- "These are allegations and I will file my reply before the Supreme Court soon," Johri told Newsline.
- Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramaniam had on Thursday alleged that Johri had "let down" the probe being monitored by the Supreme Court, by 'conniving with the state to create false records'.
- Subramaniam, an amicus curiae (a lawyer assisting the court) in the matter, urged the court to hand over the investigation to the CBI.
- Sohrabuddin Sheikh was killed in an alleged fake encounter on November 26, 2005, by a joint-team of the Gujarat Anti Terrorist Squad and the Special Task Force of Rajasthan Police. His wife Kausarbi went missing after the incident. The Gujarat government later accepted before the Supreme Court that Kausarbi was also killed and her body disposed off by the accused. A total of 13 policemen were arrested in the case.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
- The Jaipur-based NGO has been asked to explain its stand or its interest in seeking the custody of the newly born child.
- The court also asked the police not to interfere in the matter and added that it can’t forcibly take the baby away.
- Earlier, SATYA had filed a habeas corpus petition in the Jaipur High Court, claiming that in the absence of a surrogacy law in the country the legitimacy of the baby cannot be claimed by anyone.
- The Surrogacy Bill is pending in Parliament, but according to governing laws, parents have to adopt their surrogate child and adoption laws make it difficult for single fathers to adopt girls.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Supreme Court had pulled up Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and Shipping Minister T.R. Baalu Aug 4 for indeterminately delaying their counters to a contempt notice issued Oct 1, 2007.
The court threatened to issue arrest warrants in the event of a further failure to respond to the notice.
The apex court had initiated suo motu action after the state government organised a shutdown to protest against the judiciary's 'interference in legislative preserves of elected representatives with regard to the Sethusamudram Project'.
Karunanidhi called off his hunger strike after the Supreme Court came out strongly against him and wondered if there was a constitutional breakdown in Tamil Nadu.
Monday, September 15, 2008
- Prasad and others, including former chief minister Ajit Jogi’s son Amit Jogi, are facing trial for allegedly planning the sting operation on Judeo in 2005 allegedly to derive political mileage. Appearing for Prasad, senior advocate Harish Salve said if his client was to be prosecuted for conducting the sting on Judeo, then the other TV channels which showed the sting operations relating cash-for-query and cash-for-vote should also be liable to be prosecuted.
- Justice Katju said he was all for sting operations, which were the only way to expose corrupt elements. “How can those carrying out sting (operations) against the corrupt be booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act?” he asked.
- Coming in defence of those who conduct sting operations to expose corruption, Justice Katju said: “There is no intention to commit a crime. How can they be equated with criminals.”
- A Supreme Court judge on Friday defended the use of sting operations by journalists to expose corruption in the society.
- During the hearing of a case a relating to a sting operation against former Union Minister and BJP leader Dilip Singh Judeo, Justice Markandey Katju said: “I totally agree with sting operations. There should be more sting operations. Corrupt elements can be brought to light by these sort of operations.”
Katju’s remarks contrast the approach of another bench headed by Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, which has been insisting on an “unconditional apology” from a TV channel reporter who exposed corruption in subordinate courts in Gujarat through a sting operation.
The reporter had obtained bailable warrants from an Ahmedabad court against four prominent persons including then President APJ Abdul Kalam and then Chief Justice of India in 2004.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
- The Supreme Court has declared that the right of Indian property is a legitimate as well as a human right. Somebody cannot be dispossessed of his or her property rights except for the cases where the law allows the same.
- Though the right of property is no more a Fundamental Right but it is still a Constitutional Right. It is a human right too. The court will not interpret a condition favoring such dispossession, if any clear provision or if necessary inference is absent, as observed by the apex court.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
- On Aug 13, the Supreme Court had issued bailable warrants against the Ansal brothers on an allegation that they were manipulating the judicial system and delaying the disposal of their appeal against their conviction while out on bail.
A person facing a bailable arrest warrant is entitled to bail by the investigative agency asked to execute the warrants. He is let off immediately after he furnishes a personal bond with some sureties to abide by the orders of the court, which issues the warrant.
A person facing a non-bailable arrest warrant, however, gets bail only from a court of law.
Friday, September 5, 2008
- He expressed the belief that the court will not come in the way of the liberty the parents enjoy as far as choosing the kind of education and medium of instruction their wards need to have.
- Earlier, the High Court had upheld the right of the private unaided schools in the state to choose the medium of the instruction of their liking, duly quashing a part of the government order making it compulsory for the schools to adopt Kannada as the medium of instruction.
