Articles by "Supreme Court"
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Hello Jammu News at 8:34:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Mar 24 :  The Supreme Court will hold two virtual courts on Wednesday through video-conferencing on "Vidyo" app to hear certain urgent matters.

The cause list for March 25, which has been uploaded on the apex court's website, showed that two benches of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant and Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose will take up these matters.

No court-rooms are specified in the list, which means judges will be hearing 15 matters listed in the cause list from their respective chambers or offices.

The advocates, appearing in these matters, have been asked to address the court through video conferencing mode on personal desktop/laptop or mobile phone or from mediation centre of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) as directed in the circular of March 23.

The cause list also warned the advocates-on-record not to share video conferencing link with anybody as it will deactivate the original link shared with the advocate on his e-mail. It said that only one link will be activated for video conferencing.

The top court on March 23 had held successful trial of its functioning through video-conferencing and three matters were heard virtually in which judges sat in the courtroom while advocates argued from a different spot in the apex court.

In a circular issued on March 23, the apex court had resorted to almost lockdown like situation to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) and suspended the entry of advocates and other staff into the high security zone on the basis of their proximity cards, till further orders.

The top court without specifying any date had said that only one or two courts will sit to take up extremely urgent matters through video conferencing by an app, which will be installed in desktop, laptop or mobile phones.

The top court had also directed that the lawyers' chamber and offices will be closed and advised that advocates should not attend office as no sanitation staffs will be allowed inside.

The circular had said that the matters, which are extremely urgent in nature will be heard virtually through video-conferencing on Vidyo app and lawyers were advised to download the app on their desktop/laptop or mobile phone.

The circular listed out the modalities and issued a standard operating procedure as how the app could be downloaded, how the video-conferencing could be done and how to apply for hearing of the extremely urgent matters.

It said that if the advocate or Party-in-Person is unable to connect through video-conferencing due to non-availability of hardware/network on any given date, then his matter could be taken the next date and he would be required to be present in the video-conference room by indicating in the application their desire to do so.

The circular said that the President and the Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA) may authorise entry of any advocate into the high security zone, on their letter heard, scanned and sent to the Registrar (Administration) ahead of the requested time of entry, specifying the area of visit within High Security Zone and the purpose thereof.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 10:48:00 PM 0
Supreme Court of India


New Delhi, Feb 3 :  The Supreme Court Monday said it will frame the legal issues to be adjudicated by a 9-judge Constitution bench on religious discrimination against women at various religious places -- the larger question which arose during the Sabarimala case.

As the lawyers representing various parties in the case have not arrived at a consensus on framing larger issues to be deliberated upon by the Constitution bench, it will frame them by Thursday, the top court said.

The Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, said it will inform the parties about the time frame for the hearing and would commence the proceedings by next week.

The bench said that it would go by the reference order of November 14 last year, made by a five-judge bench which by a majority of 3:2 had said that the larger bench will have to evolve a judicial policy to do "substantial and complete justice" in matters of freedom of religion, such as entry of Muslim women into mosques and 'dargah' and Parsi women, married to non-Parsi men, being barred from the holy fire place of an Agyari.

It took note of vehement opposition by some senior lawyers including F S Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Rakesh Dwivedi and Shyam Divan that the apex court was wrong in making a reference of broad contours while deciding the review petition against the 2018 verdict, which allowed women of all age group to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple.

The bench -- also comprising justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant -- said it would also deal with the legal issue raised by the lawyers whether a reference order can be made in review jurisdiction for a hearing by a larger bench.

During the hearing, Nariman said that in review jurisdiction, there cannot be any reference order on issues to be heard by a larger bench as such a jurisdiction has a very limited scope.

He said that exercising the limited jurisdiction of review, the bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi (since retired) had made the reference to a larger bench by listing out seven questions.

"This is not practice which has been adopted by the Supreme Court since Privy Council days and there are several judgements to this effect," the senior lawyer said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for All Indian Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB), supported Nariman's arguments. He said though the Board has said Muslim women are allowed to enter mosques for offering Namaz, the court should not enter into matter of faith and decide the essential religious practice while entertaining a PIL filed by a person not belonging to a particular faith.

The bench said, "There is no point holding up everything for the sake of the issues. We will decide the issues with the rider that there may be additional issues at any time under Order 14 (Supreme Court rules)".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre referred to the Supreme Court rules and said that the court can undertake a larger debate "on the contours of Articles 25, 26 (fundamental right to religion)".

He said that court refer the Sabarimala matter to the larger bench.

The bench said "the fact of the matter is that we have questions referred to us by a five-judge bench. What is referred to us is not the review petitions".

It said that questions like entry of Muslim women into mosque, the practice of female genital mutilation, Parse women issue have arisen during the hearing of the review petitions in the Sabarimala case.

