Supreme Court
India's top court asks Nupur Sharma to apologise for Prophet remarks
India's highest judiciary on Friday asked former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma to "apologise to the whole country" for her remarks on the Prophet Muhammad.
"It is shameful. She (Sharma) should apologise to the whole country," Justice Surya Kant of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court said, while hearing her plea seeking a transfer of all FIRs filed against her across the country to Delhi.
Read:India’s ‘prophetic' trouble getting bigger
"This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country," Justice Kant said. "She thinks she has back up of power and can make any statement without respect to the law of the land."
Soon after the Supreme Court's remarks on Sharma, India's main opposition Congress party's leader Rahul Gandhi blamed the BJP-led federal government for fanning anti-Muslim sentiments across the country.
In fact, Sharma's remarks sparked massive protests by Muslims across the country last month and also triggered a diplomatic row between India and many Muslim-majority countries -- the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Kuwait and Qatar to name a few.
Read: India's BJP sacks two spokespersons over comments on Prophet
Last month only, the BJP sacked Sharma and another spokesperson -- Delhi media cell head, Naveen Kumar Jindal -- from their respective posts, saying the ruling party “respects all religions”.
“The BJP does not promote such persons or philosophy… it (the BJP) strongly denounces the insult of any religious personalities of any religion,” the party had said in a statement.
12 SC judges contract Covid-19
Twelve judges of the Appellate Division and the High Court have been infected with Covid-19.
Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique said when court proceedings started on Monday morning.
Trial proceedings in many important benches have been suspended due to surge of Covid cases, said the Chief Justice. “If one of a double bench gets infected, the trial of that bench remains suspended.”
Read: Bangladesh gets another 4 mn doses of COVID-19 vaccine from US
“In this case, if you do not cooperate, then it becomes difficult for us. Otherwise, we will have to reintroduce virtual judicial proceedings,” he added.
Amid a steady rise in Covid infections, Bangladesh reported two more Covid-linked deaths with 1,680 new infections in 24 hours till Sunday morning.
The new figures took the country’s total death toll to 29,140 while caseload to 19,65,173, according to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS).
Read: Health Minister concerned over uptick in Covid, urges return to protocols
The daily-case positivity rate jumped to 15.66 per cent from Saturday’s 15.07 per cent as 10,778 samples were tested during the period, said the DGHS.
The mortality rate remained unchanged at 1.48 per cent. The recovery rate declined to 97.02 per cent from Saturday’s 97.10 per cent as 169 patients recovered during this period.
Rajshahi double murder: SC acquits two death-row convicts, commutes sentence of another
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday acquitted two death-row convicts and commuted the sentence of another in a case for killing a woman and her daughter in 2008.
A three-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Justice Hasan Foez Siddique passed the order and asked the authorities concerned to free the convicts from the condemn cell as soon as possible.
Those acquitted are Ismail Hossain Babu and Sonadi.
The SC also commuted the death sentence of Tariqul Islam to life imprisonment in the case.
Read:SC suspends bail order by HC to Regent’s Shahed in arms case
Advocate Helal Uddin Molla stood for the petitioner while deputy attorney general Bashir Ahmed represented the state.
Miliara Khatun and her daughter Parveen of Godagari upazila in Rajshahi district were killed on October 10, 2006.
In 2008, a court in Rajshahi sentenced Ismail, Sonadi and Tariqul to death in the double murder case.
Later, the convicts filed separate appeal petitions before the High Court.
In 2014, the High Court upheld the death sentence of the convicts.
Haji Salim's bail application rejected
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Monday rejected the bail petition of Awami League lawmaker Haji Salim in a graft case.
Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division Justice M Enayetur Rahim refused to pass an order and fixed August 1 for hearing the petition in the full-bench of the Appellate division.
Advocate Syed Ahmed Raza stood for Salim.
On May 24, Salim moved the Supreme Court, seeking quashing of his 10-year prison sentence handed down by a lower court in the graft case.