- Taking strong exception to the insinuation by members of Boss music school against Bombay high court judges, the Supreme Court on Friday issued contempt notice to them with a warning that failure to respond within 10 days would lead to their arrest.
- Leila David and Annette Kotian, members of Vasai-based Boss Music School, had filed petitions seeking arrest of 10 HC judges for allegedly not hearing their matter “in a free and fair manner”.
- “If you don’t reply on or before September 10 you will be arrested and produced before the court and you will not be released,” the bench said. The two women, who argued their case themselves, refused to withdraw the charges against the judges.
- The judges also took exception to their plea that the CJI should withdraw from the bench hearing their petition. “That I will decide. Choose your words carefully otherwise you have to face the consequences,” CJI Balakrishnan told them.
- “We have perused the allegations which are very serious in nature. We have spent time on the two petitions. The allegations amount to contempt of court,” the CJI added.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
- Justice Balakrishnan said the media were a sentinel of democratic freedom. It was the responsibility of every person associated with the media to act responsibly with a sense of duty towards society and the nation. In fact, journalists were “vigilant watchdogs of civil liberties.” The right of the media to report court proceedings emanated from the right of the citizen to know. The media also had the duty to report fairly, objectively and accurately. He said the media should be wary of allowing itself to become a vehicle for exerting “mass pressure” as opposed to a “mere expression of mass opinion.”
- If the media prints or broadcasts content that unjustly maligns an individual, there are laws in place to deal with slander and defamation.
In number of cases, the judges reserve their judgments after hearing the arguments in the case and deliver the judgment after some time.
- A bench of Justice Altmas Kabir suspended a Delhi High Court ruling, which had scrapped their prosecution under penal laws but had allowed it under the new information technology law.
- The apex court bench halted the trial on a lawsuit by Bajaj who challenged the high court ruling. The high court allowed his prosecution under section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for violating section 67 of the law, which prohibits publishing obscene information in electronic form.
- Challenging the Delhi High Court ruling, Bajaj contended in his petition that mere listing of a product for sale could not be termed as crime under the IT Act.
- Bajaj in his petition also argued that the term "obscenity" is not defined in the IT Act and accordingly no liability can be fixed on him for listing the 2.37-minute video clip even if it was obscene.
- When senior advocate Colin Gonzalves mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner to move to the Orissa High Court.
- However, the petitioner contended before the court that it is not possible as he feels there is a threat to his life there.
- The apex court also asked the state government to put on affidavit whether any permission was granted to VHP leader Praveen Togadia for his proposed Yatra carrying the ash of slain leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.
- India's Supreme Court yesterday told Orissa's government to submit a report on steps taken to protect Christians, after the Archbishop of Cuttack filed a petition demanding compensation for victims and a federal investigation of the riots.
- The Orissa government today told the Supreme Court that it has deployed federal and state police in the riot-hit districts and no violence had taken place in the last few days.
- The state government won't allow any rally by the Hindu group, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Orissa government advocate, K.K. Venugopal, told the court. The group's leader, Pravin Togadia, planned a rally on Sept. 7 to carry the mortal remains of the slain religious leader.
- ``The people in the camps should be protected. Steps should be taken to maintain peace and communal harmony in the state,'' Supreme Court Chief Justice, K.G. Balakrishnan, said.
- The attacks are the second outbreak of unrest in Orissa since December, which underlines the need for the government to develop preventive strategies, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said in a statement posted on its Web site.
- Ordinary people are living in an atmosphere of fear and they feel helpless in the face of a menacing underworld. And they expect the state to establish order and ensure the safety of life and property of people.
- The apex court has said that the state has the right to make special laws to combat special organised crimes such as extortion, gun-running, money-laundering, terrorism and insurgency. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had struck down those very provisions on the ground that they violated the Central Telegraph Act.
- The judgment is being welcomed as something that will enable the police to track down those involved with the underworld and in activities that threaten our social fabric. It will surely help in bringing to book subversive elements bent on destroying public peace.
- There is a need to state explicitly the axioms of law — presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, the inviolability of fundamental rights — because the police force continues the colonial legacy of presuming guilt of the accused person. The very availability of laws which give unhindered power to the police makes the careful monitoring of those laws imperative.
- This problem is not confined to India and from the hidden US prisons of Guantanamo Bay to the human rights abuses of China, we have to fight the abuse of the power of law. The Supreme Court has allowed telephone-tapping in extreme cases. This ought not to become a licence to trample over individual rights and to harass those whose innocence is still within reasonable doubt.
