"APCR's timely intervention in Supreme Court, Uttarakhand HC averts communal crisis in Uttarkashi"
Communal Mahapanchayat called off, law and order restored
(Press Release) New Delhi, June 15, 2023 - Association for the Protection of Civil Rights expressed profound concern over the escalating communal tensions in Uttarakhand's Uttarkashi district. In light of recent events, we submitted a representation letter to urge the state government to ensure the maintenance of law and order across all parts of the state and take necessary measures to prevent any loss of life or damage to property.
In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by APCR on 14.6.23, the Honourable Uttarakhand High Court presided over by Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Rakesh Thapliyal, has made a major decision. The PIL requested assistance to halt a "mahapanchayat" to be held in Purola by Hindutva organizations and urged for the filing of First Information Reports (FIRs) against those who threatened Muslims to vacate their properties and leave the concerned area. The court has given notice to the respondents while reiterating the state's fundamental duty to carry out its duty to uphold peace and order. Attorney General of Uttarakhand SN Babulkar informed the bench during the hearing that the "mahapanchayat" had been cancelled as a result of the state's intervention, somewhat defusing the situation.
However, the court directed all concerned parties, including our organization and others, to refrain from engaging in social media debates, as it may further exacerbate the situation. The court emphasized the need for calm and restraint, urging against the spread of allegations and counter-allegations on social media platforms and in television debates.
The counsel appearing for APCR Advocate Shahrukh Alam, Talha A Rehaman, Archit Krishna and Priya Vats draws attention to a letter allegedly sent on June 5, 2023, on the letterhead of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to the District Magistrate of New Tehri District, threatening to block the highway on June 20 unless Muslims living in specific areas of the state vacate their homes.
Further, the counsel also brought attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court order regarding hate speech and sought directions for the registration of FIRs against individuals responsible for incendiary social media posts and a threatening letter issued by certain organizations. The court declined to issue such directions but emphasized the state's duty to maintain law and order and protect the lives and property of all individuals in the state.
We express deep concern that no action has been taken over the course of ten days, with no comprehensive FIR registered against the signatories of the letter. Such inaction undermines the specific order of the Supreme Court, as well as various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The content of the letter incites acts against national integrity and causes disharmony, falling within the purview of UAPA and relevant provisions of the IPC.
Nadeem Khan, National Secretary of APCR, stated, "The cancellation of the 'mahapanchayat' is a positive step, but we must not overlook the ground reality of fear and polarization. It is crucial for the state government to ensure the safety of Muslim traders and to allow them to reopen their shops in Purola town."
"APCR remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting civil rights and promoting a society free from discrimination and communal tensions," Khan emphasized.
While we acknowledge that the 'mahapanchayat' has been called off, we urge the state government to ensure the safety of Muslim traders and allow them to reopen their shops in Purola town. It is vital to address the ground reality of fear and polarization that hampers the normal functioning of businesses and threatens the livelihoods of innocent individuals.
We hope that the authorities will take prompt action to investigate incidents of hate speeches and violence, register comprehensive FIRs, and bring the perpetrators of hate crimes to justice, thereby upholding the principles of justice, equality, and communal harmony.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