"Now the bench found that the answer to each case would involve Article 25 and other fundamental rights and their balancing, as they call it. That is why the questions were referred to us. We don't have the review before us. The order says that the review will be decided at a later stage...," the bench said.

As several lawyers including Nariman kept opposing the reference order and the issues to be dealt by the nine-judge bench, the Chief Justice said, "We said we are not deciding the review petition, the Parsi women case or any other matter. We are only on the interpretation of Articles. We will have the hearing in a preliminary, cursory manner...We will frame what Nariman is arguing as a separate issue. And we will hear it along with the reference".

Mehta, senior advocates K Parasaran and Ranjit Kumar, however, opposed the arguments and said the top court while exercising the review jurisdiction can refer a larger issue, which had arisen during the adjudication of the dispute, to a larger bench.

A five-judge bench, by a majority of 3:2 on November 14 last year, had referred to a larger bench the issue of discrimination against women in various religions.

A majority verdict by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep the pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine pending and said restrictions on women at religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and were prevalent in other religions also.

By a 4:1 majority verdict, the apex court had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Sabarimala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 11:25:00 PM 0
Supreme Court Of India


New Delhi, Jan 27 :  The Supreme Court Monday sought response from the Maharashtra government on a plea by gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli challenging the life term awarded to him in the 2008 murder of Shiv Sena corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar.

Jamsandekar was shot dead in his house on March 2, 2007 by two persons, allegedly hired by associates of Gawli who was the then sitting MLA.

Gawli's appeal challenging the last month verdict of the Bombay High Court, which had upheld the life term awarded to him by a trial court in the case, came up for hearing before a bench comprising Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna.

The bench agreed to hear the appeal and issued notice to the state.

The high court had on December 9, 2019 upheld Gawli's conviction and life term awarded to him by trial court under various provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Besides Gawli, it had also upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on several other accused in the case by the trial court in August 2012.

"The involvement of accused one Arun Gawli in the murder of Kamalakar Jamsandekar has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt," the high court had said in its verdict.

According to the prosecution, Jamsandekar was murdered at the behest of Gawli and the charge sheet filed by the police in the trial court had said that Gawli gang was allegedly paid Rs 30 lakh for killing the Sena corporator over a land deal in suburban Mumbai.

Gawli, arrested on May 21, 2008, is currently lodged in jail in Maharashtra.

The prosecution had alleged that several accused in the case were members of organised crime syndicate headed by Gawli and they had hatched a conspiracy to kill Jamsandekar due to political rivalry.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 11:30:00 PM 0
Supreme Court


New Delhi, Jan 26 :  The Supreme Court has asked the newly elected Jharkhand government to clarify whether it wants to withdraw cases against four tribal activists booked under sedition charges for allegedly writing Facebook posts supporting the Pathalgarhi movement in the state.

The top court was informed by the accused that the Hemant Soren government in the state had, in one of the first decisions of the Cabinet, announced that it would take back all criminal cases related to the movement.

Pathalgarhi is a name given to a tribal protest which seeks autonomy for village sabhas (gram sabhas). Those demanding Pathalgarhi want no laws of the land be applicable on the tribal people in the area. The Pathalgarhis reject government rights over their forests and rivers.

As part of the movement, Pathalgarhis erect a stone plaque or signboard outside the village/area, declaring the village a sovereign territory and prohibiting the entry of outsiders.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta asked standing counsel for Jharkhand, Tapesh Kumar Singh, to take instruction and inform it in two weeks about any decision of withdrawal of cases.

"List after two weeks. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the state of Jharkhand is directed to get instructions as to whether the state intends to proceed with the criminal cases registered against the petitioners," the bench said in its order uploaded recently.

At the outset, advocate Joel, appearing for four petitioners led by one J Vikash Kora informed the court that new government was sworn in the state and it announced in its first cabinet meeting that criminal cases arising out of Pathalgarhi movement will be taken back.

Advocate Tapesh Kumar Singh representing the state said that if that is the case then the petitioners should withdraw their appeal against the Jharkhand High Court order of last year refusing to quash the cases against them.

The bench, however, asked Singh to take instruction from the competent authority and apprise it in two weeks.

The Jharkhand High Court had on July 22, last year, declined to quash the sedition charges against four accused -- J Vikash Kora, Dharm Kishor Kullu, Emil Walter Kandulna and Ghanshyam Biruly -- who were booked for inciting supporters of Pathalgarhi movement through their Facebook posts to attack police officials after three police guards of former BJP MP Karia Munda were abducted in year 2018.

According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered against the accused under section 121 (waging war against India), 121A (conspiracy to wage war against India), 124A (sedition) of the IPC and also under provisions of of Information and Technology Act.

Twenty people were booked in the case out of which only four approached the apex court for quashing the sedition and others charges made against them.