- It is of utmost importance that the state should protect the life and property of citizens, but it cannot be armed with unqualified power that it can misuse to traumatise those very citizens. The tendency of the police to believe and act as agents of an absolutist state needs to be disabused. In a democracy, the state is under watch as well.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan, Justices RV Raveendran and MK Sharma said that special law is essential in dealing with increasing terrorism and organised crime. State Governments are responsible for cracking down organised crimes in their respective territories. It can not wait for the Central Government to come up with the special laws in restricting the mushrooming crimes.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
"They are doing their part of work. By giving orders can a court stop flood," the Bench, also comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal, observed.
"You all want publicity," the Bench said refusing to give urgent hearing to the petition filed by NGO, Yuva Shakti.
The NGO had sought appointment of an independent committee headed by a retired apex court or High Court judge to assess the nature of casualty. It suggested the inquiry could even be handed over to the National Human Rights Commission.
Monday, September 1, 2008
THE SUPREME Court of India on August 8, passed a very commendable verdict that if a police officer does not lodge your FIR, then your complaint against him might send him to jail. But, it is still not very clear that how effective the verdict is.
It was said that the police officers who fail to register a case or lodge an FIR may now even have to face imprisonment for their ’inaction’. Besides being jailed for abdicating his duty, the erring cop could even face contempt of court apart from departmental enquiry.
However, this news should reach the citizens through various form of media so that they are aware and able to fight for their rights.
The said directive has effectively empowered the citizen, who, after being refused registration of his complaint, can approach the magistrate, seeking directions to the police to lodge an FIR and also make a copy available to him within 24 hours of the order. The magistrate can also direct the police ’to take immediate actions for apprehending the accused or recovery of kidnapped persons and properties’ within a specified time.
The court said, "In case, FIRs are not registered on time or steps are not taken by the police, the magistrate concerned would be justified in initiating contempt proceedings against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders and award stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them."
Indeed, it is a positive sign towards the establishment of justice system. Certainly, there is a need to bring more such legislations that will establish faith in common people.
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or any single body cannot do miracle towards the welfare of the people. Power must come to the hand of the citizens, directly or indirectly.
- Majority of states have agreed with the Supreme Court to “crack the whip” on police officers who refuse to register FIRs but some argued for a preliminary inquiry mechanism before formal registration of FIRs.
- Orissa, Maharashtra, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Chandigarh said the apex court’s order to take errant police officials to task for not registering FIRs was fine with them but it needed certain safeguards and modifications.
- Arguing for insertion of a preliminary inquiry mechanism, the states said such an inquiry before registration of complaint would prevent people from resorting to false or vindictive FIRs just to harass others, apart from testing, prima facie, the truthfulness of the complaints.
- These states said experience showed that in three categories of cases — economic, matrimonial and eloped marriage — a preliminary inquiry helps parties to compromise as they realise the futility of proceeding with a police case that would culminate in a trial and hardship to both complainant and the accused.
- Moreover, keeping the sword of contempt of court hanging over the heads of police officers for refusal to file FIR would bring undue pressure on them to register whatever complaint comes their way without even testing their veracity, the states said.
- Last month, the apex court had said that officials in India only understood the “crack of a whip” and ruled that a policeman refusing to register FIR could face contempt of court charges and cool their heels in jail if they failed to give cogent reasons for non-registration of FIR.
- Providing a detailed mechanism to make police accountable, the court had said if the police refused to register an FIR, the aggrieved person could move the area chief judicial magistrate with a complaint against the officer.
- “The chief judicial magistrate or the chief metropolitan magistrate, as the case may be, shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of a complaint petition and give direction to institute a case within a specified timeframe,” it had said.
- If the police fail to act even after that, “the CJM or CMM shall not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown is found to be unsatisfactory”, the court had said.
- Moreover, the CJM or CMM court shall intimate the disciplinary authority “at once by fax as well” about the errant officer, who would be “immediately placed under suspension pending departmental proceedings”.
- In India, even God cannot help. He will be a silent spectator as He will also feel helpless" — this observation came from the on Tuesday as it expressed its frustration over the reluctance of the Centre and state governments to take tough measures against bureaucrats and others unauthorisedly overstaying in government accommodation.
- A law, however tough, could never be implemented if the government was not keen on it.
- The whole government machinery is corrupt. We may lay down the law, but who will implement it? It has to be done by the clerks. The secretaries and joint secretaries have no guts to go against the clerks. The law is there, the statute is there, but the governments have become non-functional.