Aadhaar Not Required For Bank Accounts, Phones For Now: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ordered that citizens do not need to link their Aadhaar numbers with a range of services, including bank accounts, mobile phones and passports, for the time being. India launched Aadhaar, now the world’s largest biometric database, in 2009 to streamline welfare payments and decrease wastage in public spending. Since then, the government has been keen mandate the to use Aadhaar for everything from filing income taxes to registering mobile phone numbers and booking train tickets. Aadhaar is now mandatory for welfare, pension and employment programs. In January, Aadhaar was made compulsory not only for the renewal of the passport but also for new passports issued within three days in the “Tatkaal” category – an order contested by Attorney Vrinda Grover. Deadline of March 31, previously declared for linking bank accounts and cell phones with Aadhaar, has been extended until it decides whether the Aadhaar Act is illegal. On 7 March, a five-judge constitution bench headed by India’s Chief Justice Dipak Misra said it might not be possible to take a call on the petitions by 31 March. It is unlikely that an order will be issued before the top court goes on vacation in May, lawyers say. Activists and technology experts have expressed concerns about data confidentiality and security of date, biometrics vulnerability to failure, and misuse of data for profiling or increased surveillance. A group of petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to declare the government’s insistence on disclosing Aadhaar as a violation of the right to privacy. In August 2017, Supreme Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, but made it clear that the decision on Aadhaar’s constitutional validity would be taken separately.

After another round of questioning on April 7, Ramos admitted that he buried the victims under the bathroom floor, where police eventually excavated the bodies from underneath newly installed tiling. During Ramos’ sentencing, his 19-year-old son testified against him, detailing harrowing accounts of growing up under his father’s physical and verbal abuse. The Mexican government eventually filed a case against the United States in 2003 that bundled Ramos with more than 50 other Mexican immigrants sentenced to death in the U.S. The case went to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, which determined in 2004 that the U.S. However, after the decision, President George W. Bush announced that it would be up to the state courts to “review and reconsider” details of the cases. Ramos sought relief under the international court’s ruling, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed his appeal, and the Supreme Court denied a review of the decision.

In a statement released Tuesday, the United Nations called for a halt to Ramos’ execution based off the treaty violations. “Any death sentence carried out in contravention of a Government’s international obligations amounts to an arbitrary execution,” the U.N. Recer filed a last-minute plea for a stay of execution to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hours leading up to the execution scheduled for 6 p.m. Central time. The plea was denied shortly before 9 p.m. Ramos gave a final statement before being pronounced dead at 9:36 p.m. HUNTSVILLE, Texas — A Mexican citizen on death row in Texas was executed Wednesday night for the sledgehammer killings of his wife and two children more than 26 years ago. Roberto Moreno Ramos was condemned for the 1992 deaths of his 42-year-old wife Leticia, 7-year-old daughter Abigail, and 3-year-old son Jonathan at their home in Progreso, located along the Mexico border. “I’m getting my gold watch that it took the governor 30 years to forge,” he said without elaborating. “Thank you God. Lord, send me a chariot.

As the lethal dose of the powerful sedative pentobarbital began taking effect, the 64-year-old Ramos took a couple of deep breaths, sputtered once and began snoring. Within seconds, all movement stopped. Eleven minutes later, at 9:36 p.m. CST, Ramos was pronounced dead. He became the 21st inmate put to death this year in the U.S. 11th given a lethal injection in Texas, the nation’s busiest capital punishment state. No friends or relatives of Ramos or his victims witnessed the execution. Mexican officials had called for his execution to be stopped, arguing he was part of a group of Mexican citizens condemned in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday night cleared the way for the punishment when it denied two appeals seeking to halt the lethal injection. Three retired justices who had served on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals filed court documents with the Supreme Court on Wednesday in support of stopping the execution. The ex-judges alleged the appeals court appointed an incompetent appellate attorney who early in the post-conviction process failed to investigate Ramos’ case.

Also Wednesday, a federal judge in Austin dismissed Ramos’ request to temporarily block the execution. The request had been part of a lawsuit Ramos filed against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals a day earlier. The suit alleged the appeals court had not allowed Ramos to present claims he had ineffective trial and appellate lawyers. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had previously turned down requests to halt Ramos’ execution. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on Monday declined to recommend either a commutation of his sentence or a six-month reprieve. Recer said Ramos was also brutally beaten as a child by his father. “No fact-finder or decision-maker entrusted with Mr. Moreno Ramos’ life has ever been provided with evidence of (his) ‘diverse human frailties’ to assist them in dispensing the most severe punishment under law,” Recer said. Authorities said Ramos bludgeoned his family members and then buried them underneath his home’s bathroom floor so he could marry the woman he was having an extramarital affair with at the time.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, found Ramos was part of a group of 52 Mexican citizens awaiting execution in the U.S. ’t advised of their consular rights under the Vienna Convention when first arrested. It recommended they be tried again to determine if consular access would have affected their cases. Then-President George W. Bush directed states to reopen the cases. But the Supreme Court in 2008 overruled Bush’s directive, saying only Congress can require states to follow the international court’s ruling. Including Ramos, six Mexican citizens have been executed since being named in the international court ruling and all the executions were carried out by Texas, according to the Mexican government. ⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com. Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running!