In an affidavit filed in the top court during the last month of previous BJP government, the state had said that an investigation was underway but there was sufficient material to show that the accused had, through social media and Facebook, undertaken "anti-national", "unconstitutional" activities against the unity and integrity of the country and incited communal and caste based unrest.

"Further the prosecution case is that the petitioners and others, through social media, were spreading false messages, deluding people and causing misunderstanding and instigating a large number of inhabitants of the districts to disturb peace by spoiling social and communal harmony," it said.

The state said that it was clear through the messages of the accused that wrong interpretations of the Constitution were given to incite anti-national feelings, and to spread propaganda based on community and castes.

On January 22, supporters of Pathalgarhi movement, armed with lathis and axes had kidnapped seven villagers and later killed them in West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand for allegedly opposing their stir.

Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren postponed his scheduled cabinet expansion due to the incident and had ordered setting up of Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 8:37:00 PM 0
Supreme Court


New Delhi, Jan 25 :  One of the death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya murder and gang rape case on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking judicial review of the rejection of mercy petition by the President.

The petition has been filed by convict Mukesh Kumar Singh (32) whose mercy plea was dismissed by President Ram Nath Kovind on January 17.

"A petition has been filed under Article 32 for judicial review of the manner of rejection of the mercy petition in terms of the judgement of Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan case," advocate Vrinda Grover, who is representing Mukesh, told.

The warrant for execution of death sentence for the four convicts has been fixed on February 1 at 6 am.

Mukesh had moved the mercy petition after the Supreme Court had dismissed his curative petition against his conviction and death sentence.

Along with his, the apex court had also rejected the curative petition of another death row convict Akshay Kumar (31).

Other two convicts Pawan Gupta (25) and Vinay Kumar Sharma are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang-raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012, in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before she was thrown out on the road. She was flown to a hospital in Singapore where she died.

Earlier in the day, A Delhi court said no further directions were required on a plea by the lawyer of the death row convicts in the case alleging the prison authorities were not handing over certain documents required to file mercy and curative petitions, and disposed of the petition.

Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Jain said the convicts' lawyer can take pictures of the relevant documents, notebook and paintings or sketches from the Tihar jail authorities.

The court noted that the jail authorities had already complied with the request made by the convicts by supplying the documents whatever was lying with them.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 9:33:00 PM 0
Election Commission Of India


New Delhi, Jan 24 :  The EC told the Supreme Court Friday that the direction asking poll candidates to declare their criminal antecedents in the media has not helped curb criminalisation of politics, and said political parties should be asked not to give tickets to those with criminal background.

Despite the apex court's direction in 2018, the criminalisation of politics is going on and some alternate mechanism has to be found, the Election Commission (EC) said.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat asked the poll panel to come up with a framework within one week which can help curb criminalisation of politics in nation's interest.

It asked BJP leader and advocate-petitioner Ashiwini Upadhyay and the EC to sit together and come up with suggestions which would help curb criminalisation of politics.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the EC, said the poll panel has taken several steps to stop criminalisation of politics.

He also said that the directions given by apex court in 2018 have not succeeded and added that instead of these, accountability should be fixed by the court on the political parties that any candidate with criminal background should not be given tickets.

"Given the situation and current composition of Parliament, we can assume that a law will not be passed to prohibit criminalisation of politics and disqualify those charged with serious criminal offences," Singh said.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Upadhaya, said currently 46 per cent of parliamentarians have criminal antecedents and in this scenario it cannot be assumed that a law will be passed in this regard.

To this, the bench asked Upadhaya and the poll panel to suggest an effective mechanism to keep a check on criminalisation of politics.

"This should be done at the earliest in the public interest. This should not be treated as an adversarial litigation. Both of you sit together and give a joint framework as what could be done to stop criminalisation of politics," the bench said.

The Centre in its reply to the petition had sought dismissal of contempt petition filed by Upadhaya and said that on September 25, 2018, the apex court had not given any specific direction to enact a law.

On March 29, last year, the apex court had sought response from the Centre and the EC on Upadhaya's plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for alleged violation of the apex court's judgment directing all candidates to declare their criminal antecedents to the poll panel before contesting elections.

On October 10, 2018, the EC had issued notification regarding the amended Form-26 and directions to political parties and candidates for publication of criminal antecedents.

However, the plea filed by Upadhyay alleged that the EC neither amended the Election Symbol Order, 1968 nor the model code of conduct (MCC) so the said notification has no legal sanction.

The EC neither published a list of leading newspapers-news channels for the purpose nor clarified the timing for declaration of criminal antecedents by candidates, it said.

This led to the candidates publishing the required information in newspapers and news channels that were not very popular and at odd hours, it added.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had unanimously held that all candidates will have to declare their criminal antecedents to the EC before contesting polls and called for a wider publicity, through print and electronic media about antecedents of candidates.

