Amaresh

Nothing wrong if a professional’s knowledge is tested: SC

“There is nothing wrong if knowledge of a professional is tested”, the Supreme Court observed on Friday when three Chattisgarh-based doctors came to it saying they are being forced to undertake the test to continue practising as ultrasonologists.

Observing that the test of professional skill was not wrong and would ultimately benefit patients, the top court said however that the senior MBBS doctors, who have been performing ultrasonography for 15 years or more, can be allowed to practice if they do not wish to take up the test now prescribed by the authorities.

“Even lawyers are asked to take examination to practice law. We see no wrong if the knowledge of professional is tested,” said the bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde.

“But, we can protect those who have been practising as ultrasonologist for a period of 15 years or more,” said the bench, which also comprised Justices B R Gavai and Sury Kant.

The bench asked as to what was wrong if the patients are treated by qualified professionals and gave the example of robotic surgery and said that many old physicians were not equipped to deal with the aspect of medical science.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the doctors Anil Wasti, Manjeet Singh Chandrasen and Bhaskar Prasad, said that 2014 Rules have been made effective with retrospective effect and mandated that the practising doctors will also have to take the exam.

“Any rule cannot be made effective with retrospective effect,” he said, asked as to how doctors of 20 years of experience be asked to take up the test.

Moreover, the apex court is already examining the validity of certain provisions of the the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 and rules made under it, he said.

Rohatgi said even lawyers are supposed to take up the All India Bar Examination to practice law, but it cannot be made effective with retrospective effect and senior lawyers like him cannot be made to take up the test.

The court agreed with the submission and said that his clients can keep practising as ultrasonologists even if they do not take up tests.

Earlier, the top court had issued notice on various pleas including the one flied by the Centre challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court removing the mandatory six-month training earlier required to perform ultrasonography.

The Centre had said that there was a need to revisit the issue in the wake of the Delhi High Court verdict.

Besides the Centre, Indian Radiological and Imaging Association, the association of radiologists in the country, had moved the apex court challenging the High Courts decision on the issue.

The high court had declared the Rule 3(3)(1)(b) framed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 as ultra vires.

It had done away with the mandatory six months training which was earlier required to be able to perform an ultrasound under the ambit of the law.

Not discussing issue of women’s entry into Sabarimala temple: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday resumed its exercise of framing questions relating to discrimination against women in various religions and made clear that it was not discussing the issue of entry of women of all age groups into Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde has been hearing several senior lawyers on the issue of framing of larger legal questions to be deliberated upon by it relating to discrimination against women in various religions.

“The Sabarimala review case is not before us. We are not deciding Sabarimala. We are deciding the larger questions,” the bench said when senior advocates F S Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan and Rakesh Dwivedi opposed the hearing on the so-called larger issue relating to discrimination against women in various religions.

A five-judge constitution bench, by a majority of 3:2 on November 14 last year, had referred to a larger bench the issue of discrimination against women in religions such as denial of entry of Muslim women into mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community and denial of right to Parsi women who have married outside their religion.

At the outset, Nariman said the question whether women of all age groups can be allowed entry into the Sabarimala temple has been already decided by the Supreme Court in 2018 and the subsequent review has also been dealt with and hence, this cannot be adjudicated afresh.

The bench, which also comprises justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, said that it will also consider the objection of Nariman as one of the issues.

Nariman said the apex court cannot club other issues with Sabarimala and it cannot frame questions in a review and bring in new issues.

“Scope of review is very restricted. This will set a new precedent. How can you think about other issues in a review?” he said.

To this, the CJI said, “No. We will not be deciding these issues. We will only interpret articles involved in these cases.”

Another senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the All India Muslim Personal Board, said that though Muslim women are allowed entry into the mosque, the issue of essential religious practice is broad enough to be decided by this court.

The Article 25 and 26 (fundamental rights to religion) of the Constitution are part of the fundamental rights which are enforceable against state action, he said.

“A lot of petitions have been filed saying Nikah Halala is bad. Somebody is saying polygamy is bad. How the bench will decide the issue,” Sibal said.

To this, the bench said, “That is why we have set up a nine-judge bench. That is why we are hearing you.”

The bench said it was only going to decide the interpretation of those articles which have been invoked in Sabarimala.

