CAA pleas: SC says no stay without hearing Centre, gives govt 4 weeks to respond

CAA pleas: SC says no stay without hearing Centre, gives govt 4 weeks to respond

Making clear it will not stay the Citizenship (Amendment) Act without hearing the Centre, the Supreme Court on Wednesday gave the government four weeks to respond to petitions challenging the CAA and said a five-judge Constitution bench will hear the matter.

Hearing a batch of 143 petitions, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde issued notice to the Centre and restrained all high courts from hearing pleas on the CAA till it decides on the pleas.

The bench, also comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, said it will hear the petitions pertaining to Assam and Tripura separately as the problem with the CAA in these two states is different from rest of the country.

“The matter is uppermost in everybody’s mind. We will form a five-judge bench and then list the case,” the court said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for some petitioners, said the issue be referred to a Constitution bench and the NPR exercise be postponed by a couple of months. He also urged the bench to put on hold the operationalisation of the CAA.

The bench said, “Even we think that the matter should be heard by a Constitution bench.”

Asserting that it will not grant any stay on the CAA without hearing the Centre on the matter, it said, “Will pass order on granting any interim relief to petitioner opposing CAA after four weeks.”

The court also made it clear it will not pass any ex-parte order without hearing the Centre on staying the operation of the CAA and exercise of the National Population Register (NPR).

It said the earlier cut off date for citizenship in Assam was March 24, 1971 and noted that it has been extended till December 31, 2014 under the CAA.

The petitions concerning Tripura and Assam as well as the matters related to Uttar Pradesh, which is going ahead with the implementation of CAA without framing any rules, can be dealt with separately, the bench said.

The bench said it will decide in-chamber the modalities of hearing the batch of petitions on the CAA and may fix them for day-to-day hearing after four weeks.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the bench the government has been given copies of around 60 pleas out of the 143 petitions. He said it wanted time to respond to all the pleas.

The CAA seeks to grant citizenship to migrants belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on December 12, turning it into an Act.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA. Among those who have filed pleas are the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi.

The IUML said in its plea that the CAA violates the fundamental Right to Equality and intends to grant citizenship to a section of illegal immigrants by making an exclusion on the basis of religion.

The petition had alleged that the government’s CAA was against the basic structure of the Constitution and intended to explicitly discriminate against Muslims as the Act extended benefits only to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians.

The plea filed by Ramesh said the Act is a “brazen attack” on core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution and treats “equals as unequal”.

The other petitioners include the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the All Assam Students Union (AASU), the Peace Party, the CPI, NGOs Rihai Manch and Citizens Against Hate, advocate M L Sharma, and law students.

Assets case: HC refuses relief to Karti, wife

Assets case: HC refuses relief to Karti, wife

The Madras High Court on Monday refused immediate relief to Karti Chidambaram and his wife Srinidi against prosecution proceedings for the alleged non-disclosure of Rs 6.38 crore.They had filed a plea in the High Court seeking stalling of the proceedings in a special court constituted to hear cases related to MPs and MLAs. The special court is scheduled to take up the case with regard to the non-disclosure of assets on Tuesday.The counsels for Karti Chidambaram, an MP and the son of former Union minister P Chidambaram, on Monday morning brought the matter to the notice of Chief Justice AP Sahi, who directed the plea to be heard by Justice M Sundar.

Later, Justice M Sundar said some clarifications were required pertaining to the case and ordered that it be listed as per procedures through the regular list.

With no interim injunction granted in the case by the Madras High Court, the special court is expected to hear the case on Tuesday.

Centre agrees in SC to revisit its 2017 proposal of taking over Unitech management


Centre agrees in SC to revisit its 2017 proposal of taking over Unitech management
A major development, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that it is agreeable to revisit its 2017 proposal to take over the management control of embattled realty firm Unitech Ltd and complete its stalled projects to bring relief to around 12,000 hassled home buyers.
The Centre, in its six-page note submitted to a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, said it is prepared to revisit its proposal of December 2017, to remove the existing management of Unitech Ltd and appoint ten nominee directors of the government.