It had left it to Parliament to "cure the malignancy" of criminalisation of politics by making a law to ensure that persons facing serious criminal cases do not enter the political arena as the "polluted stream of politics" needs to be cleansed.

Holding that criminalisation of politics is an "extremely disastrous and lamentable situation", the apex court said this "unsettlingly increasing trend" in the country has the propensity to "send shivers down the spine of a constitutional democracy".

The apex court had directed that each contesting candidate will have to fill up the form provided by the ECI and he or she will have to state "in bold letters" about the criminal cases pending against the candidate.

"If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of a particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the criminal cases pending against him/her," it had said, adding that "the concerned political party shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents".

The top court had directed that candidate and the concerned political party will have to issue a declaration in widely circulated newspapers in the locality and in electronic media about his or her antecedents.

"When we say wide publicity, we mean that the same shall be done at least thrice after filing of the nomination papers," it had said.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 11:42:00 PM 0
Supreme Court


New Delhi, Jan 23 :  The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider after three months the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking a direction to the Centre for declaring 'Ram Sethu' as a national heritage monument.

Ram Sethu is a chain of limestone shoals between coasts of India and Sri Lanka. According to the epic Ramayana, the Ram Sethu bridge was built by the 'Vanara army' to rescue Sita, who was kidnapped by Ravana.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde took note of the submissions of Swamy that his interim application be listed for urgent hearing for declaring the Sethu a national heritage monument by the Archaeological Survey of India.

"You please mention this after three months. We will entertain this then," the bench which also comprised justices S A Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna said.

The BJP leader submitted that he has already won the first round of the litigation in which the Centre accepted the existence of Ram Sethu.

He further said the union minister concerned had called a meeting in 2017 to consider his demand to declare the Sethu as a national heritage monument but subsequently nothing happened.

The top court referred to pendency of several cases before it and asked Swamy to mention his plea after three months for an urgent hearing.

The BJP leader had earlier raised the issue of declaring Ram Sethu as a national monument in his PIL against the controversial Sethusamudram Ship Channel project, initiated by the UPA-I government.

The matter had reached the apex court, which in 2007 had stayed the work for the project on the Ram Sethu.

The Centre had later said that it considered the "socio-economic disadvantages" of the project and was willing to explore another route to the shipping channel project without damaging the Ram Sethu.

"That the Government of India intends to explore an alternative to the earlier alignment of Sethusamudram Ship Channel project without affecting/damaging the Adam's Bridge/Ram Sethu in the interest of the nation," the affidavit filed by the ministry had said.

The court had then asked the government to file a fresh affidavit.

The Sethusamudram shipping channel project has been facing protests from some political parties, environmentalists and certain Hindu religious groups.

Under the project, a 83 km-long deep water channel was to be created, linking Mannar with Palk Strait, by extensive dredging and removal of limestone shoals.

The apex court had on November 13 last year granted six weeks to the Centre to clarify its stand on the Ram Sethu. It had also granted liberty to Swamy to approach the court if the response of the Centre was not filed.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 8:49:00 PM 0
SC to hear pleas challenging CAA on Wednesday


New Delhi, Jan 21 :  The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday a batch of pleas seeking to examine the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

A bench, comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, which had issued notice to the Centre on various pleas is likely to hear 132 petitions, including those filed by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh.

CAA seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

Some of the petitions filed later have also sought a stay on the operation of the legislation which came into force on January 10.

The apex court had on January 9 refused to entertain a plea seeking that the CAA be declared constitutional, saying the country is going through difficult times and there is so much violence that endeavour should be for peace.

IUML said in its plea that CAA violates the fundamental Right to Equality and intends to grant citizenship to a section of illegal immigrants by making an exclusion on the basis of religion.

President Ram Nath Kovind gave assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on December 12, turning it into an Act.

IUML seeks an interim stay on the operation of CAA and the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015.

The petition had alleged that the government's CAA was against the basic structure of the Constitution and intended to explicitly discriminate against Muslims as the Act extended benefits only to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians.

The plea filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, said the Act is a "brazen attack" on core fundamental rights envisaged under the Constitution and treats "equals as unequal".

Ramesh said the substantial questions of law, including whether religion can be a factor to either acquire or deny citizenship in India, arises for consideration of the court as it is a "patently unconstitutional" amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955.

"The impugned Act creates two classifications, viz, classification on basis of religion and the classification on the basis of geography and both the classifications are completely unreasonable and share no rational nexus to the object of the impugned Act i.e., to provide shelter, safety and citizenship to communities who in their native country are facing persecution on grounds of religion," the plea has said.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA, including by RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi. Several other petitioners include Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, All Assam Students Union (AASU), Peace Party, CPI, NGOs 'Rihai Manch' and Citizens Against Hate, advocate M L Sharma, and law students have also approached the apex court challenging the Act.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 7:28:00 PM 0
Centre agrees in SC to revisit its 2017 proposal of taking over Unitech management


New Delhi, Jan 18 :  In a major development, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that it is agreeable to revisit its 2017 proposal to take over the management control of embattled realty firm Unitech Ltd and complete its stalled projects to bring relief to around 12,000 hassled home buyers.

