Tag: Supreme Court

Adani-Hindenburg

Adani-Hindenburg Row: SC Refuses To Accept Centre’s Suggestion On Committee

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it will not accept the sealed cover suggestion by the Centre on the appointment of the committee related to regulatory mechanisms to protect the investors in the backdrop of the Adani-Hindenburg case and said that it wants to maintain full transparency.

The court was hearing various petitions related to Hindenburg Research Report.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reserved the order on the issue and the other issue of the appointment of the committee to oversee regulatory mechanisms related to the market.

One of the petitions filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari sought to Constitute a Committee under the Monitoring of the retired Supreme Court Judge to enquire and Investigate the Hindenburg Research Report.

During the hearing, CJI DY Chandrachud indicated by saying that they will not accept the sealed cover suggestion by the Centre because they want to maintain full transparency.

The court said, “If they accept suggestions in sealed cover it is like they have not kept it away from other side as people will think it is a government-appointed committee.”

CJI also indicated by saying that they will appoint the committee and its members on their own.

SG Mehta Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, submitted a sealed cover note and said, “Two intentions should be kept in mind, one is that truth comes out and a holistic view is presented and other one is there is an unintended impact on the markets.”

Petitioner and lawyer Advocate Vishal Tiwari demanded that the entire thing should be probed and a high-powered committee be constituted to look into it.

Appearing for another petitioner lawyer Prashant Bhushan said he wants to give suggestions on the names of some retired judges as members of the committee. But Supreme Court refuses to accept one of the petitioner lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s suggestion of names of some retired judges as members of the Committee.

Petitioner Jaya Thakur’s lawyer, advocate Varun Thakur demanded a fair probe.

Another petitioner, advocate ML Sharma, has sought a probe against the US-based firm, whose report has led to shares of Adani group plunging on the bourses.

One of the petitions was filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Manipur DGP

M’rashtra Political Crisis: SC To Decide Later On Referring Pleas To 7-Judge Bench

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench on Friday said it will decide later on referring the cases related to the Maharashtra political crisis to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration of a 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment on powers of Assembly Speakers to deal with disqualification pleas.

A five-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha said the issue of reconsideration of Nabam Rebia case to the larger bench will be decided during the hearing of the case on merit.
The apex court said whether Nabam Rebia’s judgment be referred to a larger seven-judge bench or not can only be decided along with a hearing on the merits of the Maharashtra politics case.

It posted the next hearing of Maharashtra political crisis cases to February 21.

The top court said, “Issue of reference cannot be decided in isolation without facts of the case. Issue of reference will be decided only with merits of the case.”

On Thursday, the top court reserved the order after hearing arguments from rival Shiv Sena groups.

Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena sought that the five-judge Nabam Rebia case is referred to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration.

In the 2016 Nabam Rebia case, the five-judge Constitution bench had held that Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray camp of the Sena, submitted that there is an imperative need to reconsider the law laid down in the Nabam Rebia case.

“It’s time for us to relook at Nabam Rebia and the 10th Schedule because it has created havoc,” Sibal said.

The 10th Schedule of the Constitution provides for the prevention of defection of the elected and nominated members from their political party and contains stringent provisions against defections.

In 2016, a five-judge Constitution bench, while deciding the Nabam Rebia case of Arunachal Pradesh, had held that the Assembly Speaker cannot proceed with a plea for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking removal of the Speaker is pending decision in the House.

The Nabam Rebia judgment had come to the rescue of the rebel MLAs led by Eknath Shinde, now the chief minister of Maharashtra. The Thackeray faction had sought their disqualification even while a notice of the Shinde group for the removal of Maharashtra assembly deputy speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal, a Thackeray loyalist, was pending before the House.

During the course of the hearing, the apex court asked the arguing advocates to address whether the ‘tightening’ of the 2016 judgment can be undertaken by the five-judge bench currently hearing a batch of petitions arising from the 2022 Shiv Sena-rooted Maharashtra political crisis or be referred to a larger seven-judge bench.

2016 Nabam Rebia’s judgment was passed by a five-judge bench and a bench of the same strength cannot interfere with the judgment by a bench of the same strength.