SABARIMALA, India — When a famous Hindu temple in southern India opened recently for its annual pilgrimage, it looked less like a place of religious devotion than a spot primed for trouble. More than 15,000 police officers monitored the area and devotees filed through a thicket of barricades to reach the shrine. The heavy security had a single purpose: preparing for the moment when women once barred from the temple might attempt to enter. The court’s ruling set off intense protests in Kerala and became a crucible for women’s rights, religious belief and state power in India. Since the verdict, no woman between the ages of 10 and 50 has managed to enter the temple, despite at least a dozen attempts. Meanwhile, women who have publicly stated their intention to visit the shrine have faced intimidation and threats. On Friday evening, the temple marked the start of its main two-month-long pilgrimage season, after previously opening for two short stretches in October and November.

Trupti Desai, an activist from the state of Maharashtra, had announced that she would arrive in Kerala early Friday with several other women and that they would attempt to enter the temple the following day. Desai never made it out of the airport in the city of Kochi, which is nearly 100 miles from the temple. Taxi drivers refused to pick up Desai and her group, fearing possible violence directed at them. A crowd of more than 1,000 protesters assembled outside the exits to the airport, clapping and chanting hymns to Ayyappa, preventing Desai from leaving the arrivals area. Many of the protesters were women opposed to the Supreme Court’s interference in matters of Hindu observance. This protest is about “saving our faith and that is why I came,” said Indira Krishnakumar, who traveled to the airport from the nearby city of Ernakulam. But the protests are also political. So far, the state government in Kerala has pledged to uphold the court’s verdict but has refrained from enforcing it fully, fearing clashes between protesters and police officers. Last month, the police arrested more than 2,000 protesters at Sabarimala.

On Saturday, they arrested the leader of a right-wing Hindu group who had arrived at the temple in the middle of the night in defiance of official restrictions. They also arrested a senior BJP leader. On Saturday, to reach the temple, devotees braved bus delays and a call by right-wing Hindu groups to close all roads, shops and businesses. ] of a controversy, but he will be here with us every step of the way,” said Bhagyalakshmi, a 62-year-old devotee who uses only one name. She declined to give her views on the conflict but said that she is positive that whatever happens will be the god’s will. Younger women devotees are still awaiting their chance. Reshma Nishanth, a 32-year old teacher from the city of Kannur in Kerala, has spent recent weeks making the traditional preparations for the Sabarimala pilgrimage, including observing a 41-day fast. But after she announced her intention to make the sacred journey, activists from right-wing Hindu groups came to her house and even followed her to the railway station Saturday.

Yes, you can file divorce petition without coming to India. You can file Divorce petition from the place of residence of the respondent(in case if husband is petitioner or in case wife is petitioner), or the place of marriage or the place where the couple last lived together. 2. How many times I have to attend the court hearing for divorce case in India? Its depends upon circumstances. Means if your cross examination is over on the same day then rest of proceedings are for lawyers. 3. How many times I have to attend the court for mutual consent divorce ? In case of mutual consent divorce you have to attend/appear in court twice for the purpose of recording the statement in court. In so many courts now camera/video conferencing has been started and you can record your statement through the video conferencing but its totally depends upon the court to court as there are so many complication. 3. Should both the spouses attend the court hearing for divorce in India? 4. can a person seek divorce Under Hindu Law within a year of marriage?

Under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no petition for divorce can be filed within one year of the marriage. But in exceptional circumstances, The Honourable High Court is in empowered to grant leave to file the case before the expiry of one year. 5. How much time it will take to get divorce in India? If it is a divorce by mutual consent of the spouses, Six months from the date of filing. It is possible to get divorce before six months, recently The Honorable Supreme court has dissolved the marriage before expiry of six months. 6. How much it will cost me for getting in India? It depends on the lawyer to lawyer as in India there is no fix fees schedules. 7. What are the Documents require for mutual consent divorce? Address proof, passport size photograph of petitioner, marriage card if available, marriage certificate, marriage photographs and ID proof..etc. 9.can I claim or seek maintenance in divorce case proceeding?

