Karnataka: Kin of victims of communal killings receive Rs 25 lakh; CM announces jobs for them

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda during a recent court hearing.

Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

New Delhi: With Arvind Kejriwal announcing that he will resign as Delhi Chief Minister soon and return to office only after the people's verdict on the allegations of corruption against him, the big question is who in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) will get the top job.

Assembly polls in Delhi are due in February next year, even though Mr Kejriwal yesterday demanded that the election be held in November along with the Maharashtra polls. Former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, too, has said he will go to the people and return to the top office only after re-election. This effectively means that the top leaders of AAP are not in the race for the Chief Minister's post.

Even though this Chief Ministerial stint will only be for a few months, the AAP leadership would be looking to choose a prominent leader who can articulate the party's position on key issues and has wide acceptability among the party ranks.

Here are five leaders who can make the cut

Atishi:

Delhi Minister Atishi, holding key portfolios such as education and PWD, is one of the key contenders. An Oxford University alumnus and a Rhodes scholar, Ms Atishi has worked extensively in the AAP's flagship exercise to overhaul education in Delhi's schools. An MLA from Kalkaji, the 43-year-old became a minister after Mr Sisodia was arrested in a corruption case linked to Delhi's now-scrapped liquor policy. When Mr Kejriwal and Mr Sisodia were behind bars, Atishi articulated the party's position. On August 15, Mr Kejriwal chose her to hoist the tricolour at Delhi government's Independence Day event. While Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena foiled the plan, it was clear that the AAP leadership places a lot of faith in Ms Atishi.

Saurabh Bharadwaj: 

Mr Bharadwaj is a three-time MLA from Greater Kailash and holds portfolios such as vigilance and health in the Arvind Kejriwal government. He, too, was named a minister after Mr Sisodia's arrest in the liquor policy case. Mr Bharadwaj, who has worked as a software engineer in the past, was also a minister in Arvind Kejriwal's 49-day government. He is also a national spokesperson of the AAP and was articulating the party's position when its top leaders were in jail after being arrested by central agencies in corruption cases.

Raghav Chadha: 

A member of the AAP's national executive and political affairs committee, Mr Chadha is a Rajya Sabha MP from the party and one of its top faces. Mr Chadha has earlier worked as a chartered accountant and has been in the AAP since its inception. He has been an MLA from Rajinder Nagar and played a key role in the AAP's thumping victory in Punjab in the 2022 state polls. The 35-year-old is among the most prominent young politicians in the country and is known for articulating AAP's position on key issues in Parliament.
Kailash Gahlot: 

Kailash Gahlot:

A lawyer by profession, Mr Gahlot is among the senior members of the AAP government in Delhi and holds key portfolios such as transport, finance and home affairs. The 50-year-old leader is MLA from Delhi's Najafgarh constituency since 2015. An advocate who has practised in both Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, he has served as a member executive in the high court bar association between 2005 and 2007

Sanjay Singh: 

A Rajya Sabha MP since 2018, Sanjay Singh is one of the AAP's most prominent faces known for his spirited speeches in Parliament. The 52-year-old leader is among the founder members of the party and is a member of its national executive and political affairs committee. He is also a regular in the party's media interactions to articulate its position on key issues. Sanjay Singh was also arrested in connection to a corruption case linked to the Delhi liquor policy case and is currently out on bail, like Mr Kejriwal and Mr Sisodia.

New Delhi, Sep 12: Madrasas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrasas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore.

It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.