefore directed senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the poll panel, to file a short affidavit explaining the rationale behind the decision to increase the number of voters per polling station.

“Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, says on instruction that they will explain the position by way of a short affidavit. Let the affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks,” said the bench.

Mr Singh said the bench knew about the consistent allegations on EVMs, adding, “They will keep on coming. The polling has been happening like this since 2019 and political parties are being consulted before this in every constituency.” The senior lawyer said polling stations could have multiple polling booths and political parties were consulted in each constituency when the total number of voters was raised per EVM.

Mr Singh further said voters were always permitted to cast their votes, even beyond the prescribed time.

The bench, which will hear the matter on January 27, 2025, asked the EC to provide a copy of its affidavit to the petitioner before the next date of hearing.

The PIL, filed by Indu Prakash Singh, challenged two communications issued by the EC in August, increasing the number of voters per polling station in each constituency across India.

The plea said the decision to increase the number of voters per polling booth was arbitrary and not based on any data.

On October 24, the top court refused to issue any notice to the poll panel but allowed the petitioner to serve the copy to the standing counsel of the poll panel so that its stand on the issue is known.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, contended that increasing the number of voters from 1,200 to 1,500 would lead to the exclusion of underprivileged groups from the electoral process as an individual would take longer to cast their franchise.

He submitted longer queues and waiting time at the polling stations would dissuade voters from going to cast their votes.

The bench, however, said the poll panel wanted more participation and with the use of EVMs, it took a shorter time compared to ballot papers as the poll panel intended to considerably reduce the time taken to cast votes by increasing the number of EVMs at booths.

The petitioner, however, said the poll panel’s decision would impact voters during the assembly elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand (since concluded) and Bihar and Delhi to be held in 2025.

The petitioner said elections were normally held for 11 hours and it took around 60 to 90 seconds to cast a single vote, and therefore 660 to 490 persons could cast their vote in a day at one polling station with one EVM.

Considering the average voting percentage to be 65.70 per cent, it was perceivable that a polling station prepared to accept 1,000 electors, saw about 650 people turning up, said the petitioner.

The plea said there were booths where the elector turnout was in the range of 85-90 per cent.

“In such a situation, about 20 per cent of voters will either end up standing in the queue beyond the voting hours or due to long waiting times, will abandon exercising their right to vote. Neither is acceptable in a progressive republic or a democracy,” argued the PIL.

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

New Delhi:

In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas challenging the 1976 amendment to the Constitution adding terms “socialist”, “secular” and “integrity” to the Preamble.

The words “socialist”, “secular” and “integrity” were inserted into the Preamble to the Constitution under the 42nd constitutional amendment moved by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had on November 22 reserved its verdict on the pleas filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and advocate Ashwini Updhayay challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution.

One of the first petitions was filed by one Balram Singh through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain in 2020.

“The writ petitions do not need further deliberation and adjudication. The amending power of Parliament over the Constitution extends to Preamble,” the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict.

The CJI said the verdict explained that after so many years the process cannot be so nullified.

The date of the adoption of the Constitution would not curtail the government’s power under Article 368 and moreover this is not under challenge, the bench noted.

The amending power of Parliament extends to Preamble as well, it added.

The top court asked further, “It has almost been so many years, why rake up the issue now?” A detailed judgement is awaited.

While reserving the judgement, the bench said the 1976 amendment to the Constitution adding terms “socialist”, “secular” and “integrity” to the Preamble had undergone judicial reviews and it cannot be said whatever Parliament did during the emergency period was all nullity.

The amendment changed the description of India in the Preamble from a “sovereign, democratic republic” to a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic”.

Emergency in India was declared by the late PM Indira Gandhi from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977.

The bench previously refused to refer the matter to a larger bench as sought by petitioners and said “being socialist” in the Indian sense was understood to be a “welfare state”.

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who too filed a petition, said he was not against the concepts of “socialism” and “secularism” but opposed its insertion into the Preamble.

Swamy, who filed a separate plea, pointed out even the subsequently elected union government led by Janata Party supported the inclusion of these words in the Preamble.

He said the question was whether it should be added as a separate paragraph to the Preamble instead of saying in 1949, it was adopted as socialist and secular.

He said, “Not only the emergency Parliament adopted this but (it) was also subsequently supported by the Janata Party government’s Parliament by a 2/3rd majority, in which this particular aspect of socialism and secularism was retained.” He added, “The issue here is only this much — whether we would make out that this should come as a separate paragraph because we cannot say that in 1949 these words were adopted. Therefore, the only issue that remains is, having accepted this, we can have a separate paragraph below the original paragraph.” In September, 2022, the top court tagged Swamy’s plea with other pending matters — filed by Singh and others — for hearing. They sought deletion of the words “socialist” and “secular” from the Preamble to the Constitution.

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