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

1) God bless the State of Texas and @KenPaxtonTX What he has just done gives us every chance to save our Republic and our country.

Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by

2) another state is one of those instances.

https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh

Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to


3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”

@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were

4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”

The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting

5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but

You May Also Like