Shinde group cited Nabam Rebia’s judgment stating that the deputy Speaker does not have the authority to decide disqualification when a notice for his removal is pending.

While Uddhav Thackeray camp of Shiv Sena argued in favour of revisiting the 2016 verdict saying that a Speaker faced with a notice seeking his removal cannot exercise powers under the 10th Schedule, the faction led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde said the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment was not relevant to the issues arising from Maharashtra political crisis.

The Shinde camp has defended the 2016 judgment as correct, which required no relook.

During the hearing of the case, the apex court on Wednesday said that issues arising from the Maharashtra political crisis rooted in the Shiv Sena feud are “tough Constitutional issues” to decide and observed that it may have “tightened” a 2016 judgement.

The apex court was hearing arguments on whether the matter should be heard by a seven-judge bench or a five-judge bench.

A five-judge Constitution bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed by rival factions Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in relation to the Maharashtra political crisis. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Manipur DGP

SC Declines Relief To Rapido Against Ban In Maharashtra

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined relief to the Rapido bike, taxi and auto aggregator, which challenged the Bombay High Court order directing the company to stop operation in Maharashtra immediately as it does not have a license to operate bike, taxi or rickshaw services.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that amendments made to the Motor Vehicles Act in 2019 made it clear that aggregators cannot operate without a valid licence.
The apex court granted the company liberty to move to the Bombay High Court to challenge January 19 notification issued by the State of Maharashtra.

It also asked the High Court to consider such challenge un-influenced.

In December 2022, the Pune RTO had rejected Rapido’s plea for licence.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court had directed Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited, which operates bike taxi aggregator Rapido, to shut operations till January 20 as the startup is yet to receive a licence from the Maharashtra government to operate.

The Bombay High Court had pulled up Pune-based bike taxi aggregator for operating without procuring a licence from the Maharashtra government and directed it to suspend the services immediately.

Roppen Transportation had moved the High Court against a communication issued to it by the Maharashtra government refusing to grant them a bike taxi aggregator licence.

The government cited the reason that there was no state policy on licensing of bike taxis and there was no fare structure policy.

The State government had told the High Court that a committee has been set up to explore the formulation of guidelines for bike taxis in the state. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court on Bilkis Bano

SC Assures Bilkis Bano Of Early Hearing

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday assured Bilkis Bano, who challenged the pre-mature release of 11 convicts for gang-raping her and murdering her family members during the 2002 Godhra riots, that her plea against the remission granted to 11 convicts will be heard soon.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala will constitute a bench soon for Bano’s plea.
Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for Bano, mentioned the matter for urgent hearing and said that a new bench needs to be constituted by the CJI as Justice Bela M Trivedi recused from hearing the plea.

“I will do so at the earliest. The matter will be listed soon,” said the CJI.

Earlier, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi ordered that matter be listed before the bench which Justice Trivedi is not a part of as she had recused herself from hearing the case.

Besides filing a petition against the per-mature release of convicts, Bano had also filed a review petition seeking a review of its earlier order by which it had asked the Gujarat government to consider the plea for the remission of one of the convicts.

The review petition was dismissed.

Some PILs were filed seeking directions to revoke the remission granted to 11 convicts.

The pleas were filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, whose General Secretary is Annie Raja, Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Subhashini Ali, journalist Revati Laul, social activist and professor Roop Rekha Verma and TMC MP Mahua Moitra.

Gujarat government in its affidavit had defended remission granted to convicts saying they completed 14 years of sentence in prison and their “behaviour was found to be good”.

The State government said it has considered the cases of all 11 convicts as per the policy of 1992 and remission was granted on August 10, 2022, and the Central government also approved the ore-mature release of convicts.

It is pertinent to note that the remission was not granted under the circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of the celebration of “Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav”, it has said.

The affidavit stated, “State government considered all the opinions and decided to release 11 prisoners since they have completed 14 years and above in prisons and their behaviour was found to be good.”

The government had also questioned the locus standi of petitioners who filed the PIL challenging the decision saying they are outsiders to the case.

The pleas said they have challenged the order of competent authority of the government of Gujarat by way of which 11 persons accused in a set of heinous offenses committed in Gujarat were allowed to walk free on August 15, 2022, pursuant to remission being extended to them.

