New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday responded firmly to a challenge to its authority – stressing that compliance with its orders is “not a matter of choice” – and expunged critical remarks made by a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court last month regarding a land dispute case.

The judge had reacted sharply to a May 3 order staying certain contempt proceedings.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud called the criticism “unnecessary” and said it lowered the dignity of both courts. “A party may be dissatisfied with a decision… but judges can never express dissatisfaction over the order passed by a higher constitutional forum,” the Chief Justice declared.

A five-judge bench of the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy was responding suo moto to the judge’s comment, and called it a “matter of grave concern”. The bench also warned the judge – Justice Rajbir Sehrawat – who made the remark, saying it expected restraint while commenting on orders passed by the Supreme Court.

“Justice Sehrawat made observations in regard to the Supreme Court of India, which are a matter of grave concern… judicial discipline in the context of the hierarchical nature of the system is intended to preserve the dignity of all institutions, whether a district or a High Court, or the Supreme Court.”

“The observations made… were unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. Gratuitous observations in regard to previous orders passed by Supreme Court are absolutely unwarranted.”

The Supreme Court underlined that compliance with its orders is not “a matter of choice but a matter of constitutional obligation”. “Parties may be aggrieved by an order… but judges are never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum,” the Chief Justice-led bench.

The top court, however, declined to initiate contempt proceedings of its own against the judge, particularly since a Division Bench had acted first and stayed Justice Sehrawat’s order.

The court did, though, express hope that judges of other courts would learn from this episode and be cautious while commenting on orders passed by the country’s foremost legal forum.

The matter broke after a video of the judge making his observations went viral. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested the video “makes (for) a case of aggravated contempt” against the judge.

Chandigarh:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that granting protection to married people who want to be in live-in relationships with their partners would amount to encouraging “wrongdoers” and promoting the practice of bigamy.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil also observed that such couples, who run away from their parental homes, not only bring a bad name to their families but also violate the right of their parents to live with dignity and honour.

The court order came following several petitions, including one filed by a 40-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man, demanding protection due to a “threat” from their families.

Both of them are living together despite the fact that the man is married and both of them have children.

The woman has taken divorce from her husband.

The court said it is of the view that the petitioners were fully aware that they were married earlier and that they could not have entered into a live-in relationship.

“Further, the petitioner no. 2 (the man) has not taken divorce from his earlier wife. All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage,” the court observed.

If the court holds that the relationship between the petitioners is in the nature of a marriage, it will be injustice to the wife and children of the man, it said.

The court said marriage is entering into a relationship that has public significance as well.

“The institutions of marriage and family are important social institutions that provide for the security and bear an important role in the rearing of children. The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born out of the wedlock,” it observed.

“Under Article 21 of the Constitution, each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, therefore by allowing such type of petitions, we are encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere, promoting the practice of bigamy, which is otherwise an offence under section 494, IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity.

“The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners, by running away from their parental homes, are not only bringing a bad name to the families but also violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour,” the court said.

The court further said, “Merely because two persons are living together for a few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon a bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in a live-in-relationship, and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship.” “In our diverse country, marriage as a social tie is … essential in Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community,” it added.

India is a country with a diverse set of principles, traditions, rituals and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources, the judge observed.

“Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning.”

“However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, live-in relationships,” the court said.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chandigarh:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today ordered the Haryana government to remove within a week barricades set up at the Shambhu border near Ambala.

The Haryana government had set up barricades at the Ambala-New Delhi national highway in February when the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non Political) and Kisan Mazdoor Morcha had announced to move towards Delhi in support of various demands, including a legal guarantee to MSP for crops.

The directions came on a petition filed against the sealing of border between Punjab and Haryana.

Speaking to reporters here, Haryana Additional Advocate General Deepak Sabharwal said the court has directed the Haryana government to remove barricading within seven days.

The court also said if any law and order situation arises, then it can take preventive action as per law.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chandigarh:

The Punjab and Haryana High Friday held as unconstitutional the socioeconomic criteria prescribed by the Haryana government to grant additional marks to certain classes of candidates in state government jobs, said a counsel of one of the petitioners.

“The socioeconomic criteria has been held as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 15, 16. This was pronounced in the court today by a division bench,” said Sarthak Gupta, the counsel for one of the petitioners.

The practice of giving extra marks or bonus marks has been declared as unconstitutional, Gupta said.

The court order came on a bunch of petitions which had challenged the socioeconomic criteria. Petitions have been allowed in which this criteria had been challenged, he said.

He said a detailed order in the matter was yet to be released.

He said the lead petitioner in the matter was Arpit Gahlawat while some more had filed petitions later.

“There is a Haryana government policy for government recruitments for Group ‘C’, ‘D’ category jobs, under which they used to give some extra marks, weightage, that has been set aside.

“In some recruitments, it was five marks weightage, in some it was 20. That policy has been declared unconstitutional,” he said.

The Haryana government had introduced the socioeconomic criteria a few years back, aiming to provide additional marks to certain classes of candidates including those who don’t have any family member in government job, are state-domiciled and their family income does not exceed Rs 1.80 lakh per annum.

According to one of the petitioners, the said socioeconomic criteria is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.

This is for the reasons, inter alia, that grant of additional marks to a certain class excluding the others is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16, the petitioner submitted.

The grant of additional marks to a certain class is in derogation of the settled law that for appointing persons to posts in public services through direct recruitment the criterion has to be pure merit, the petitioner had contended.

The criteria further discriminates on the basis of domicile and descent which are prohibited markers under Article 162 of Constitution, the petitioner had submitted.

There is no rationale for the grant of such additional marks to a certain class when reservations for the EWS as well as the socially backward classes such as Scheduled Castes SC and Backward Classes BC are already provided for, he had contended.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Chandigarh:

The Punjab government on Thursday told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that it is withdrawing its notification dissolving all gram panchayats in the state.

The court was hearing a petition by Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Gurjeet Singh Talwandi, who had challenged the state government’s August 10 notification.

Punjab Advocate General (AG) Vinod Ghai submitted before Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and justice Arun Palli that the notification will be withdrawn within two days.

However, the elections would be held according to schedule, said Vikas Mohan Gupta, additional advocate general, Punjab.

The Punjab government, through its August 10 notification, had dissolved all gram panchayats, panchayat samitis and zila parishads. According to the notification, the elections of the members of panchayat samitis and zila parishads were to be held by November 25 and those of gram panchayats by December 31.

Talwandi’s counsel Baltej Singh Sidhu told reporters that the AG submitted before the high court that the state government is withdrawing the notification dissolving the gram panchayats.

There are 13,241 gram panchayats, 152 block samitis and 22 zila parishads in Punjab.

The term of gram panchayats started from the date of their first meeting on January 10, 2019, and they were dissolved on August 10, within six months before the expiry of their term.

The state government had submitted that it had the constitutional duty and power to hold the elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions under Section 209 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

It had said that an election to constitute a panchayat was to be held before the expiry of its duration or before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution.

It had also submitted that the August 10 notification was in accordance with constitutional provisions.

Sidhu said that the petitioner had submitted that according to Article 243-E of the Constitution, the tenure of a gram panchayat is of five years.

The tenure of these gram panchayats would end in January next year, he said.

He said that under section 29-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the state government does not have the right to dissolve all gram panchayats. Sidhu termed the state government’s move as arbitrary and illegal. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)