The Supreme Court today has dismissed a PIL seeking directions to Central & State Govts to allocate separate & adequate funds for smooth & impartial functioning of Judicial system while stating “we can’t interfere & don’t want to give any such directions to Central Govt.”

A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, and Justices A.S. Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the plea filed by Advocate Reepak Kansal which has sought directions to the Central and the State Governments to allocate a percentage of the annual budget to the judiciary who will spend the amount itself depending upon the priorities for such spending. The plea also sought directions for the constitution of a separate Secretariat with the Supreme Court and High Courts to manage the funds allocated to the Judiciary. 

The petitioner alleged that “in the last 70 years, there has been no proper allocation of funds adequate with the corresponding increase in population, legal awareness, increase in legislation and the same is a clear violation of the basic structure of the Constitution as well as basic human rights.” 

Further it has been submitted that, “it is necessary for the development of the Judicial infrastructure, the Centre and State Governments should provide requisite resources to the Judiciary without cutting/rejecting the demands made by it so that it is able to smoothly discharge its judicial functions.” 

Also Read: International Information Warfare?

The petition also alleged that, “The Central and State Governments do not even consider judiciary important so as to organize funds or to make any establishment in the infrastructure of the judiciary.”

“It is a matter of great concern that Centre and state governments are not even spending 1% of the budget allocated to Judiciary. Due to this, the subordinate courts in India have been facing hardships during day-to-day work. The deficiency in infrastructure is a factor that affects Judicial delays and becomes relevant in improving access to justice,” it said. 

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre to deposit in court the Rs 10 crore which is to be paid by Italy to compensate the families of the deceased fishermen killed by Italian marines off the coast of Kerala in 2012. 

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian said the court will not close this case until the amount of compensation be deposited and disbursed to the families of the victims. 

The court has noted in its order, Republic of Italy, states that the amount of Compensation as per the award to be paid to the families of the Victim. The Republic of Italy states that amount should be deposited in the account given by the Centre. And thereafter within one week the same amount should be deposited in the Supreme Court. The matter will be heard on April 19. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Court that the Italian government offered to pay a total of Rs 10 crore in damages. The families of the two deceased fishermen have agreed to a compensation of Rs 4 crore each in addition to the Rs 2 crore already paid by the Italian government. The injured owner of the boat had also consented to receiving damages of Rs 2 crore. 

He said that the families have been adequately compensated and proceedings before this court and a criminal trial pending before a special court in Delhi should be closed. 

The counsel appearing for the State of Kerala has submitted that the compensation amount should be deposited in the Supreme Court first. 

“We will ask the award to be deposited in this court only after that this case will be closed,” said CJI Bobde. 

Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt, appearing for the Republic of Italy, submitted that he is waiting for instructions from the Ministry of External Affairs to give them the account number for depositing the amount. 

Solicitor General informed the court that he will provide the account details within the course of the day and thereafter deposit the same in the Supreme Court within next three days. He prayed the court to keep this matter for hearing after that. 

“Mr Solicitor, we would like you to be this fast in other matters as well, normally the government says two weeks-three weeks,” said the CJI. 

The Supreme Court had previously refused to pass any order on the Centre’s plea seeking closure of the case of the two Italian marines, who were accused of killing Indian fishermen in 2012 off the coast of Kerala. The court had said that the case will be closed case only after hearing the victim’s families and once adequate compensation is paid to them.

On May 21, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands had ruled that India was entitled to compensation from Italy “in connection with loss of life, physical harm, material damage to property (including the ‘St. Antony’) and moral harm suffered by the captain and other crew members of the ‘St. Antony’, to the ‘St. Antony’) and moral harm suffered by the captain and other crew members of the ‘St. Antony’, which by its nature cannot be made good through restitution”. The Tribunal however said that they cannot be tried in an Indian Court.