The remission in this heinous case would be entirely against public interest and would shock the collective public conscience, as also be entirely against the interests of the victim (whose family has publicly made statements worrying for her safety), pleas stated.

The Gujarat government released the 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment on August 15. All the 11 life-term convicts in the case were released as per the remission policy prevalent in Gujarat at the time of their conviction in 2008.

In March 2002 during the post-Godhra riots, Bano was allegedly gang-raped and left to die with 14 members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter. She was five months pregnant when rioters attacked her family in Vadodara. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

nuh notices to Uttar Pradesh Haryana and Delhi governments

No Scope For Religion Hate Crimes In A Secular Country: SC

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday asserted that there is no scope for hate crime on basis of religion in a secular country such as India and stressed that it has to be rooted out.

A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said that there is a growing consensus around hate speech.
“There cannot be any compromise on hate speech at all,” said the bench, adding that it is only if the State acknowledges the problem of hate speech that a solution can be found.

It is the primary duty of the State to protect its citizens from any such hate crimes, the bench stressed while hearing a plea against hate crimes.

“When action is not taken against hate crimes then an atmosphere is fostered which is very dangerous and it has to be rooted out from our lives. There cannot be any compromise on hate speech at all,” it observed.

The observation of the apex court came while hearing a plea of a Muslim man who has alleged that he was assaulted and abused in the name of religion on July 4, 2021, by a “screwdriver gang” of criminals as he had boarded a car to go to Aligarh from Noida.

The petitioner Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani alleged that the police has not bothered to register any complaint of hate crime.

“If a person comes to the police and says that I was wearing a cap and my beard was pulled and abused in the name of religion and still no complaint is registered, then it is a problem,” the bench proclaimed.

Justice Joseph said that be in a minority or majority, certain rights are inherent in human beings.

“You are born into a family and raised in one. We have no choice in our religion, but we stand out as a nation. That’s the beauty, the greatness of our nation. We have to understand this,” said Justice Joseph.

The apex court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to file a detailed affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on March 3. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Sisodia's Judicial Custody Till April 3

AAP To Move SC After Ruckus Stalls Delhi Mayoral Polls Again

By LokMarg

Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Monday announced that the AAP will move the Supreme Court against the BJP’s alleged bid to stall the mayoral polls in the national capital.

The deputy CM claimed that the BJP councillors deliberately created a ruckus in the MCD to ensure the mayoral elections don’t take place.
Addressing a press conference in the national capital, Sisodia said, “The BJP is not letting a peaceful mayoral election to take place. The BJP garnered 104 seats in the MCD elections while the AAP won 134 seats. The people of Delhi gave a clear mandate against the BJP and in favour of the AAP.”

The Delhi municipality was adjourned for the third time on Monday amid a ruckus.

The AAP councillors objected to presiding officer Satya Sharma’s decision to declare that the alderman would vote at the municipality meeting for the mayoral polls, said Sisodia.

Targeting Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena, Sisodia said, “The presiding officer was nominated illegally by the L-G but still we went ahead with his decision and insisted on a fair voting.”

“She (presiding officer) came to the meeting saying that the alderman will vote. The Article 243R of the Indian Constitution says that in any legislature of a state, the alderman shall not have the right to vote in the meeting of the municipality. The same is written in the MCD Act,” the Deputy CM said.

He said, “The presiding officer also declared that all three elections for Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the Standing Committee members will be held together. This is unconstitutional.”

“According to the constitution, the three elections cannot be held simultaneously and are to be held in sequence after the mayoral election,” Sisodia added.

On the ruckus in the MCD, the deputy CM said, “Today, all our councillors were sitting silently and only the BJP MLAs were shouting, yelling and trying to provoke our members.”

“The presiding officer declared that two AAP members cannot cast their vote (in the mayoral polls) as they have corruption charges against them. There is no such rule which bars them from voting. And if any such rule does exist, we would insist that some BJP members, should refrain from voting as there are corruption charges against them,” the AAP leader added.

Sanjay Singh, AAP’s national spokesperson, said, “The presiding officer is taking her orders from the BJP. In the last 15 years, they have looted the Delhi Municipal Corporation and wants to continue doing that.”

