Next game in Delhi not before 2020, courtesy rotation policy

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice 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. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

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.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in 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.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday, September 17, said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 will be passed in the Parliament in the coming days. He said the Bill is committed to the management, preservation and misuse of Waqf properties.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf Bill will meet from September 18 to 20. The JPC is scrutinising the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 which seeks to amend the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2013.

On September 14, a Muslim organisation headed by Congress MP Tariq Anwar demanded the rejection of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. The organisation alleged that the proposed legislation is an "indirect attempt to seize control of Muslim religious properties".

The All India Qaumi Tanzeem submitted 14 pages of suggestions and objections to the bill to the JPC through the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 8.

On September 11, a Rajya Sabha panel summoned Minority Affairs Ministry officials to explain reasons for the delay in completing the process for framing subordinate legislation under the 2013 Waqf law.

The new bill seeks to change the registration process for Waqf properties through a centralised portal. It proposes several things, including establishing a Central Waqf Council alongside state Waqf Boards with representation to Muslim women and non-Muslim representatives.

A contentious provision of the Bill is the proposal to designate the district collector as the primary authority in determining whether a property is classified as Waqf or government land.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill also aims at renaming the act to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.

Narendra Modi-led government of India has abstained in the UN General Assembly on a resolution that demanded that Israel bring an end, “without delay”, to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within 12 months.

The 193-member General Assembly adopted the resolution, with 124 nations voting in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions, including that by India.

Those abstaining included Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Nepal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Israel and the US were among the nations who voted against the resolution titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’.

The resolution adopted Wednesday demanded that “Israel brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character entailing its international responsibility, and do so no later than 12 months from the adoption of the present resolution.” 

The Palestinian-drafted resolution also strongly deplored the continued and total disregard and breaches by the Government of Israel of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions, and stressed that such breaches seriously threaten regional and international peace and security.

It recognised that Israel must be held to account for any violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including any violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and that it “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including by making reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.”