Following this the Indian Government on July 3, approached the Supreme Court seeking disposal of pending proceedings in Chief Master Sargeant Massimiliano Latorre and Others v Union of India and others.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, had submitted before the bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice A S Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian that Italy had assured the Indian Government that it would criminally prosecute the marines and provide compensation to the victim’s families.

Mehta further argued that since the marines are now under the public prosecution of Rome, all cases pending before the Supreme Court be closed.

The bench however said that it appreciated the steps taken by Italy to prosecute the marines, however it insisted that adequate compensation should be paid to the victim’s families since this was the issue pending before the court. Mehta thereafter assured the bench that the Central Government will ensure that maximum compensation is paid to them.

The bench also questioned Mehta on the case pending before the special court against the Italian Submarines. The bench said that without applying for withdrawal of prosecution before the special court, the Centre cannot approach the Supreme Court seeking closure of the case. 

“The fact is there is a criminal charge being tried here in India where the victims’ families are also appearing. Without applying for withdrawal of prosecution there (trial Court) how can you (UOI) come here (to the Supreme Court)? Why don’t you apply for withdrawal there? There atleast the families can oppose your application. Here they are not even a party”, the bench added. 

The bench then said “We will not pass any order without the victims’ family being heard”, and had directed a Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to implead family members of the victims as party in its closure application.

The case pending before the Supreme Court titled Chief Master Sargeant Massimiliano Latorre and Others v Union of India and others is an appeal filed by the two marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, against a May 2012 judgment of the Kerala high court which held that Kerala had jurisdiction to try them. The high court ruled that the marines enjoyed no state immunity since their act of shooting at the fishermen was in defence of neither the vessel nor the state.

The application filed by the Central Government before the Supreme Court stated that “The Republic of India has taken a decision to accept and abide by the award passed by the (arbitral) tribunal which would have the bearing on the continuance of present proceedings before the Supreme Court. The applicant (central government) is, therefore, placing the award on record with a prayer that the proceedings with regard to the incident dated February 15, 2012 be disposed of in conformity with the Award passed by the tribunal.”

After the shooting incident by the marines, an FIR was lodged by the local police against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following this, Italy filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging the criminal proceedings against their marines. Though the Court held that India has jurisdiction over contiguous zones under the Maritime Zones Act, the investigation was transferred from the Kerala Police to the National Investigation Agency.

Three years later, Italy approached the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) seeking to keep back the two marines in their country during the trial process and a stay on criminal prosecution initiated by India. On August 23, 2015, ITLOS directed Italy and India to suspend prosecutions initiated in their respective countries and prevent taking steps that might jeopardise or prejudice the decision to be rendered by the Tribunal.

Thereafter, on November 6, 2015, a specially designated five-member tribunal was constituted as per the provisions of UNCLOS. On April 29, 2016, the tribunal decided that Girone could be returned to Italy till the period of arbitration, whereas Latorre was already in Italy. ITLOS later referred the matter to PCA.

Read Also: Supreme Court pulls up Uttar Pradesh, Haryana on plea seeking clear roads between Noida and Delhi

In 2017, the Supreme Court had directed the Central government to place before the court whatever award is passed by the PCA. The central government has now in compliance with the court’s direction brought the PCA’s award on record and has also sought the disposal of the three pending pleas in the matter.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused any relief to the Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu from deportation but said the deportation should be as per procedure prescribed in law.

The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian were hearing a PIL challenging the detention of the Rohingya refugees and the move to deport them to Myanmar. The Apex Court refused to pass an order to release the detained Rohingyas.

On behalf of the Government of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the application. Mehta said a similar plea was dismissed in 2018 in Assam and the petitioner had not mentioned it in the PIL. The SG said Rohingyas are not refugees and maintained they be termed illegal migrants.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, counsel for the Jammu and Kashmir administration, said India had not signed the global agreements on the principle of non-refoulement and therefore it was not binding on Delhi to follow such conventions.