“That is why we are taking this issue to the Supreme Court in the interest of a legal, constitutional and peaceful mayoral election in Delhi,” Singh said. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud

SC permits Adoption Of Child Of Unmarried Girl Who Earlier Sought Abortion

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday permitted the adoption of the child of a 21-year-old girl who had earlier sought abortion of 29-week pregnancy but later agreed to deliver the child, and also directed AIIMS to ensure that all necessary facilities are made available so that the delivery can take place in a safe environment.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud with justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution taking regard to the extraordinary situation as a young woman in distress moved the top court at a late stage of her pregnancy.
“We are adopting the present course of action consistent with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution having regard to the extraordinary situation which has emerged before the Court involving a young woman in distress, who moved this Court at a late stage of her pregnancy,” the bench said.

The court said that the delivery of the child by the petitioner shall take place at AIIMS.

The court requested the Director of AIIMS to ensure that all necessary facilities are made available without the payment of fees, charges or expenses of any nature so that the delivery can take place in a safe environment at AIIMS.

“The privacy of the petitioner shall be maintained and all steps shall be taken to ensure that the identity of the petitioner is not divulged in the course of the hospitalization at AIIMS,” the court clarified.

The court also granted permission for adoption and said, “Permission is granted for the adoption of the child by the prospective parents whose details have been set out in the CARA registration form. CARA shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the implementation of this order.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati have apprised the Court that an effort has been made to facilitate the process of adoption of the child after delivery, by prospective parents who are registered with the Child Adoption Resource Authority

under the auspices of the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development.

The Court was also apprised of the fact that two prospective parents who have been registered with a parent registration number under CARA are ready and willing to adopt the child.

“We are adopting the present course of action consistent with the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution having regard to the extraordinary situation which has emerged before the Court involving a young woman in distress, who moved this Court at a late stage of her pregnancy,” the court said.

The adoption situation was taken care of after the court noted that the petitioner does not wish to retain the child with her after delivery and would not be in a position to care for the child.

“In the circumstances, having regard to the late stage of the pregnancy, it has been considered in the best interest of the mother and the fetus that the child, upon delivery, may be given in adoption,” the court said.

The petitioner is reported to have lost her father during the Covid-19 pandemic and has a mother, who is unwell. The petitioner also has a married sister who is about ten years older than her. ASG Aishwarya Bhati has informed the Court that she has also interacted with the sister of the petitioner to explore whether she would be willing to take the child in adoption, however, the sister expressed her inability to do so for a variety of reasons.

The Supreme Court earlier asked the director of AIIMS, Delhi, to constitute a team of doctors on Friday to examine whether the termination of 29 weeks pregnancy of an unmarried B. Tech student can be conducted safely.

It has also asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to assist the court in the case.

The lawyer appearing for the girl told the bench that she is living in a hostel in Ghaziabad. He said the girl wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy which is approximately 29 weeks. Advocates Amit Mishra and Rahul Sharma were the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

Samajwadi Party MP Dimple Yadav

Budget Presented Keeping In Mind 2024 Polls: Samajwadi MP Dimple Yadav

By LokMarg

The Centre has presented the Union Budget keeping in mind the 2024 parliamentary elections, said Samajwadi Party MP Dimple Yadav on Wednesday.

“It’s a Budget presented keeping the elections in mind. While the government has given some relaxations to the middle class, it has not said anything about the Minimum Support Price for farmers, employment and youth,” MP Dimple Yadav told ANI after the House adjourned for the day.
She further said that the budget has been “disappointing” and they have also ignored the Railways.

“Railways are also ignored in this budget. It has been a disappointing budget,” Dimple Yadav added.

Meanwhile, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also said that the budget of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led central government increases inflation and unemployment in the country.

“The BJP is completing a decade of its budget, when it did not give anything to the public earlier, what can we expect now? The BJP’s budget increases inflation and unemployment. No hope of the farmers, labourers, youth, women, job professionals,” he said.

Akhilesh Yadav, later, shared a video of a lion [apparently a hungry lion] and captioned it as saying that the hungry lion is angry because the BJP has neither made any arrangement for his survival nor has it established any manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh in the last 10 years.

