Janjivan Bureau / New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday closed the contempt plea against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his “chowkidar chor hai” remark in the Rafale case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The court said the remarks made by Gandhi were far from true and he should have refrained from those and could have been careful.
“It is unfortunate that without any verification certain remarks were made by the contemnor (Rahul Gandhi) against the prime minister,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said.
The bench referred to the affidavit filed by him tendering unconditional apology and said, “Gandhi enjoys an important position in political spectrum and no court should be dragged to political discourse, whether valid or invalid.”
“Mr Gandhi needs to be more careful in future,” the bench added.
The bench noted that subsequently the contemnor had filed an affidavit that contempt proceedings should not be taken forward.
“In view of the affidavit filed by Gandhi, we close contempt proceedings initiated against him,” the bench said.
SC refers review pleas on Sabarimala to 7-judge Bench for re-examination
Janjivan Bureau / New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday said restrictions on women in religious places was not limited to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well as it referred all review pleas to a larger seven-judge bench.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, reading the verdict on behalf of himself and Justices AM Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra, said the larger Bench would decide all such religious issues relating to Sabarimala, entry of women into mosques and practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The CJI said the endeavour of the petitioners was to revive debate on what was integral part of the religion. Entry of women into places of worship was not limited to this temple, it was involved in the entry of women into mosques, said the SC.
The SC said: “Religious practices are not to be against public order, morality and other provisions of Part 3 of the Constitution, that is, fundamental rights.”
The CJI, Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Indu Malhotra sent the Sabarimala review to a larger Bench. Justice Nariman and Justice Chandrachud were in dissent. They maintained their original stand that restriction on entry of women between the age of 10 and 50 was wrong.