In an earlier hearing in court, CJI Bobde had acknowledged the threat of slaughter  faced by Rohingyas in Myanmar but said the Court cannot do anything about it since it was beyond its control.

One Mohammad Salimullah had moved the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Central Government from deporting Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu and Kashmir.

The applicant, through Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, submitted that even while the top court was seized of the matter, news reports had been doing rounds since March 7 of the nearly 150-170 Rohingya refugees in Jammu being detained.

The application stated Union Minister Jitendra Singh’s statements two months ago saying the Rohingya wouldn’t be able to secure citizenship. During a hearing on March 23, Bhushan referred to the order passed by the International Court of Justice last year to highlight that Rohingyas faced a genocidal threat there.

Read Also: Delhi High Court judge recuses herself from Facebook, WhatsApp plea

The plea contended that the proposed deportation was contrary to the constitutional protections of Article 14, Article 21 and Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India, which provides equal rights and liberty to every ‘person’.

The Supreme Court on Friday granted six more months to the judicial panel led by Justice (retired) V.S. Sirpurkar for investigation of the alleged fake encounter of the four men accused of raping and murdering a 26-year-old veterinarian in Hyderabad.

The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian heard the petition seeking an independent investigation into the alleged fake encounter in November 2019.

Earlier, the court had granted six months more time to the panel headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sirpurkar-led committee to complete the probe.

An application was made by the committee seeking more time to complete the investigation which got delayed due to Covid-19 pandemic. The bench had earlier asked the committee to complete the investigation by September 3, 2020.

On December 12, the bench headed by Chief Justice Bobde had set up the panel on a petition filed by two advocates, G.S. Mani and Pradeep Kumar Yadav, to investigate the case.

The application stated, “Even though the work of the commission is continuing, the same could not be completed because of the prevailing pandemic situation…Therefore, the inquiry commission is constrained to apply for an extension of time of six months from the date the commission is able to function with physical hearings, spot inspections etc.”

The panel, further highlighting the present situation leading to the delay in investigation, had submitted: “The Government of India has extended the lockdown from time to time, severely affecting the inter-state movement. Though the lockdown restrictions have been relaxed now, the situation in Hyderabad has further deteriorated. Several persons working in the premises allocated to the commission were found to be Covid positive. There are no other premises available for the commission to hold hearings. Travel between states is still not feasible because of the increasing rates of infection.”

Read Also: Human rights: Army plugs key loophole with Additional Director General appointment

New Delhi (ILNS): A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court by a father seeking custody of his children after the untimely death of his wife. They children are with his wife’s sister and brother. The top court bench of Chief Justice S. A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian will hear the plea today.

The appellant has brought the case before the top court after the state authorities did not act positively to his request to release the children from the custody of his wife’s brother and sister.

The petitioner’s children have been living with the wife’s brother and sister after their mother died. The petitioner has maintained that the relatives of his wife took his wife and children from Gurugram to Bengaluru, where they said they will get his wife medically examined. He further said that his wife was alright except for a slight blood pressure issue and added that he was not even informed about the sudden demise of his wife.

The petitioner believes that his children are being tortured, and their life and liberty are in danger. He has claimed that he is not permitted to talk to his children, nor do the relatives respond to his requests of giving back his children.

It is submitted that childhood and adolescence are critical stages of development. Traumatic experiences in these phases of life have long-lasting impressions, which are carried into adulthood and persist lifelong. Liberty not only includes liberty but also the right of human beings to live with dignity as per the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Read Also: Supreme Court asks Centre how much longer does it plan to detain Mehbooba Mufti

The court said that as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India the term liberty not only includes liberty but also the right of human beings to live with dignity. Because the state is under the constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under part III could be enjoyed by all. Children require special care and protection under all circumstances and it is the duty of the state to ensure that.

It is a well-known fact that psychological distress manifests itself in different forms –physically (headache, stomach pain) and behaviourally (withdrawal, aggression towards people or even themselves).

-ILNS