Haji Salim's counsel Syed Ahmed Raza, submitted the plea to the Appellate Division of the apex court.
A bail petition was also submitted in the same case filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), he said.
On May 22, Salim was sent to jail in this case by a Dhaka court following his surrender.
After spending a night in jail, he was admitted to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) on the following day.
Also Read: Haji Selim returns home obeying law: Home Minister
Haji Salim, who was sentenced to 10 years in jail in the graft case, went to Bangkok for treatment on May 2 and returned home on May 5, sparking a huge controversy.
On February 10, the full text of the High Court’s order was published upholding his 10-year imprisonment.
The HC had earlier asked him to surrender before the trial court within 30 days of getting the order and also directed the trial court to cancel the bail order of the MP and issue an arrest warrant against him "if he does not surrender within the given time".
ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam said, “After this order, Haji Salim has lost the eligibility to remain an MP according to the Article 66 (2) of the Constitution.”
On March 9 last year, the HC bench of justices Md Moinul Islam Chowdhury and AKM Zahirul Huq upheld the lower court order sentencing him to 10 years in jail after hearing a petition by the ACC.
At the same time, the Dhaka-7 MP was acquitted of a three-year jail term in the same case filed by the ACC for concealing wealth information.
The High Court also reduced the fine imposed on Salim by half to Tk 10 lakh. He will have to spend one more year in jail if he fails to pay the fine.
In 2007, the ACC filed the case against Salim. On April 27, 2008, a Dhaka court jailed him for 13 years and fined Tk 20 lakh.
Salim moved the High Court against the order. In 2011, the court overturned his sentence but the ACC later appealed against the lower court order.
Later, the Appellate Division had asked the High Court to re-hear the petition.
Irregularities of Salim resurfaced after his son Irfan Salim was arrested for assaulting a Navy official in 2020.
SC rejects Japanese woman’s plea to go abroad with her kids
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Japanese woman's plea to go abroad with her two children.
A six-member full bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, also dismissed a contempt plea of the Japanese woman, Nakano Erico, to haul her estranged husband, Bangladesh-born US citizen Imran Sharif.
Besides, the court also refused to entertain Imran's contempt plea against Erico for "disobeying an earlier court order".
Also read: 2 kids to stay with Japanese mother until deposal of case at family court
On May 17, Erico’s counsel Sishir Monir appealed to the Appellate Division seeking permission for his client to travel abroad with her two children.
Erico has spent many days in Bangladesh with her two daughters and wants to go abroad for a vacation that can be to Japan, according to the plea.
At the same time, Erico asked the court to press contempt of court charges against Imran for not following the Supreme Court's order on meeting their two children.
Later, Imran also filed a contempt of court plea against Erico alleging disobedience of the High Court order to allow him to meet their two children.
On February 13, the Appellate Division ordered disposal of the case within three months over the custody of the two children of Imran and Erico at a family court.
During this period, the court made it clear that the two daughters will stay with their Japanese mother in Bangladesh. And Imran can meet them but can’t leave the country.
As per the order of the Appellate Division, the two children have been in the custody of their mother since December 12 last year. However, their father can visit them every day at a convenient time between 9am and 9pm.
On November 21 last year, the HC bench of justices M Enayetur Rahim and Md Mostafizur Rahman ruled that the Japan-born daughters of Imran and Erico will stay with their father.
However, the mother can exclusively meet the daughters, aged 11 and 10, three times a year for 10 days at a time and Imran, the father, will have to bear her travel and accommodation expenses, the court had said.
Also read:2 kids to stay with Japanese mother till Feb 6: SC
On December 5, Erico filed a petition with the Appellate Division challenging the High Court's order.
After 12 years of marriage, on January 18 last year, Erico, a physician, appealed for divorce from engineer Imran over marital dispute.
On January 28, 2021, she also filed a case with a Tokyo family court for the custody of their three children.
But on February 21, Imran returned to Bangladesh with their two girls from Japan. After that a Japanese court passed an order giving the children under their mother’s custody.
