NEW DELHI: Refusing to accept the sealed cover note filed by the Centre on the OROP arrears case, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on Monday said sealed covers are against the fundamental process of justice and there has to be transparency in court.
Asking the Union as to what “secrecy” could be there, the CJI said, “I am personally averse to sealed covers. There has to be transparency in court. This is about implementing the orders. What can be the secrecy here? We want to put an end to the sealed cover business. If the SC follows it, high courts will also follow. We are understanding the difficulty of the government. But what we need is facts. Please tell us the plan of action.”
Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for the Ministry of Defence stated that the documents were “confidential” as they contained “issues of sensitivity” and pertained to the “financial balancing of the whole economy”. Although the Centre faced the court’s ire for submitting the note in a sealed cover, it breathed a sigh of relief as the bench, also comprising Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, granted leeway to clear OROP arrears to ex-servicemen in staggered payments from April 2023 till February 28, 2024.
Taking into consideration the Centre’s submission that clearing payment of Rs 28,000 crore “in one go” could have serious implications on defence management, the court granted the Centre the liberty to pay in instalments to 21 lakh eligible pensioners in various categories. It directed the government to clear arrears to around six lakh family pensioners and gallantry award winners by April 30, around four lakh pensioners above 70 years by June 30 and to rest 10-11 lakh pensioners in equal instalments on or before August 30, November 30 and February 28, 2024.
CJI during the hearing also expressed “displeasure” with regard to the unilateral letter issued by the defence ministry related to the payment of OROP arrears. He said the national interest must not be lost sight of. “We were not pleased by their suo motu letter but we cannot lose sight of the national interest also,” the CJI said.
Also in top court
FIRs against Khera transferred to Lucknow
The Supreme Court on Monday transferred the FIRs registered against Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera over his remark on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lucknow. FIRs against Khera were registered in Varanasi, Hazratganj and Assam under sections 153 A, 500, 504, 505 (2) of IPC for referring PM Modi as “Narendra Gautamdas Modi”. A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala while extending interim protection from arrest till April 10, 2023, also asked Khera to apply for regular bail before Lucknow court. On February 23, the Supreme Court had directed Dwarka court to grant Khera interim bail in the case.
Air India peegate ‘victim’ moves SC
The 72-year-old woman, who was urinated upon in a New York- Delhi Air India flight last November allegedly by an inebriated passenger, has approached the SC to direct the DGCA and all airlines to frame mandatory SOP and zero tolerance rules to deal with unruly passengers and onboard sufferers. She has also sought for directing the centre & DGCA to set guidelines on alcohol policy on international flights of Indian carriers.
BJP lotus a religious symbol, says IUML
The Indian Union Muslim League told the Supreme Court on Monday that the BJP should also be made a respondent in a plea seeking to bar political parties with religious names and symbols, as the BJP’s symbol lotus is a “religious symbol”. “We have also filed an application to include a large number of parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party because its symbol is a “Kamal”, which is a religious symbol”,
Plea on live-in registration dismissed
Terming the plea seeking directions to the Centre to frame rules and guidelines for registration of live-in partnerships as “hare-brained”, the SC on Monday dismissed the same. Reprimanding the petitioner’s counsel for filing this plea, a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud said, “What is this? Do people come with anything here? We’ll start imposing costs on such cases. Registration with whom? The Central government? What does the Central government has to do with it? You want every live-in relationship to be registered? Are you trying to foster care or security of these people or to prevent them? These are all hare-brained ideas which you want the court to execute. Dismissed…” Advocate Mamta Rani in her plea had argued that compulsory registration was necessary for the protection of the members and the children born out of such relationships.