During the hearing, which is still continuing, Sibal asked, “How do you interpret Article 21 (right to life or personal liberty), 17 (abolition of untouchability) and 14 (equality before law)? Any statement that you make will impact everyone across the country. It will impact the caste system. How do you decide?”

He further said these are the matters which will have an impact across the country and all religious denominations.

The apex court on January 13 has asked four senior lawyers to convene a meeting to decide on the issues to be deliberated by it in the matter.

While referring the matter to a larger bench, a five-judge bench on November 14 last year said the debate on the constitutional validity of religious practices such as a bar on the entry of women and girls into a place of worship was not limited to the Sabarimala case.

It had said such restrictions were there with regard to the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, from entering the holy fire place of an agiary.

It set out seven questions of law to be examined by the larger bench. They include the interplay between freedom of religion under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, need to delineate the expression “constitutional morality”, the extent to which courts can enquire into particular religious practices, meaning of sections of Hindus under Article 25 and whether “essential religious practices” of a denomination or section thereof are protected under Article 26.

While the five-judge bench unanimously agreed to refer religious issues to a larger bench, it gave a 3:2 split verdict on petitions seeking a review of the apex court’s September 2018 decision, allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala.

A majority verdict by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep the pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine pending and said restrictions on women at religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and were prevalent in other religions as well.

The minority verdict by justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting view by dismissing all the review pleas and directing compliance of its September 28, 2018 decision.

By a 4:1 majority verdict, the apex court had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Advocate Amaresh

Supreme Court of India

9953084083

Not discussing issue of women’s entry into Sabarimala temple: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday resumed its exercise of framing questions relating to discrimination against women in various religions and made clear that it was not discussing the issue of entry of women of all age groups into Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde has been hearing several senior lawyers on the issue of framing of larger legal questions to be deliberated upon by it relating to discrimination against women in various religions.

“The Sabarimala review case is not before us. We are not deciding Sabarimala. We are deciding the larger questions,” the bench said when senior advocates F S Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Shyam Divan and Rakesh Dwivedi opposed the hearing on the so-called larger issue relating to discrimination against women in various religions.

A five-judge constitution bench, by a majority of 3:2 on November 14 last year, had referred to a larger bench the issue of discrimination against women in religions such as denial of entry of Muslim women into mosques, the practice of female genital mutilation in Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community and denial of right to Parsi women who have married outside their religion.

At the outset, Nariman said the question whether women of all age groups can be allowed entry into the Sabarimala temple has been already decided by the Supreme Court in 2018 and the subsequent review has also been dealt with and hence, this cannot be adjudicated afresh.

The bench, which also comprises justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, said that it will also consider the objection of Nariman as one of the issues.

Nariman said the apex court cannot club other issues with Sabarimala and it cannot frame questions in a review and bring in new issues.

“Scope of review is very restricted. This will set a new precedent. How can you think about other issues in a review?” he said.

To this, the CJI said, “No. We will not be deciding these issues. We will only interpret articles involved in these cases.”

Another senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the All India Muslim Personal Board, said that though Muslim women are allowed entry into the mosque, the issue of essential religious practice is broad enough to be decided by this court.

The Article 25 and 26 (fundamental rights to religion) of the Constitution are part of the fundamental rights which are enforceable against state action, he said.

“A lot of petitions have been filed saying Nikah Halala is bad. Somebody is saying polygamy is bad. How the bench will decide the issue,” Sibal said.

To this, the bench said, “That is why we have set up a nine-judge bench. That is why we are hearing you.”

The bench said it was only going to decide the interpretation of those articles which have been invoked in Sabarimala.

During the hearing, which is still continuing, Sibal asked, “How do you interpret Article 21 (right to life or personal liberty), 17 (abolition of untouchability) and 14 (equality before law)? Any statement that you make will impact everyone across the country. It will impact the caste system. How do you decide?”

He further said these are the matters which will have an impact across the country and all religious denominations.

The apex court on January 13 has asked four senior lawyers to convene a meeting to decide on the issues to be deliberated by it in the matter.

While referring the matter to a larger bench, a five-judge bench on November 14 last year said the debate on the constitutional validity of religious practices such as a bar on the entry of women and girls into a place of worship was not limited to the Sabarimala case.

It had said such restrictions were there with regard to the entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, and Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, from entering the holy fire place of an agiary.