On August 19, Erico filed a writ petition in the High Court here seeking custody of the two girls.
Writ petition seeks directions to set up RTI desk in SC
A writ petition was filed with the High Court seeking its directions to open an information cell in the Supreme Court under the Right to Information Act.
The petition was filed by Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir on Thursday.
The petition may be presented for hearing in a bench of Justice Mojibur Rahman Mia and Justice Khizir Hayat next week.
The Registrar General of the Supreme Court, the Registrar of the Appellate Division and the Registrar of the High Court were made respondents in the writ.
According to the Information Act of 2009, there is a provision to install information cells and appoint officers in all government and autonomous organizations including constitutional institutions.
Also read: James, Miles withdraw cases against Banglalink
Though the Supreme Court is a constitutional body there is no specific information desk or officer, said the petition.
As a result, information seekers are being deprived of their right due to the lack of data cells.
Earlier, the petitioner appealed to the registrar seeking information regarding death sentence. About six months later, no information was provided. He later issued a legal notice to the Registrar General to implement the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
Also read: Expelled JL leader Samrat sent to jail in graft case
Advocates worry other rights at risk if court overturns Roe
Little doubt remains about what the Supreme Court plans to do with Roe v. Wade. But uncertainty abounds about ripple effects as the court nears a final opinion expected to overturn the landmark 1973 case that created a nationwide right to abortion.
A leaked first draft of the majority opinion in the case, authenticated Tuesday by the Supreme Court, suggests that a majority of justices are poised to toss out Roe. The draft’s provocative rhetoric also is generating concern that LGTBQ advances and other matters based on the right to privacy could be vulnerable in a newly hostile political environment.
“This is about a lot more than abortion,” President Joe Biden warned Wednesday, saying the court’s draft opinion could jeopardize same-sex marriage, access to contraception and LGBTQ rights.
“What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in recent American history,” Biden said.
Court opinions can change in ways big and small throughout the drafting process. So while the eventual ruling in the abortion case appears all but assured, the written rationale — and its implications — may still be a hotly debated subject inside the court’s private chambers.
The draft’s potentially sweeping impact could be tempered by the other justices, or it could emerge largely unchanged — with what advocates and Biden say could bring even more severe consequences.
The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, argues that unenumerated constitutional rights — those not explicitly mentioned in the document — must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” And it says abortion doesn’t meet that standard.
Biden and others are sounding alarms that the same logic could be used to toss out other protections.
The president said he believed the conservative justices on today’s court would, like failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987, disagree with the court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which said that a right to privacy exists that bars states from interfering in married couples’ right to buy and use contraceptives.
Cases like Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage, are based at least in part on that same right to privacy.
Alito, in the draft opinion, explicitly states that the court is only targeting the right to abortion, not those other matters.
“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the draft states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
Also read: Report: Supreme Court draft suggests Roe could be overturned
Obergefell is different from Roe in that hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples have relied on it to wed and created legal bonds, like shared property, inheritance rights and “settled expectations about the future,” said Teresa Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law and director of its Prolife Center.
Courts are usually loath to undo that kind of precedent. It stands in contrast to abortion, which is usually “a response to unplanned circumstances,” Collett said.
Obergefell, moreover, relies on the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause as well as the right to privacy.
The current Supreme Court abortion case specifically concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks — before the “viability” standard set in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which itself moved beyond Roe’s initial trimester framework for regulating abortion.
At arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions suggesting they supported overturning the right to abortion nationwide, leaving the issue up to individual states.
Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, in essence overturning the court’s ruling in Casey, while leaving in place the right to an abortion in Roe.
Until now, the court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks. The court’s three liberal justices appeared certain to be in dissent.
Still, the language and tone Alito uses overall could encourage more challenges, said Jason Pierceson, professor of political science at the University of Illinois, Springfield. “If the right to privacy is deconstructed or is hollowed out, or is minimized, then those cases in particular have less standing,” Pierceson said.