As per section 24 of Hindu marriage act, Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses proceedings. 10.can I seek child custody or child visitation in divorce ? 11.Judicial separation in India meaning and procedure. The Supreme Court has the power to transfer the cases from one High Court to another and even from one District Court of a particular state to another District Court of the other state. In such transfer cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court transfer only those cases if they really lack appropriate territorial jurisdiction and those cases which were otherwise supposed to be filed under the transferred jurisdiction. Hon’ble Supreme Court often looks at the real ground / reason for such transfer. 13.I am in USA and got divorce, is it valid in India ? Court of competent jurisdiction. India in cases in which such law is applicable. 14.I am in India my husband/wife filed divorce petition in USA/UK/Australia/foreign, I am not able to contest the proceeding, if he or she obtain the decree of divorce in foreign, is it valid in India ?

They are registered on special roll of Supreme Court. Each of them is assigned a code number. They have exclusive privilege of filing cases and Vakalatnama (Power to represent client in Supreme Court). No other advocate can file cases in Supreme Court. They are called Advocate on Record in Supreme Court. Their list is available on website of Supreme Court. Senior Advocates. Each High Court and Supreme Court has power to Designate an Advocate as Senior Advocate. Once an advocate is designate as senior advocate, he cannot file Vakalatnama in any court in India. He cannot argue in any court unless he is also assisted and instructed by other advocate. He cannot draft matters or any kind of documentation for any clients. He cannot receive direct phone calls from clients. He is supposed to maintain aloofness, detachment with cases , objectivity in arguments and certain higher degree of dignity in his day to day behaviour in personal life as well as in Court Life.

They are supposed to Lead High Standards of Legal Profession by being an ideal role model for other advocates. The roll of Senior Advocates who are designated by Supreme Court, is found on website of Supreme Court. Judges of various High Courts, after their retirement in High Court, come to practice in Supreme Court. They are usually, normally designated as Senior Advocate by Supreme Court. The High Court judges who may have some tainted reputation during their tenure, are often denied Designation of Senior Advocate by Supreme Court. Advocates who are practising and arguing mainly in Supreme Court and are based in Delhi, but they are neither advocates on record nor senior advocates nor advocates in next 4th layer advocates. From the first day of their enrollment, they can practice in Supreme Court. No minimum experience is prescribed for them for arguing in Supreme Court. The fourth layer advocates are those who are practising mainly in other courts all over India, but they occasionally come to Supreme Court to argue cases. No minimum experience is prescribed for them for arguing cases in Supreme Court.

Admission in a good college is a herculean task. The applications are many but the colleges have limited seats for various courses, and hence, cut off percentage for admission is high. Some colleges have a limited sports or extracurricular activities quota, but this is use mainly to secure back doer entry for favoured candidates. The exam oriented system of judging the students on the basis of his performance in the annual examination held at the end of every session. The marks mania drives every teacher and every parents to expect the very best from every student, 90 % or above. Difference of a few percentage categorises a brilliant student and a mediocre, if he could not perform well in exams for some reasons. Parental and peer pressure to secure good percentage for entry into prestigious colleges and courses hindered the proper development of the child. The students learn their lessons by rote, without straining their grey cells. There is a domination of textual knowledge in the educational system. The students do not participate in the practical application of knowledge. Maulanaazad had once observed that “there is no adjustment between the education and the need of our life”. The curriculum adhered to by the system; find little or no application in the practical life of people. Colleges have reservations of seats for various s special categories like schedule castes, scheduled tribes etc. Applicants belonging to such categories are able to secure admission t comparatively low percentages. Capitation fee though banned is charged by the colleges which at times sideline the deserving students. Dealing with the menace of capitation fees the Supreme Court on 24 august, 2003 ruled that no professional institution can charged capitation fee from students seeking admission.

The defendant is the accused person against whom the criminal charges have been brought. The Defense team is headed by the attorney and may include an investigator, paralegal and other support personnel who work at the lawyers direction to develop the particular case strategy. The plaintiff is the other party to the court case. This is the party who has lodged the charges against the defendant and commenced the criminal court case. This party appears on the pleadings as the State of This party is represented by the prosecuting authority which may be referred to by many names such as the State, State Attorney, District Attorney or D.A. ], Prosecutor, Prosecution or Prosecuting Attorney. The State Legislature defines and writes the criminal laws that apply to that state. When these laws are broken, it is the State that has been injured. Therefore, it is the State that is the plaintiff in the case.