Kerala HC Slams NCST Directive on Monalisa Bhosle, Orders Police Protection

• The Kerala High Court has questioned the authority of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) to issue directives to state authorities.
• The court has directed the police to ensure that Monalisa Bhosle is not removed from the jurisdictional limits without its permission.
• The court's decision establishes a clear boundary on NCST's power to issue directives and highlights the need for protection in cases where individuals face threats to their life.

What is the right of this National Commission for passing any orders? How can the National Commission issue such a direction?

In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has intervened in a directive issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) to hand over Monalisa Bhosle, a Kumbh Mela fame, to the Madhya Pradesh Police. The court's decision comes after Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas questioned the authority of NCST to issue such directives.

The judge sought clarification on the basis of NCST's power to pass orders, asking, 'What is the right of this National Commission for passing any orders? How can the National Commission issue such a direction?' The court's skepticism towards NCST's directive has raised questions about the jurisdiction and authority of the commission.

The Kerala High Court has found prima facie merit in Monalisa Bhosle's arguments that she is facing threats to her life over her interfaith marriage. The court's interim order directs the police to ensure that Bhosle is not removed from the jurisdictional limits without orders of the court and against her will until the disposal of the writ petition.

The court has also directed the police to take emergent action if Bhosle faces any imminent threat to her life. This directive underscores the seriousness with which the court views Bhosle's situation and highlights the need for protection in such cases.

The Kerala High Court's order has significant implications for lawyers representing clients in similar situations. The precedent set by this case establishes a clear boundary on the authority of NCST to issue directives to state authorities. This development is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the jurisdiction and powers of regulatory bodies like NCST.

As the court's decision makes it clear that NCST's directives can be challenged in court, lawyers will need to carefully consider their clients' rights and the potential implications of any directives issued by regulatory bodies.

Lawyers representing clients in similar situations should watch for this precedent, as it sets a clear boundary on the authority of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes to issue directives to state authorities.

Source: Original reporting via [Source Not Specified]