A challenge to same-sex marriage could come before the high court on religious liberty grounds, for example, such as someone arguing their religious faith prevents them from recognizing same-sex marriage. Cases along those lines have been mostly about exceptions to anti-discrimination laws so far, Pierceson said, “but one could see potentially a broadening of the argument to the fact that maybe same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional in the first place.”
LGBTQ rights have made rapid progress over the past decade, and public opinion overall has become much more supportive. But especially over the past year there has been a wave of bills in state legislatures aimed at transgender youth sports and healthcare, as well as talking about LGBTQ issues in certain classrooms. Backers of those bills generally argue they’re needed to protect kids and the rights of parents.
Against that backdrop, the draft opinion, if finalized, could “send up a flare” to conservative activists, said Sharon McGowan, legal director at Lambda Legal.
“Overturning Roe will be most dangerous because of the signal it will send lower courts to disregard all the other precedents that exist,” she said.
“It’s starting with abortion. It’s not going to end with abortion,” said Mini Timmaraju, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “So everyone needs to be very vigilant.”
Critics could also take a page from the anti-abortion playbook, which involved multiple measures over the decades that tackled the issue from different angles, imposed limits rather than sweeping prohibitions and employed unusual strategies like the civil-enforcement mechanism that’s already essentially allowed Texas to ban abortion, said Alison Gash, a professor at the University of Oregon.
“It opens the door for all sorts of stuff that I think we’re probably going to see now that we’ve got a court that seems willing to support that kind of creativity,” she said. “It’s all speculation, but it seems perfectly plausible for us to see Republican experimentation on a whole bunch of policies that could be affected by this.”
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said that “what comes through loud and clear in the draft” is that the agenda “is not just to get rid of abortion but to ban contraception, to eliminate all the important progress that we’ve made about LGBTQ rights, about the rights of trans children, and also about racial equality.”
RU prof murder: SC upholds death penalty of two
The appellate division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the High Court’s death sentence of two convicts and life imprisonment of two others in the murder case of Rajshahi University Professor S Taher Ahmed.
A bench of six justices, led by Chief justice Hasan Foez Siddique, passed the order, rejecting the appeal of the defence in this case.
The two death row convicts of the case are Dr Mia Mohammad Mohiuddin, associate professor of Rajshahi University’s geology and mining department, and Md Jahangir Alam, caretaker of Professor S. Taher’s residence.
The two lifers are Nazmul Alam and Abdus Salam, relatives of caretaker Jahangir Alam.
Attorney general AM Amin Uddin and deputy attorney general (DAG) Bishwajit Debnath represented the state, while lawyer SM Shahjahan and barrister Ehsan E Siddique appeared for the convicts.
DAG Bishwajit Debnath said, "Killing a professor just for promotion is a heinous crime and justice has been served through this order. The defence can now appeal for the review of the order and seek presidential pardon if the appeal gets rejected. The death sentence will be executed if the convicts don’t get clemency.”
Also read: SC bans easy bikes from highways to prevent accidents
Meanwhile, Professor Taher’s wife Sultana Ahmed, son Sanzid Alvi, and daughter Shegufta Tabassum Ahmed were content with the order.
“After 16 years of struggle, we got justice. Will be fully content when the same will be executed,” said Taher’s wife Sultana Ahmed.
Prof Taher’s body was recovered from a drain near his residence, two days after he went missing on February 1, 2006.
On February 3, a murder case was filed at Motihar police station in Rajshahi, following a complaint lodged by his son Sanzid.
Also read: Sagar-Runi murder: Final hearing on 10-year old HC rule on Tuesday
A Rajshahi Speedy Trial Tribunal on May 22, 2008, sentenced to death the four accused.
The tribunal also acquitted two persons, including former RU Chhatra Shibir president Mahbubul Alam Salehi.
Later on May 13, 2013, the High Court upheld the death penalty of Mohiuddin and Jahangir, but sentenced Salam and Nazmul to imprisonment until death.
After the order, the convicts moved the apex court.
