Due to involvement in many terrorist activities in the country and having links with other terrorist organizations, the Government of India had included the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in banned organizations. At the same time, a petition was also filed in the Supreme Court regarding the removal of its ban. On the other hand, the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused an urgent hearing on the petitions against the ban imposed on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

Supreme Court: Hearing against the ban on SIMI, the Supreme Court said – come after the ongoing hearing on 370

The Supreme Court said that right now the hearing on Article 370 is starting in the constitution bench, when the hearing on it is over, all these will be considered. The bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was told by the counsel that the matter came up for hearing on January 18 and has not been listed since then, after which the bench said this.

At the same time, the Central Government is already aware about SIMI, before this the Central Government had told the Supreme Court that the basic objective of SIMI is to establish Islamic rule in India, which cannot be fulfilled. Activists of this banned organization are still involved in subversive activities which can endanger the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

The Central Government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the activists of the organization are in regular touch with their associates and bosses based in other countries and their actions can disrupt peace and communal harmony in India. Also told that the purpose of SIMI is to spread Islam to students and youth and get support for Jihad.

The central government has banned dozens of such organizations after they were found involved in illegal activities. Action is taken on these organizations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. Apart from this, the government has so far banned 42 terrorist organizations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Further in the affidavit, it has been stated in the affidavit that despite the ban in 2001, SIMI workers are uniting, meeting, conspiring, procuring arms and ammunition and indulging in many activities. At the same time, the government said that SIMI came into existence on April 25, 1977 in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh as an organization of youth and students believing in Jamaat-e-Islami-Hind (JEIH) and declared itself independent in 1993. Its founder president was Mohammad Ahmadullah Siddiqui.

What is the need to form a committee again and again after recommending the ban of 27 pesticides?
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the attitude of the Central Government repeatedly setting up expert committees to review the ban on pesticides. The top court asked, when the preliminary expert committee had already recommended banning 27 pesticides in the country, then what was the justification for appointing several committees after that. The court was hearing a petition seeking the abolition of harmful chemicals and pesticides used in the country.

A bench of CJI Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra said, it seems that the central government keeps on constituting committees again and again until a favorable decision is found. The matter came to the fore in December 2015 with the Dr. Anupam Verma Committee report which explicitly recommended banning 13 pesticides out of 66. However, the pesticide industry association raised objections regarding the recommendations of the committee. In response, the government set up the Dr SK Malhotra Committee in 2017 to review the status of 27 pesticides. Subsequently, the committee reiterated the need for a continued ban on those 27 pesticides in 2018.

Later, the Insecticides Registration Committee (RC) constituted another sub-committee. Which acts as the apex body for regulating pesticides in India. This newly constituted committee under the leadership of Dr. SK Khurana was assigned the task of reviewing the same 27 pesticides. Based on Khurana’s comments, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare issued a draft notification in May 2020, proposing a ban on certain pesticides.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Centre, defended the actions of the government, saying they followed a systematic process based on scientific advice. We have a process. We trust science. We work in terms of science.

The petitioner repeatedly expressed doubt on the need to form a committee
Petitioner’s counsel Prashant Bhushan opposed the ASG’s submissions, saying both the Anupam Verma committee and the subsequent Khurana committee had recommended a ban on the same 27 pesticides. Nevertheless, a new Rajendran committee was appointed, which later made different recommendations. Bhushan doubted the need for the government to continue forming additional committees, while the first two committees had already suggested a ban. Every ingredient of section 27 is satisfied. Where is the question of forming another expert committee? On this the CJI also questioned the government’s approach and asked why it was necessary to constitute a new committee after Khurana’s recommendation. He sought clarification on the basis of the different stand of the Rajendran Committee and in the approach

Also asked about the reasons behind the change. The bench will now hear the matter on August 1.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the Telangana High Court’s order on a petition seeking to quash a petition challenging the election of a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MP. The apex court has said that the right to vote on the basis of informed choice is an important component of the essence of democracy.

In fact, Congress candidate K Madan Mohan Rao challenged the election of Bhim Rao Baswant Rao Patil from Zaheerabad Lok Sabha constituency in the High Court, claiming that he had not disclosed the pending cases and convictions against him in his election affidavit.

At the same time, Patil had argued that under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there was no requirement to disclose ‘so-called’ criminal cases. He also argued that he was not given a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year.

After hearing the arguments of all the parties, a bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Arvind Kumar dismissed Patil’s appeal. Also said whether there is existence of such criminal case where charge has not been framed in respect of any such offence. Also, in which there is no provision of possible jail sentence or jail sentence for a short time. and whether the conviction in the case where the fine was imposed, are material facts and are disputed.

 https://english.n27news.in /wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Untitled-1360-×-1068-px-2023-07-25T210711.305.jpghttps://english.n27news.in /wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Untitled-1360-×-1068-px-2023-07-25T210711.305-150x150.jpgN27 NewsNationalSupreme Court: Hearing against the ban on SIMI,the Supreme Court said – come after the ongoing hearing on 370Due to involvement in many terrorist activities in the country and having links with other terrorist organizations, the Government of India had included the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in banned organizations. At the same time, a petition was also filed in the Supreme Court regarding the removal...Pakad Har Khabar Par