The Centre, in its six-page note submitted to a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, said it is prepared to revisit its proposal of December 2017, to remove the existing management of Unitech Ltd and appoint ten nominee directors of the government.

The Centre, however, said it would not infuse any funds for completion of pending projects of the company. It said the court, while ensuring a period of calm should direct a moratorium for 12 months.

For the proposed board, the government also suggested the name of retired Haryana cadre IAS officer Yudvir Singh Malik, as chairman and managing director of the board and names of members including A K Mittal, ex-CMD of National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC), Renu Sud Karnad, Chairman of HDFC Credila Finance Service Pvt Ltd, Jitu Virwani, CMD of Embassy Group, Niranjan Hiranandani , MD of Mumbai-based Hiranandani Group.

It said the court may appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court for supervising the resolution framework finalised by the proposed board of directors.

"That this court may allow the proposed board of directors to appoint key managerial persons, professionals (legal, insolvency, financial advisors, real estate professionals, etc) for assisting the government appointed board and payment of requisite professional fees including the legal fees, thereof from the company accounts," the Centre's note said.

It also sought directions to the promoters, the present management of the company, forensic auditors, asset reconstruction companies, banks and financial institutions and state governments to extend cooperation to the proposed board of directors.

"That this court may issue directions to restrain the promoters from alienating, mortgaging, creating charge or lien or interest in the movable and immovable properties owned by them," the government said, adding, services of the committee headed by Justice S N Dhingra, appointed to sell the company's assets, be put on rest.

The government also sought immunity for the proposed directors in respect of the numerous litigations pending across the country, involving the company, management and its promoters.

It also sought permission for the proposed board of directors to raise funds due from the home buyers, sell the unsold inventory, monetising the unencumbered assets for completion of the stalled projects.

"That this court recognizes and directs that without any prejudice to any order, the government has the right to refer the company to liquidation or Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), like resolution outside the framework of IBC, in case the assigned takeover is not viable in the absence of requisite resources, the government said.

On December 18, last year, the top court had asked the Centre if it was agreeable to revisit its 2017 proposal as there is urgent need for the projects of Unitech Ltd. to be taken up by a specialised agency, so as to ensure completion in a time bound schedule in the interest of the home buyers.

The top court had said, "Since the Union of India withdrew the application which it had submitted before the NCLT only for the reason that this Court was seized of the present proceedings, we are of the view that the Union of India should revisit the original proposal in the interests of home buyers and consider appointing independent Directors for the takeover of the management of Unitech Limited".

It had said that these deliberations may be conducted at the highest level and Attorney General K K Venugopal should apprise the court by January 15, about the modalities which have been worked out.

In 2017, the Centre had moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking suspension of the current directors and an order of restraint on the alienation of assets by Unitech Ltd.

The NCLT in its order December 8, 2017, issued interim directions for suspension of directors of Unitech Ltd and restrained them from alienating, mortgaging, creating charge or lien or interest in the properties owned by them personally or that of the company till the conclusion of investigation.

However, the top court on December 13, 2017, stayed the NCLT's December 8, 2017 order and later the Centre agreed to withdraw its application from the tribunal.

In 2018, the apex court had directed a forensic audit of Unitech Ltd and its sister concerns and subsidiaries by Samir Paranjpe, Partner, Forensic and Investigation Services in M/s Grant Thornton India.

The forensic auditors have also submitted their report which said that Unitech Ltd received around Rs 14,270 crores from 29,800 home buyers mostly between 2006-2014 and around Rs 1,805 crores from six financial institutions for the construction of 74 projects.

The audit revealed that around Rs 5,063 crore of home buyers money and around Rs 763 crores of fund received from financial institutions were not utilized by the company and high value investments were made off-shore tax-haven countries between 2007-2010.

The top court ordered investigation into the omission and commission of promoters of Unitech Ltd under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Unitech promoters Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay Chandra are currently lodged in Tihar jail for allegedly siphoning off homebuyers' money.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 6:32:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Jan 17 :  The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Congress MP Karti Chidambaram to withdraw the Rs 20 crore which was deposited with the apex court registry as a condition for allowing him to travel abroad.

The apex court in January and May 2019 had granted Karti Chidambaram permission to travel to foreign countries after depositing Rs 10 crore each respectively with the registry.

When the matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there was no objection from the Enforcement Directorate to the plea seeking withdrawal of the amount since he has returned.

Taking note of the submission, the bench also comprising justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant said Karti can withdraw the said amount since he has already returned.

The condition was imposed by the apex court after the ED had opposed his plea for travel abroad.

