Alwar Lynching: Supreme Court seeks, Rajasthan Government reply on contempt plea

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra today, sought explanation from Vasundhara Raje led Rajasthan government over the issue pertaining to Akbar alias Rakbar who was attacked by alleged cow vigilantes in Ramgarh, Alwar, due to suspicion of being a cow smuggler.

A bench of  Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked the Principal Secretary of the state’s Home Department to file an affidavit on a plea seeking contempt of court proceedings against the state government.

The bench asked the Rajasthan government whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the police officers who allegedly took three hours to reach a hospital with a badly injured man accused of smuggling cows.

A dairy farmer from Haryana’s Mewat district, Rakbar was beaten up by seven people in July on suspicion of transporting two cows and their calves. The autopsy report said that he had died of shock and injuries from a “blunt weapon or object.

The bench was hearing a contempt plea filed by Tushar Gandhi and Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala seeking contempt action against the Rajasthan government in the mob lynching case at alwar.

Supreme Court, questioned Government over adultery law

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court questioned the Centre’s stand defending the adultery law and his submission that the penal provision on adultery was needed to save the sanctity of marriage, saying it does not appeal to common sense that a woman cannot prosecute her husband for adulterous relationship.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked how it preserved the “sanctity” when with the extra-marital affair becomes non-punishable if the woman’s husband stands by her. The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which reserved its verdict on a plea challenging Section 497 of the IPC.

Other judges on the bench are Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra.

The Chief Justice further said, “We are not questioning the legislature’s competence to make laws, but where is the ‘collective good’ in Section 497 of IPC?

Arguing on behalf of the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand said, “In India, marriage is a sacred institution, so any intrusion into that is something which should attract penal consequences.”

“Where is the sanctity of marriage when the husband can consent?” asked Justice R F Nariman. The bench said the law in question was only “targetting” married women and not the men who can have relationships with unmarried women.