Pakistan's top court to rule on PM dissolving parliament
With Pakistan in political turmoil, the country's Supreme Court is to convene Monday to hear arguments and later rule on whether Prime Minister Imran Khan and his allies had the legal right to dissolve parliament and set the stage for early elections.
The opposition is challenging the latest moves by Khan, a former cricket start turned conservative Islamist leader who came to power in 2018, as a ploy to stay on as prime minister. It has also accused him of economic mismanagement.
On Sunday, Khan’s ally and Pakistan’s deputy parliament speaker, Qasim Suri, dissolved the assembly to sidestep a no-confidence vote that Khan appeared certain to lose. The opposition claims the deputy speaker had no constitutional authority to throw out the no-confidence vote.
Read:Pakistan president dissolves Parliament at PM’s request
The developments marked the latest in an escalating dispute between Khan and the opposition, which has been backed by defectors from the prime minister's own party, Tehreek-e-Insaf or Justice Party, and a former coalition partner, the Muttahida Quami Movement, which had joined opposition ranks. The opposition claims it had the numbers to oust Khan in parliament.
The current political conundrum is in many ways unchartered territory, even for Pakistan, where successive governments have been overthrown by a powerful military and others prematurely ousted before their term ended.
The most significant decision before the Supreme Court is whether Suri, the deputy speaker, had the constitutional authority to throw out the no-confidence vote, according to constitutional lawyer Ali Zafar.
Zafar told The Associated Press that the court also has to decide whether it even has the authority to rule on this matter. Khan's party insists actions of a parliament speaker are privileged and cannot be challenged in court.
If the court rules the deputy speaker was out of line, the parliament will reconvene and hold the no-confidence vote on Khan, legal experts say. If the court upholds the latest actions, Pakistan is heading into early elections.
The opposition says it has the 172 votes in the 342-seat assembly to oust Khan. After Suri on Sunday threw out the no-confidence motion, information minister and another Khan ally, Fawad Chaudhry, accused the opposition of plotting "regime change" with the backing of the United States.
Pakistan’s powerful military — which has directly ruled the country for more than half of its 75-year history — has remained silent through much of the political infighting.
However Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa on Sunday distanced the military from allegations of a U.S.-backed conspiracy, saying Pakistan wants good relations with both China and the U.S., Pakistan's largest trading partner.
Khan, an outspoken critic of Washington’s war on terror and Pakistan’s partnership in that war, claims the U.S. wants him gone because of his foreign policy choices and for refusing to distance Pakistan from China and Russia.
Read:Pakistan's PM sidesteps challenge, seeks fresh elections
However, Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at the Wilson Center, sees the latest political wrangling as just another “part of a recurring pattern in Pakistan of governments undermining the democratic process to maintain their hold on power. ”
It underscores a deeply polarized society, Kugelman added. While Khan's supporters may think dissolving parliament was a “stroke of genius" to avoid a no confidence vote, his critics “think he has acted recklessly and essentially pulled off a legal coup, plunging the country into a constitutional crisis.”
SC to resume physical operations from Sunday
The trial proceedings of both the divisions of the Supreme Court will be conducted in physical presence maintaining health protocols from Sunday following a downtrend in Covid infections.
Mohammad Saifur Rahman, special officer of the Supreme Court, said this on Thursday.
Earlier on January 19, the Supreme Court started virtual trial proceedings as per the instruction of Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique as a number of judges and staff were found infected with Covid-19.
Read: Covid-19 in Bangladesh: CJ hints at reverting to virtual trial proceedings
The Cabinet on May 7, 2020 cleared the draft of an ordinance to pave the way for courts to run trial proceedings through video conferences and other digital means using the information technology.
On May 9, an ordinance was promulgated allowing courts to run trial proceedings through video conferences and availing of other digital facilities. President Abdul Hamid promulgated the ordinance.
On May 10, the High Court formed three benches for hearing urgent cases virtually and directed the subordinate courts concerned to hear cases related to emergency bail.