Top News Headlines 28th Mar 2022: All India Muslim Personal Law Board Moves The Supreme Court Against The Karnataka HC’s Verdict

All India Muslim Personal Law Board Moves The Supreme Court Against The Karnataka HC’s Verdict

• As many of us would have probably expected, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has moved the Apex Court against the judgement of the Karnataka HC by which it had upheld the ban of hijab in educational institutions (Resham vs State of Karnataka).
• The Court had held that the wearing of hijab is not an essential practice of Islam and that the imposition of uniform is a reasonable restriction and is protected by the Constitution.
• The Board has moved the Hon’ble SC through its secretary, Mohammad Fazlurrahim and two other petitioners, Munisa Bushra and Jaleesa Sultana Yaseen.
• In addition to this, the Islamic clerics organisation named ‘Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama’ has also filed a special leave petition to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution on the ground that the interpretation that was done by the Karnataka HC was based on an erroneous interpretation of Islamic law, the Quran and the Hadith.
• The petitioner has contended that Surah 24 Ayat 31 and Surah 33 Ayat 59 of the Quran clearly states that covering the head and neck of a woman in presence of males outside her family (‘non-mahram’, i.e., the people with whom marriage is permissible) is compulsory. Muslim women throughout the world follow this practice in obedience to the Quran. The petitioner has also contended that it is not the hijab per se but the purpose behind it, i.e., properly covering the head and neck, which is an essential part of Islam.
• It has also been contended that according to the catena of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, for a practice to be ‘essential’, it is not necessary that there must be a penalty associated with its breach, and the HC is not justified in insisting that a punishment must be attached to it to get the protection under Article 25 of the Constitution.
• It has also been contended that compelling a Muslim woman to avoid her headgear is violation of her right to follow her religion and it is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Another argument that has been put forth is that the HC had relied upon the footnotes of the Islamic writer Yusuf Ali, which can only be regarded as his personal opinion and this opinion cannot be considered as the source of Islamic Law, and it certainly cannot be put on a higher pedestal that the Hadith.
• On 24th March, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India had rejected a request for urgent listing of the petitions challenging the Karnataka HC judgment, asking Senior Advocate Devadutta Kamat to not ‘sensitize the issue’.
• Seeing that religion has become an increasingly sensitive issue in our Country, all we can do is wait with bated breath and see where the Apex Court stands on this issue.

When Information Sought Under Allegations Of Corruption Or Human Rights Violation, Enforcement Directorate Has No Choice But To Comply: Delhi HC

• Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed in Union of India V. Central Information Commission & Anr. that the Enforcement Directorate is exempted from providing information as stipulated in the II Schedule of the Right to Information Act (RTI) unless the information corresponds to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
• In this instance, a Superintendent (respondent) working with the Enforcement Directorate filed an application requesting copies of all seniority lists for Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) from 1991 to the present, proposals for promoting LDCs placed before the DPC, the Minutes of the Meetings, and the promotion orders issued on the DPC's recommendations over the period as she had not been given the promotion deserved by her. However, the needful was not done as the CIC invoked its rights under Section 24 of the RTI Act. Simultaneously, while the division bench heard the Letter Patents Appeal (LPA), the UOI requested a stay, which was rejected. As a result, a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Hon'ble SC, contesting the division bench ruling denying the stay, which was also dismissed by the SC, along with a directive to the HC to resolve the question of the RTI Act's applicability to the Appellant before deciding the stay motion.
• The II schedule of the Right to Information Act of 2005 contains a complete list of 26 organizations that are excluded from sharing information due to their status as intelligence and security organizations.
• Section 24 of the RTI Act is one of the most controversial yet crucial sections of the RTI Act. It exempts intelligence and security organizations, like the Enforcement Directorate, from the Act's scope, limiting the level of openness in the government and various public bodies, and hence a limit on democracy itself. One noteworthy case regarding this Section is B Bharathi V. CPIO (2017).
• Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 states that "personal information" does not refer to the information seeker but rather to a third party. As a result, "unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy" is specified in the Section.
• Section 11 of the RTI Act of 2005 outlines the procedure for disclosing third-party information. If an applicant requests information that relates to or was furnished by a third party and that third party has considered that information as secret, the PIO will assess whether or not the information should be disclosed.
• The CIC contended that the learned judge had erred while passing the challenged order as the fact that the respondent organization falls under the scope of Section 24 of the RTI Act was overlooked. However, the Superintendent contended that since the CIC did not provide the required information to her, she could not enforce fundamental and legal rights for promotion. The respondent further claimed that the Appellant failed to provide the respondent with the required information despite an order being passed by Central Administrative Tribunal.
• After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Court held that the Appellant being an intelligence and security organization is undoubtedly exempted from the ambit of the RTI Act. However, when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation, the Appellant has no other choice but to comply. The Court believed that the term 'human rights' cannot be given a narrow meaning and that the employees' expectation of promotion was legitimate. Thus, the employees of an intelligence or security organization cannot be deprived of their fundamental and legal rights, as depriving them of these rights would imply the absence of human rights in these organizations.
• Therefore, the learned Court held that even though the Appellant is exempted from providing information regarding proposals for the promotion of third parties as it comes under Section 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, the copies of all the seniority list in respect of LDCs for the period of 1991 till date as well as copies of the proposal for promotion of respondent (LDC) placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copy of the promotion/rejection order issued on the recommendations of DPC from time to time were to be supplied to the respondent by the Appellant.