On May 7, the top court had allowed Karti to travel to the United Kingdom, the US, France, Germany and Spain in May and June this year.

Karti has been facing ED cases in INX media and Aircel maxis matters.
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 5:33:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Aug 7    :   The Supreme Court on Wednesday commenced hearing on the second day of the politically-sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation have failed.

Senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the case, commenced arguments on the second day before a five judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Nirmohi Akhara had on Tuesday strongly pitched in the Supreme Court for control and management of the entire disputed 2.77-acre land, saying Muslims had not been allowed to enter the place since 1934.

The bench -- also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer -- had last Friday taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, have not resulted in any final settlement.                                     [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 9:33:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Jun 25  :   The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to entertain a plea by the Gujarat Congress challenging the Election Commission's decision to hold separate bypolls to two Rajya Sabha seats in the state.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B R Gavai, however, granted liberty to the Gujarat Congress to file 'election petition' after conclusion of polls to the two Rajya Sabha seats vacated by Union Ministers Amit Shah and Smriti Irani.

An election petition is a procedure to call into question the election results of parliamentary, Assembly or local elections.

The two Rajya Sabha seats fell vacant after Shah and Irani got elected the Lok Sabha from Gujarat's Gandhinagar and Uttar Pradesh's Amethi, respectively.

The plea was filed by Congress MLA and Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Assembly Pareshbhai Dhanani.

The Election Commission had clarified that the vacancies for bypolls to all Houses, including the Rajya Sabha, are considered "separate vacancies" and separate notifications are issued and separate polls are held, though the schedule can be the same.

In his plea, Dhanani had sought a direction to quash and declare the poll panel's order as "unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio" and said it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

He had submitted that the poll panel be directed to hold simultaneous by-elections and polling for filling of all vacancies in all states, including Gujarat.

The MLA, through his lawyer, had submitted that separate elections for the two Rajya Sabha seats in Gujarat would upset the scheme of proportional representation as mandated under the Representation of People Act.

In the petition, it is stated that the basic principle, both under the Constitution and Representation of People Act 1951, is that if regular vacancies are existing at the time when the election is held, it should be held together so that the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote can be applied to those elections.

In the 182-member House in Gujarat Assembly, the BJP has 100 members and the Opposition-led by Congress 75 members, while seven seats are vacant.

The Congress had alleged that the action of the Election Commission was completely tainted with arbitrariness, malafide, partisanship and has been taken in an extremely hasty manner to pre-empt and impede the minority party in the state Assembly to elect a member for the Council of States.

It had also alleged that the BJP, running the government at the Centre, has used the Election Commission's Office for its political propaganda.

The EC had on June 15 cited two Delhi High Court rulings of 1994 and 2009 which had supported the system of holding separate bypolls in the same state under provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

The Congress had demanded that the bypolls to the two vacant seats in Gujarat be held together as in case of separate elections, the BJP being the ruling party would have an advantage and win both the seats.                                                         [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 10:04:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Jun 19 :  The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Election Commission by June 24 on a plea of the Gujarat Congress, challenging the poll panel's decision to hold separate bypolls to two Rajya Sabha seats in the state.

A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant listed the matter for hearing on June 25, saying the issue required to be heard.

The bench said, "It is not an issue which can be taken up through an election petition and therefore, requires to be heard." 

Senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for the Gujarat Congress, said there were judgments of the Delhi High court which were in their favour.

To this, the bench said, "We are not saying anything for now. We need to decide whether it is a casual vacancy or a statutory vacancy. This matter requires hearing." 

The Rajya Sabha seats fell vacant following the election of BJP chief Amit Shah and Union minister Smriti Irani to the Lok Sabha from Gandhinagar and Amethi respectively.              [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 6:50:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Jun 18 :  The Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to hear on June 19 a plea of Gujarat Congress challenging the decision of the Election Commission to hold separate bypolls to two Rajya Sabha seats in the state.
 
The Rajya Sabha seats fell vacant following the election of BJP chief Amit Shah and party leader Smriti Irani to Lok Sabha from Gandhinagar and Amethi, respectively.

A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant agreed to list the matter on Wednesday after senior advocate Vivek Tankha mentioned it for urgent hearing.

The petition filed by Congress MLA from Amreli and Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Assembly, Pareshbhai Dhanani, has sought a direction to the EC to hold the bypolls together.

A press note issued by the poll panel on June 15 scheduled the election for both the seats on July 5.

The EC clarified that the vacancies for bypolls to all Houses, including Rajya Sabha, are considered "separate vacancies" and separate notifications are issued and separate polls are held, though the schedule can be the same.

Shah has been given the charge of Union Home Ministry and Irani Women and Child Development Ministry.

In his plea, Dhanani has sought a direction to quash and declare the poll panel's order as "unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio" and said it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

He submitted that the poll panel be directed to hold simultaneous by-elections and polling for filling of all vacancies in all states, including Gujarat.