The Centre, however, said it would not infuse any funds for completion of pending projects of the company. It said the court, while ensuring a period of calm should direct a moratorium for 12 months.

For the proposed board, the government also suggested the name of retired Haryana cadre IAS officer Yudvir Singh Malik, as chairman and managing director of the board and names of members including A K Mittal, ex-CMD of National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC), Renu Sud Karnad, Chairman of HDFC Credila Finance Service Pvt Ltd, Jitu Virwani, CMD of Embassy Group, Niranjan Hiranandani , MD of Mumbai-based Hiranandani Group.

It said the court may appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court for supervising the resolution framework finalised by the proposed board of directors.

“That this court may allow the proposed board of directors to appoint key managerial persons, professionals (legal, insolvency, financial advisors, real estate professionals, etc) for assisting the government appointed board and payment of requisite professional fees including the legal fees, thereof from the company accounts,” the Centre’s note said.

It also sought directions to the promoters, the present management of the company, forensic auditors, asset reconstruction companies, banks and financial institutions and state governments to extend cooperation to the proposed board of directors.

“That this court may issue directions to restrain the promoters from alienating, mortgaging, creating charge or lien or interest in the movable and immovable properties owned by them,” the government said, adding, services of the committee headed by Justice S N Dhingra, appointed to sell the company’s assets, be put on rest.

The government also sought immunity for the proposed directors in respect of the numerous litigations pending across the country, involving the company, management and its promoters.

It also sought permission for the proposed board of directors to raise funds due from the home buyers, sell the unsold inventory, monetising the unencumbered assets for completion of the stalled projects.

“That this court recognizes and directs that without any prejudice to any order, the government has the right to refer the company to liquidation or Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), like resolution outside the framework of IBC, in case the assigned takeover is not viable in the absence of requisite resources, the government said.

On December 18, last year, the top court had asked the Centre if it was agreeable to revisit its 2017 proposal as there is urgent need for the projects of Unitech Ltd. to be taken up by a specialised agency, so as to ensure completion in a time bound schedule in the interest of the home buyers.

The top court had said, “Since the Union of India withdrew the application which it had submitted before the NCLT only for the reason that this Court was seized of the present proceedings, we are of the view that the Union of India should revisit the original proposal in the interests of home buyers and consider appointing independent Directors for the takeover of the management of Unitech Limited”.

It had said that these deliberations may be conducted at the highest level and Attorney General K K Venugopal should apprise the court by January 15, about the modalities which have been worked out.

In 2017, the Centre had moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking suspension of the current directors and an order of restraint on the alienation of assets by Unitech Ltd.

The NCLT in its order December 8, 2017, issued interim directions for suspension of directors of Unitech Ltd and restrained them from alienating, mortgaging, creating charge or lien or interest in the properties owned by them personally or that of the company till the conclusion of investigation.

However, the top court on December 13, 2017, stayed the NCLT’s December 8, 2017 order and later the Centre agreed to withdraw its application from the tribunal.

In 2018, the apex court had directed a forensic audit of Unitech Ltd and its sister concerns and subsidiaries by Samir Paranjpe, Partner, Forensic and Investigation Services in M/s Grant Thornton India.

The forensic auditors have also submitted their report which said that Unitech Ltd received around Rs 14,270 crores from 29,800 home buyers mostly between 2006-2014 and around Rs 1,805 crores from six financial institutions for the construction of 74 projects.

The audit revealed that around Rs 5,063 crore of home buyers money and around Rs 763 crores of fund received from financial institutions were not utilized by the company and high value investments were made off-shore tax-haven countries between 2007-2010.

The top court ordered investigation into the omission and commission of promoters of Unitech Ltd under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Unitech promoters Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay Chandra are currently lodged in Tihar jail for allegedly siphoning off homebuyers’ money.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started