Accused Trilochan Singh Acquitted; Incompetency Of Prosecution In Proving Their Claim: Delhi Court

• With regard to the Satyam-Liberty Cinema Blast Case (2005), which involved two blasts at two different Cinema Houses in Delhi, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmender Rana, cleared Trilochan Singh of all charges under Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Atrocities Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The reasoning behind this judgment was that the Hon'ble Court was dissatisfied with the prosecution's attempt to prove Trilochan Singh was a member of Babbar Khalsa International (a banned terrorist organization led by Paramjeet Singh Bheora and Jagtar Singh Hawara). The Court further observed that just because the co-accused persons were convicted, that is not a reason enough to sentence Singh for the same.
• In this case, following the bombings in Paharganj, Sarojini Nagar, and Govind Puri, the international mobile numbers discovered through the investigation of Jagtar Singh Hawara's (prime accused of bomb blasts) phone were found to belong to Cheema/Jeeta and H. S. Gill, the absconders in the assassination of Punjab's former Chief Minister, Beant Singh. Two of those numbers also belonged to Gurpreet Singh and Paramjeet Singh Bheora, who were also said to be involved in the assassination of Beant Singh and had fled from Burail Jail with one Jagtar Singh. Simultaneously, it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that the monitoring of the phone number used in Nabha Jail disclosed that it was utilized by suspects Daya Singh Lahoria and Baljeet Singh to contact Cheema in the US in coded and protected languages. Sukhvinder Singh also used the same number to run a narcotics and weaponry network via foreign connections.
• Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, as observed in State vs. Umar Khalid (2020), penalizes anyone who advocates or strives to commit a terrorist act, advises, directs, or knowingly facilitates a terrorist act, or does any act preliminary to the commission of a terrorist act.
• Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Atrocities Act penalizes anybody who is a member of a terrorist group or organization. The National Investigation Agency vs. Areeb Ejaz (2021) demonstrated this statute's application.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act penalizes anyone involved in illegal guns and ammunition trafficking for at least ten years.
• The prosecution's evidence alleged that Baljeet Singh recruited and trained Jaswant, Surender Singh, Bikkar Singh, and Trilochan Singh, and they were plotting terrorist attacks. On being arrested by Special Cell in 2007, Baljeet Singh revealed that he was an active member of BKI, was involved in anti-national actions, and was in charge of four handguns and some ammo for Baba Pyara Singh Panigarola’s assassination. He further confessed that he gave accused Kulwinderjeet Singh three handguns and some ammo and Trilochan Singh one pistol and ammunition, obtained through the Daya Singh Lahoria and Sukhvinder Singh networks. Preceding which, accused Daya Singh Lahoria, Sukhvinder Singh, Baljeet Singh, and Trilochan Singh were charged under Sections 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
• The prosecution had alleged that accused Trilochan Singh was part of a bigger plot to rekindle militancy in Punjab, and to achieve this goal, he planned and was engaged in preparatory activities to assassinate Baba Pyara Singh Paniharewala. It was further contended that direct evidence in a conspiracy prosecution was rarely available due to the nature of the crime. Therefore, the accused's crime was based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Hon'ble Court observed that the intercepted conversation was insufficient to prove the guilt of accused Trilochan Singh because the allegation of interpreted code language could only be taken into consideration if it was absolutely unambiguous and supported by concrete evidence, rather than simply based on any enthusiastic police officer misinterpreting plain and simple words out of suspicion. The Court further observed that the allegation that Singh had gathered weapons and ammunition to assassinate Baba Pyara Singh Paniharewala was based on mere speculation and lacked a solid rationale supported by reliable evidence.
• It was also contended by the Hon'ble Court that the accused could not be held guilty under section 18 of UAPA merely because the co-conspirators have been convicted.
• Therefore, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the prosecution's attempt to demonstrate that Trilochan Singh had participated in a terrorist plot due to the prosecution's incompetency to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt by failing to provide adequate evidence.