The MLA, through his lawyer, submitted that separate elections for the two Rajya Sabha seats in Gujarat would upset the scheme of proportional representation as mandated under the Representation of People Act.

In the petition, it is stated that the basic principle, both under the Constitution and Representation of People Act 1951, is that if regular vacancies are existing at the time when the election is held, it should be held together so that the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote can be applied to those elections.

The petition contended that if the Election Commission is given a free hand to issue one or more notification with respect to vacancies in Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and if separate elections are held for the same purpose, it may result in abuse of power in as much as the majority party will always be able to arrange the matters in such a way that it gets maximum seats.

In the 182-member House in Gujarat Assembly, BJP has 100 members and the Opposition-led by Congress 75 members, while seven seats are vacant.

The Congress MLA also alleged that the poll panel has "arbitrarily, malafidely, maliciously and under the diktats of the incumbent government" invoked its residuary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and arbitrarily issued the June 15 press note declaring separate elections for the Council of States, where it stated that the vacancies for by-elections to all Houses, including the Rajya Sabha, are considered as separate vacancies and separate notifications are issued and separate poll is taken for each of the vacancies although the programme schedule for the by-elections may be common.

The Congress alleged that the action of the Election Commission was completely tainted with arbitrariness, malafide, partisanship and has been taken in an extremely hasty manner to pre-empt and impede the minority party in the state Assembly to elect a member for the Council of States.

It also alleged that the BJP, running the government at the Centre, has used the Election Commission's Office for its political propaganda.

The EC on June 15 also cited two Delhi High Court rulings of 1994 and 2009 which had supported the system of holding separate by-polls in the same state under provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

The Congress had demanded that the by-polls to the two vacant seats in Gujarat be held together as in case of separate elections, the BJP being the ruling party would have an advantage and win both the seats.                                                   [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 7:35:00 PM 0



New Delhi, Jun 14  :  The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea which sought quashing of the answer keys of some questions in the NEET(UG)-2019 examination saying that an expert body has duly applied its mind and revised answers were issued.


The top court, however, allowed the four Hyderabad based students who have challenged the answer keys, to approach the high court for the relief.

It said that courts are not experts in each and every subject and time has come when the interference in this arena should be stopped.

A vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Surya Kant allowed the four medical aspirants to withdraw their plea and granted them liberty to approach the high court with their grievances.

At the outset, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the students, said that wrong answer key were given by the National Testing Agency which conducted the exam on May 5.

He said the five questions having four marks each had more than one correct answers or had an answer which was different from answer key issued by the NTA.

"All multiple choice answers cannot be scrutinized by the this court. We are not experts. We think somewhere some line needs to be drawn," the bench said.

It said that interfering with the answer key would mean that Supreme Court has become an appellate body above the NTA.

The bench said that after the answer keys were issued to the questions asked in the May 5 examination, several students had made representation about the correct answers and subsequently revised answer key were issued.

"We see, an expert body has applied its mind and revised answer key was issued. In some cases, the answers were corrected. There does not seems to be a case of mala fide intent," it said.

Singhvi said that students career will be affected if the answers key were not corrected and suggested that an expert body should be constituted which shall look into the correct answer keys as the counselling is yet to start from June 19. 

"Now a days, there is too much interference going on in this arena which is creating lot of problem," the bench said.

Counsel appearing for another set of students from Kolkata, who have filed a similar plea in Delhi High Court said that their petition was coming up for hearing on June 17.

He said that NTA has initially in its information voucher said that there will be only one answer to the questions in NEET examination but it was later found that a question had more than one answers.

To this, the bench told Singhvi said that it would be appropriate if they approach the high court with their grievances.

Yesterday, the apex court had agreed to hear a plea of medical aspirants, who claimed that the answer key of five questions asked in NEET(UG)-2019 exam was wrong and the paper needs to be quashed.

The petition filed by four Hyderabad-based students -- Kayathi Mohan Reddy and three others through advocate Mahfooz Nazki, said that National Testing Agency (NTA) which conducted the exam issued wrong answer keys and therefore jeopardised the career prospects of the aspirants who sat for the exam.

The exam was conducted on May 5 and the official answer key was issued on May 29 to the questions asked in the examination.

"Upon perusal of the key, the petitioners were shocked to note that answers to a number of questions were demonstrably wrong," the plea said.

The students said they gave the representation about the errors in the official answer key on May 30 and subsequently on June 5, a revised answer key was published.

"Pertinently, no option was given to the candidates to file any objections. To the shock and chagrin of the petitioners, not only did the key continue to have errors, some answers that had been correctly notified earlier, stood changed to a wrong answer," the petition said.

"...it is thus ex-facie evident that the whole exercise of examination conducted by the respondent no. 1 (NTA) is grossly illegal, arbitrary and impinges upon the constitutional and fundamental rights of the Petitioners herein and is vitiated in terms of the law laid down by this Court", it said.