“Perhaps this hungry lion of Etawah Lion Safari is angry because the BJP government has neither given the right budget for its food and maintenance nor has it set up any manufacturing unit in UP to advocate for its Make-in-India programme in the last 10 years,” he tweeted along with a video.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the Union Budget 2023 today in Lok Sabha. This was the third time in a row that the government presented the budget in a paperless form.

Highlights of the budget presented by the Union Finance Minister included big incentives under the new income tax regime. The IT rebate limit in the new regime has been increased from

Rs 5 lakh to Rs 7 lakh and the new tax regime will be the default tax regime, the Finance Minister said. Capital expenditure outlay has been increased by 33 per cent to Rs 10 lakh crore, accounting for 3.3 per cent of the GDP.

Sitharaman started her Budget speech at 11 am, the last full Budget of the Modi government in its second term. Like the previous two Union Budgets, Union Budget 2023-24 is also presented in paperless form.

This year’s Budget holds much significance as the country is scheduled to have the next Lok Sabha election in April-May 2024.

As per established tradition, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman along with ministers of state Pankaj Chaudhary and Bhagwat Karad and Finance Secretary T V Somanathan called on President Droupadi Murmu.

The budget session of the Parliament began on Tuesday with President’s address, subsequently tabling the Economic Survey for 2022-23. The formal exercise to prepare the annual Budget for the next financial year (2023-24) commenced on October 10.

The Economic Survey, tabled in the Parliament on Tuesday, noted India’s GDP is expected to grow in the range of 6 to 6.8 per cent in the coming financial year 2023-24. This is in comparison to the estimated 7 per cent this fiscal and 8.7 per cent in 2021-22. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

SC Seeks Gujarat Govt’s Response On Godhra Convicts’ Bail Pleas

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Gujarat government to file a reply on the bail pleas of some convicts in the 2002 Godhra train coach-burning case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the Gujarat government to file a reply on the bail pleas.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, said that this is not a matter of stone pelting but that a bogey with 59 passengers inside was locked which led to the death of several passengers.

Solicitor General’s response came when a senior advocate of some convicts submitted the state government has filed appeals against the Gujarat High Court order which has commuted the sentence of some convicts from the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Around 58 people lost their lives when some coaches of Sabarmati Express were torched at the Godhra Railway Station in Gujarat on February 27, 2002. The incident triggered large-scale riots in Gujarat.

A local court in 2011 convicted 31 accused and acquitted 63 people. Eleven accused were sentenced death penalty while the rest were awarded life imprisonment.

Later Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court decision to convict the 31 accused but commuted the death sentence of 11 to life imprisonment. The convicts then moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court order. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: SC Grants 8-Week Bail To Ashish Mishra

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail for eight weeks to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case with conditions that he will not stay in Uttar Pradesh and the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi during this period.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari also imposed various other conditions including that Mishra will leave Uttar Pradesh within a week of his release.

The top court also directed Mishra to inform the concerned court about his location. The Supreme Court also clarified that any attempt by Mishra or his family to influence witnesses and attempt to delay the trial may lead to the cancellation of his bail. The court has also directed Mishra to mark his attendance at the concerned police station of his location.

Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, moved Supreme Court challenging Allahabad High Court which denied bail to him on July 26, 2022, in connection with the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The bail was rejected by the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court.

Mishra is facing a case of murder for the incident on October 3, 2021, in which eight people, including four farmers, were killed in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri as he allegedly ran over the farmers who were protesting against the Centre’s three farm laws.

He was arrested on October 9 and was later granted bail in February 2022.

Mishra again moved to the High Court as the Court’s earlier order dated February 10, 2022, was set aside by the Supreme Court in April 2022 and had ordered fresh consideration of his bail plea.

The top court had said that the order of the Allahabad High Court cannot be sustained and had to be set aside and the bail bonds of the respondent/accused are cancelled. The Court had directed Ashish Mishra to surrender within a week.

Family members of the victims of the Lakhimpur Kheri incident moved the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court order, which granted bail to Ashish Mishra. The top court cancelled the bail plea of Mishra.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had appointed a committee headed by retired Punjab and Haryana high court judge Rakesh Kumar Jain to monitor the probe into the Lakhimpur Kheri violence. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/