After success in Article 370 and Ayodhya, Govt set to push 'Citizenship (Amendment) Bill' - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

After success in Article 370 and Ayodhya, Govt set to push 'Citizenship (Amendment) Bill'.

The situation in Jammu and Kashmir, economic slowdown, unemployment and the government's plan to bring the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill are some of the issues which are likely to emerge as flashpoints between the Opposition and treasury benches in the winter session of Parliament beginning Monday.

Besides the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, the government also plans to convert two crucial ordinances into law during the session.
One ordinance reducing corporate tax rate for new and domestic manufacturing companies to arrest slowdown in the economy and boost growth was issued in September to give effect to amendments in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Finance Act, 2019.
The second ordinance, also issued in September, banned sale, manufacture and storage of e-cigarettes and similar products.
This is the second Parliament session of the BJP-led NDA government which returned to power with a greater mandate in the Lok Sabha elections.
The first session of the government saw both houses passing key legislations such as the one to penalise the practice of instant triple talaq and the other giving more powers to the National Investigation Agency.
The two Houses also passed a resolution scrapping special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcating the state into two union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
In the session beginning Monday, the government is set to push for the passage of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, a key BJP plank which is aimed at granting nationality to non-Muslim immigrants from neighbouring countries.
The government has listed the bill in its items of business for the session, official sources said.
The government had introduced the bill in its previous tenure as well but could not push it through due to vehement protests by Opposition parties, which criticised the bill as discriminatory on religious grounds.
The bill had lapsed following the dissolution of the last Lok Sabha.
The legislation seeks to grant Indian citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan if they have fled their respective country due to religious persecution.
There has been opposition to the bill in Assam and other Northeastern states
Student organisations, political parties and socio-cultural bodies have been protesting on the grounds that it seeks to grant nationality to non-Muslims, mostly Hindus, who have come into India up to December 31, 2014, thereby increasing the deadline from 1971 as per the Assam Accord.
At an all-party meeting convened by speaker Om Birla on Saturday, the Opposition said it will seek answers from the government on issues such as slowdown in the economy, farmers' distress, unemployment and situation in Jammu and Kashmir after its special status under Article 370 was scrapped in August.
After the all-party meet on Saturday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted: "We look forward to a productive Parliament session, where people-centric and development oriented issues would be discussed. "
During the session, a special joint sitting of the both the Houses has been planned to mark Constitution Day on November 26.


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

After success in Article 370 and Ayodhya, Govt set to push 'Citizenship (Amendment) Bill'.

Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple? - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple?.

Ayodhya judgment raises several questions for jurists to answer

The Ayodhya judgment has raised several questions for jurists to answer. Prominent among these is whether the Supreme Court’s direction to the Central government to formulate a scheme and set up a trust to facilitate the construction of a temple on the disputed land would amount to a breach of the secular character of the State.

Can a secular State be ordered to facilitate the construction of a temple, which is an essential part of the Hindu belief? Does this not amount to a secular State fostering a particular religion?
Justice K. Chandru, former Madras High Court judge, referred to the nine-judge Bench judgment in the S.R. Bommai case of 1994 in this regard. “The Bommai decision clearly said the State should be divorced from religion,” he said.
The Bommai judgment said the concept of secular State was essential in a democracy. “State is neither pro-particular religion nor anti-particular religion. It stands aloof, in other words maintains neutrality in matters of religion and provides equal protection to all religions,” it observed.
‘No breach of constitutional secularism’
Eminent jurist, Upendra Baxi, however, said there was no breach of constitutional secularism involved in the Centre being given the responsibility.
Former National Law School India University (NLSIU) Bengaluru Vice-Chancellor and eminent constitutional expert R. Venkata Rao, agreed. “The inscription of the Supreme Court is ‘yato dharma tato jaya’ [where there is dharma there is victory]. It is taken from the Bhagavad Gita. Now, it defies logic to say the Supreme Court is a religious institution,” he said.


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple?.

Ayodhya verdict: Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, says Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Ayodhya verdict: Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, says Supreme Court.

• The five-member bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi directed the Centre to form within three months a trust, which will build a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
• SC directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque
In an unanimous and historic verdict, the Supreme Court on Saturday settled the long-festering Ayodhya dispute by allowing Hindus to build a Ram temple on the disputed land while sanctioning Muslims five acres to build a mosque in the temple town.

The verdict by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi is expected to bring to an end a 70-year-old dispute that has divided Muslims and Hindus and caused to widespread bloodshed in the 1990s.
The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case was awarded in favour of “the deity of Lord Ram" who was held to be a “juristic person". The court directed that the disputed 2.7-acre land is to be handed over to a trust formed by the Central Government. This trust will build a temple on the disputed property.
The Muslim party is to be given a five-acre piece of land “either by the Central Government out of the acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya," ruled the bench comprising justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer.
The judges ruled that the Centre will, within three months, form the scheme of setting up a board for a trust, which will formulate rules and powers for the construction of the temple.
The possession of the inner and outer courtyard is to be handed over to the trust for the management and development of the temple. A "statutory receiver" will be in possession of the land till completion of the scheme.
The court directed the State and Centre to act in consultation with each other to adhere to the orders of the court and for formulation and maintenance of the trust.
There were three main parties to the dispute. The Nirmohi Akhara, a religious denomination, Ram Lalla (or the infant Ram), represented by the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Sunni Waqf Board, which looks after religious properties. Fourteen appeals had been filed before the SC against a 2010 Allahabad high court judgment, which had said the disputed 2.7 acres should be equally divided among the three litigants.
On Saturday, the judges explained the rationale behind giving the title to the “Hindu party" in great detail.
“On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it. The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century."
The Archeological Survey of India had also reported that there existed a non-Islamic structure below the Babri Masjid. The court upheld that Babri Masjid was not constructed on barren land. The deductions of the ASI and accounts of the travellers were both cited in favour of the Hindu party.
In separate orders in favour of the Sunni Waqf board, the court said" "We direct that land measuring five acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya. This exercise, and the consequent handing over of the land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board, shall be conducted simultaneously with the handing over of the disputed site comprising of the inner and outer courtyards."
The court while issuing directions related to the Nirmohi Akhara stated that “we direct that in the scheme to be framed by the Central Government, appropriate representation may be given in the Trust or body, to the Nirmohi Akhara in such manner as the Central Government deems fit".
The bench dismissed the suit of Nirmohi Akhara.
“The Constitution postulates the equality of all faiths. Tolerance and mutual co-existence nourish the secular commitment of our nation and its people," the court ruled. The bench also clarified its judgement was not on the basis of faith or beliefs but in the light of evidence established before the court.
“The judgment shows a classic application of Article 141 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In a civil suit where title to the property was not the only governing factor, Honble Supreme Court pronounces a verdict favoring the interests of both the parties," said Advocate Tanuj Hazari of KNM & Partners law offices. (Source: Livemint)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Ayodhya verdict: Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, says Supreme Court.