The plea said, "The respondents have not only failed to rectify the defects/errors in the question papers but have also refused to accept any representations sought to be made by the petitioners in respect of the revised key. The whole process is, therefore vitiated and is liable to be set aside".                                                                 [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 1:59:00 PM 0


New Delhi, April 12 :  The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging the Election Commission's ban on the release of biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A bench headed by Chief Justice said it will hear the plea filed by producers of the biopic. 

The poll panel had on Wednesday banned the screening of the biopic during poll period, saying any such film that subserves purpose of any political entity or individual should not be displayed in the electronic media. 

The apex court had on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by a Congress activist seeking stay on the release of the biopic, saying the Election Commission was the right forum to decide the issue.

The top court had left it for the EC to take a call by saying that since the movie was not certified at that time by the Censor Board it could not entertain the petition seeking ban on the film.

Later on Tuesday evening the Censor Board had certified the biopic and the Congress activist on Wednesday succeeded in securing a ban on its release from the Election Commission.        [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 6:42:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Mar 29 :  The Supreme Court Friday granted two more months to the Special Investigation Team to complete its probe into 186 cases of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and S Abdul Nazeer extended the time after the SIT informed it that more than 50 per cent of the work has been done and it wanted two more months to complete the investigation.

The apex court also issued notice to parties on a plea by petitioner S Gurlad Singh Kahlon, a member of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, seeking inquiry into role of 62 policemen named in the riots.

The apex court had on January 11 last year constituted the SIT headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice S N Dhingra and comprising retired IPS officer Rajdeep Singh and serving IPS officer Abhishek Dular to supervise further probe into the 186 riots cases, in which closure reports had been filed earlier.

However, the SIT presently has only two members as Singh had declined to be a part of the team on "personal grounds".

Large-scale riots had broken out in the national capital in the aftermath of the assassination of the then prime minister Indira Gandhi by her two Sikh security guards on the morning of October 31, 1984. The violence had claimed 2,733 lives in Delhi alone.        [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 4:40:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Feb 21 :  The Supreme Court Thursday said that it would consider listing of a plea seeking review of its verdict in the Rafale case.

The apex court on December 14 last year dismissed a clutch of PILs, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, saying there was "no occasion to doubt" the decision-making process of the Centre in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said four applications or petitions have been filed in the Rafale matter and one of them is still lying with the registry on account of defect.

"The combination (of the judges) of bench will have to be changed. It is very difficult. We will do something for it," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when Bhushan sought urgent listing of the petitions in the Rafale case. 

Bhushan said that the review petition filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh was defective and other petitions had no defects to be cured.

He also said that besides the review petition, an application seeking perjury prosecution against some central government employees for giving misleading information to the court has also been filed. 

Besides Bhushan, Sinha and Shourie had moved the Supreme Court Monday seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the high-profile Rafale case.                                [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 1:14:00 PM 0



New Delhi, Feb 20 :  The Supreme Court of India Wednesday held RCom chairman Anil Ambani guilty of contempt of court for wilfully violating its order by not paying Rs 550-crore dues to Telecom equipment maker Ericsson

The apex court held that the RCom chiarman and Reliance Telecom chairman Satish Seth and Reliance Infratel chairperson Chhaya Virani breached the undertaking given to the apex court and the related orders

The apex court said the RCom chairman and others will have to purge the contempt by paying Rs 453 crore to Ericsson in four weeks

A bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman and Vineet Saran said if the contemnor failed to make the payments within the specified period, they will undergo a jail term of three months

The apex court also directed Reliance Communication, Reliance Telecommunication and Reliance Infratel to deposit Rs 1 crore each to the apex court's registry in four weeks or the chairman of these companies will have to go an additional jail term of one month

It directed that Rs 118 crore already deposited by Reliance Group in the apex court's registry be disbursed to Ericsson within a week

"From undertakings given by Reliance Group's top brass, it appears they have wilfully not paid the amount to Ericsson despite orders and undertakings given," it said

The apex court specified that any unconditional apology given by Reliance needs to be rejected as they have breached the undertaking and order

The bench said the three Reliance companies did not adhere to the 120-day deadline and the extra 60 days given by the apex court to pay Rs 550 crore to Ericsson

It said the undertakings given in the court was false to the knowledge of the court and affected the administration of justice

Ambani, Seth and Virani were present in the courtroom.                        [Agencies]
Read more »

Hello Jammu News at 5:31:00 PM 0


New Delhi, Feb 14 : The Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory in the tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench

A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on their views on disputes pertaining to the anti-corruption branch, setting up of commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of pubic prosecutors. 

The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government

The top court also said that instead of the LG, the Delhi government will have the right to appoint public prosecutors or law officers.                   PTI
Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)