CJI SA bobde led bench hears a plea seeking removal of anomalies in grounds of maintenance, alimony & divorce and to make them uniform for all citizens without discrimination on the basis of religion, race, cast, sex or place of birth
#SupremeCourt
@AshwiniBJP

Hearing begins
Senior Adv Pinky Anand appears for petitioner

CJI: you are appearing for the petitioner

Anand: yes (laughs)
CJI: You want personal laws to be abolished. You are not saying it but thats what will he done.

Anand: in Sarlat Mudgal case, govt had to take steps for the Uniform Civil Code

CJI: how can we encroach on personal laws like this?
CJI: How can we remove discriminatory practices without interfering in personal laws

Senior Adv Pinky Anand: In Shayara Bano you did it. Under Article 146 you had said directions given will exist till law was brought in. You have intervened in the past
CJI: Prayer C can be considered.
Senior Adv Menenakshi Arora: For two years we have no one heading law commission. We want a similar relief. If we look at certain provisions of Muslim law, then maintenance can go on only for the period of Biddat. Women is left with nothing
CJI: first justify comparison between Hindu and Muslim women..

Arora: across gender..

CJI: we are on religion

More from Bar & Bench

More from Court

Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.

Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.


First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.

It appeared an overtly political decision.


Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.

A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.


On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.


The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.

The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”

Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
There won't be a rerun of Jan 6. The riot at the Capitol was unique in many ways: Trump called for it; it was the last chance to "overturn" the election; it was huge in scale.


The coming Trumpist events on Jan 17 and Jan 20 will probably be much smaller in scale, especially in DC. The MAGA crew can't buy another flight and take more days off work so soon after Jan 6.

Some of the Trumpist forums are actively suspicious of these events, claiming they're FBI or Antifa traps. A lot of people at TDW felt that the *design* of this flyer was too lefty to be real!


Unfortunately, that doesn't mean everything will be OK. The statehouse events on Jan 17 have the potential to turn violent, where a few hundred people could be enough to overwhelm local authorities.

MAGA anger at a lot of the GOP is high, as well as against Dems. Even red states could see problems, so I hope authorities are prepared.

You May Also Like