It set out seven questions of law to be examined by the larger bench. They include the interplay between freedom of religion under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, need to delineate the expression “constitutional morality”, the extent to which courts can enquire into particular religious practices, meaning of sections of Hindus under Article 25 and whether “essential religious practices” of a denomination or section thereof are protected under Article 26.

While the five-judge bench unanimously agreed to refer religious issues to a larger bench, it gave a 3:2 split verdict on petitions seeking a review of the apex court’s September 2018 decision, allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala.

A majority verdict by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep the pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine pending and said restrictions on women at religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and were prevalent in other religions as well.

The minority verdict by justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting view by dismissing all the review pleas and directing compliance of its September 28, 2018 decision.

By a 4:1 majority verdict, the apex court had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

Advocate Amaresh

Supreme Court of India

9953084083

1. SC:Police can directly arrest accused if new non bailable sections of offences added after accused is freed on bail – Cancellation of bail not needed – Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.437(5), 439(2).
2. Bail – Cancellation – Accused already bailed out in criminal case – In said case subsequently new offences, cognizable and non-bailable added – Thus it is not necessary that bail granted earlier should be cancelled for taking the accused in custody – In respect of such circumstances scope of provision u/Ss.437(5) and 439(2) Cr.P. C., explained._

_Case:_
_Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand.

_Citation:_
_2019 All SCR (Cri) 2123.

डिटेंशन सेंटर्सकी देशव्यापी चर्चा के बीच

एक जानकारी देना ठीक रहेगा। बस ऐसे ही जनरल नॉलेज के लिए है। पहलेपहल जर्मनी में यहूदियों के लिए जो कैंप बनाए गए थे उनमें गैस चेंबर जैसी कोई बात नहीं थी। नाज़ियों ने यहूदियों को नागरिक मानने से इनकार करते हुए उन्हें कैंपों में पहुंचाया था और उनसे शारीरिक श्रम कराते थे। यहूदियों और बहुत से उदारवादी जर्मनों को यही लगा कि कैंप एक विशेष जेल की तरह हैं, उससे अधिक कुछ नहीं। ये तो दुनिया को बाद में मालूम चला कि हिटलर ने यहूदियों के लिए जो बनवाया था वो कैंप नहीं बल्कि यातनागृह थे। कई तरीकों से यहूदियों को सामूहिक मौत देने का काम चोरी छिपे चलता था। नाज़ियों को हराने वाली सैन्य टुकड़ियां जब जर्मनी में घुस आईं और कैंप उनके कब्ज़े में आए तब पहली बार पता चला कि जिन्हें यहूदियों का कैंप माना गया था वो सिर्फ कैंप नहीं थे। कुछ ज़िंदा बचे रह गए यहूदियों ने अपनी कहानियां सुनाईं। तब बहुत से गैर यहूदी जर्मन भी डर के मारे कांप गए। उन्होंने हिटलर में एक लड़ाकू तो देखा था पर निर्मम जल्लाद नहीं जो औरतों-बच्चों तक को गैस चैंबर में निर्दयता से फेंक कर उन्हें राख बना देने के बारे में सोचता तक नहीं था। आगे चलकर यहूदियों की डायरियां छपीं, जर्मनी में मुकदमों की सुनवाई हुई और मीडिया ने भी अपनी रिपोर्ट्स छापी तो इन यातनागृहों की जानकारी बारीकी से दी गई।

मैंने सालों पहले कई फिल्मों के बारे में लिखा था जो इसी कालखंड पर आधारित हैं। उन्हें देखा जाना चाहिए। यातना शिविरों की कुछ झलक वहां मिलती है। यही वजह है कि पश्चिम अब तक ऐसे शिविरों से घबराता है। वहां सशंकित होकर इन्हें देखा जाता है। वो नहीं चाहते कि किसी भी बहाने से उस ज़मीन पर फिर ऐसे शिविर उग आएं। उन कुछ फिल्मों के नाम लिख रहा हूं जो देखी जानी चाहिए। कमेंटबॉक्स में आप भी नाम जोड़ सकते हैं-

*शिंडलर्स लिस्ट*,
लाइफ इज़ ब्यूटीफल,
द ब्वॉय इन द स्ट्राइप्ड पाज़ामास,
द पियानिस्ट,
द डायरी ऑफ एन फ्रेंक, हिटलर: द राईज़ ऑफ इविल (टीवी सीरीज़).

सोशल मीडिया से प्राप्त

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton