Initiate contempt proceedings against CBI : Gujarat to SC

In a hearing relating to the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin, the Gujarat government today told the Supreme Court that CBI is giving communal twist to the case.

The state went on to say that it was wrong on the part of CBI to cast aspersions on lower Judiciary in Gujarat. The CBI officers had alleged that prosecuters and magistrate in the trial court trying Sohrabuddin encounter case were relatives of Amit Shah, who is one of the accused in the case.

The bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Desai slammed the CBI for making allegations against the judiciary in Gujarat just for ensuring the transfer of trial of Shorabuddin fake encounter case outside Gujarat

The bench observed, "...to suggest that judiciary even at the lower level is trying to favour politicians is complete non- sense. To systematise the judiciary and say it is toeing the political line, we disapprove it. We will protect the judiciary, though one or two individual may commit mistakea..."

The Gujarat government objected to CBI affidavit asking the apex court to initiate contempt proceedings against the CBI

Delhi HC notice to SC, AG and SG on a petition asking that all the advocates be allowed to practice before the apex court

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to Supreme Court, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Supreme Court bar association and Advocate on Record association on a petition filed by Balraj Singh Malik asking for abolishing Supreme Court rules which provided that a petition can only be filed through an Advocate on Record.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice R S Endlaw issued the notice after the petition prayed that in the light of the notification of Section 30 of the Advocates Act on 15th June 2011. The notification provides that each and every advocate enrolled in any state bar council shall be entitled to practice before any court throughout India including the apex court.

The petition also prayed before the court to declare Rule 2,4 and 6B of order IV Supreme Court rules. These rules provide that only an Advocate on Record can practice before the Supreme Court.

Jethmalani demolishes CBI claim that Prajapati was eyewithness of Sohrabuddin encounter

Amit Shah's lawyer Ram Jethmalani today demolished the CBI claim that Tulsiram Prajapati was an eyewitness to the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. While advancing his arguments before a bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Desai accused the CBI of fabricating evidebce to implicate former Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah.

Continuing his arguments through out the day, Jethmalani ridiculed CBI by saying ''...These fabricators of evidence do not know what they have done to their case. They have been misleading the court all along. Tulsiram Prajapati was not with Sohrabuddin but he was in a jail in Rajasthan...''.

While citing the letters written by Prajapati to NHRC, Jethmalani claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that Prajapati was an eyewitness to the encounter. He also referred that the statement of Azam Khan, on which the CBI is relying heavily, saying that Azam Khan should have been a defence withness. Azam Khan in his statement had told the CBI that Prajapati felt guily and responsible for the death of Sohrabudding. And according to Jethmalani this statement of Azam Khan does not indicate that Prajapati was an eyewitness.

Defending his client Amit Shah, Jethmalani also accused Patel Brothers of misleading Gujarat Police. ''...There was an incident of firing at the office of Patel brothers and they know Sohrabuddin was behind it but they never informed the police about it. Sohrabuddin wanted to recover some money and he wanted to terrify Patel Brother rather than killing them. This is an absurd argument that Amit Shah arranged that firing so that can be used as a justification for encountering Sohrabuddin...'' argued Jethmalani.

During the arguments, Jethmalani also placed before the court various judgments of the apex court. According to these judgments bail and no the jail is the golden rule for Criminal Jurisprudence in India.

Hearing in the matter shall continue on Wednesday.

Important matters coming up for hearing in Supreme Court on 21.11.2011

Court 1/34 Democratic Youth Federation vs Union of India
Court 2/6 Webb construction vs UOI (fresh)
Court 3/12 Manjeet Singh Bhatia vs UOI (fresh)
Court 4/205 S D Bandi vs div traffic commissioner (illegal occupation of govt bunglows)
Court 6/50 Ghodawat Pan Masala vs UOI (might be related to Gutkha packaging case)
Court 7/201 KG Dhananjay Chauhan vs UOI (Kargil procurement scam)
Court 8/40 Delhi Wakf Board vs UOI
Court 10/9 BR Lall & ors vs UOI (fresh)
Court 11/3 Sanjeev Awasthi vs UOI Court 11/206 -- Delhi Industries Confederation vs UOI

(Note : Issues in fresh PILs will be known after the hearing)

Important matters coming up for hearing in #SupremeCourt on 9.11.2011

Court 3/101 Bombay Blasts of 1993
Court 4/1 Devender Pal singh Bhullar v/s NCT Delhi
Court 7/2 CBI V/S Afzal Ansari.
Court 11/101 Sushil Ansal v/s CBI

<a href="http://www.blogadda.com" title="Visit blogadda.com to discover Indian blogs"> <img src="http://www.blogadda.com/images/blogadda.png" width="80" height="15" border="0" alt="Visit blogadda.com to discover Indian blogs" /></a>

Swami Agnivesh gets a scolding from Supreme Court

While hearing a petition of Swami Agnivesh for quashing a FIR against him, a Supreme Court bench of Justice H L Dattu observed "...U can't take sentiments of ordinary people for granted. You should weigh your words before you speaks.."

The bench asked pointed questions to Swami Agnivesh's lawyers. Court also asked why should they interfere in the matter at this stage. "...These people will be careful in future. if we start quashing charges then they will not realise. One makes a statement, its printed and widely circulated. You achieved ur purpose now you realise..."

Agnivesh had approached Supreme Court for quashing the charges against him for hurting religious sentiments of people and proceedings pending in Haryana court. Agnivesh had made certain statements against amarnath yatra.

Court adjourned the case for Monday after Senior Advocate Gopal subramaniam requested to file an affidavit by swami.

Important matters coming up for hearing in #SupremeCourt on 08.11.2011

Court 1/34 Maninderjit Singh Bitta (High security number plates issue)
Court 1/35 Fresh PIL
Court 6/60 Naz foundation (Decriminalisation of section 377 that is un natural sex)
Court 11/1 State of Bihar v/s State of Jharkhand (issue of membership of BCCI)
Court 11/13. Swami Agnivesh v/s State of Haryana (matter relating to his comments on Amarnath yatra)

#SupremeCourt to look into the issue of amendment in rules for appointing members of SEBI

The Supreme Court has decided to look into the issue of amendments in the rules governing the appointment of members to the Securities and Exchange Board of India.


A PIL challenging these appointment had recently been filed in the apex court. The court earlier had asked the petitioners to withdraw the petition and refile it without allegations against Union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee.


The PIL, filed by retired air marshal S. Krishnaswamy and others, also sought to annul the appointment of U.K. Sinha as SEBI chairman.

The amendment allowed Mukherjee toappoint two members “of his own choosing”.

The petitioners said this would compromise SEBI’s functioning as its top officials need to be experts with requisite qualifications, which were not prescribed by the amendment.


A bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia posted it for further hearing after Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium started his arguments in the case. The matter shall be heard on November 21st.

SEBI has been surrounded by controversy recently. Former SEBI board member K.M. Abraham wrote a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh alleging irregularities.

SC notice to all the states on criminal cases on MPs

#SupremeCourt issues notice to all the state on a petition filed by former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh.

In his petition before the apex court, Lyngdoh prayed that cases againt the Parliamentarians should be fast tracked

Hearing the matter, a bench headed by Justice P Sathasivam observed that the information proviced in the petition is very disturbing that out of 543 MPs, 162 are facing criminal cases.

Notice has been issues and is returnable in 4 weeks.

Important matters coming up for hearing in Supreme Court on 04.11.2011

Following are the important matters coming up for hearing in Supreme Court on November 4, 2011

Court 1/31 (Fresh PIL) S. Krishnaswamy v/s Ministry of Finance before Justice S H Kapadia
Court 2/12 (Writ Petition fresh) Justice Dharmveer Sharma v/s Union of India before a bench of Justice Altamas kabir and Justice S S Nijjar
Court 5/9. (Fresh PIL) J.M. Lyngdoh v/s Union of India (Matter relating to criminalization of politics and Electoral Reforms in India) before the bench of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Jasti Chelameswar
Court 6/55 (Fresh PIL) P.V. Krishnaiah v/s state of A.P. before a bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice Ranjana Desai
Court  12/301 (@ 2 pm) Ram Lila Maidan Incident before Justice B S Chauhan and Justice Swatantra Kumar

SC stays EC proceedings against Ashok Chavan

Supreme Court stays proceedings before Election Commission against former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Ashok Chavan.

A bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir also issued notices to BJP, Kirit Somaiya and Election commission on Chawhan's petition asking for a stay of proceedings going on before Election Commission of India.

A complaint before the Election Commission had accused Chavan of filing a false affidavit in the last elections where he undervalued his expenditure on advertisements in the media.

Apearing for Chavan in the apex court, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniun asked the court to stay the proceedings so that the matter could be decided by the Supreme Court.

Apearing for one of the parties, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar tried to convince the court not to stay the proceedings before the Election Commission. ''...The matter is listed for hearing before the Election Commission tomorrow...'' argued Kumar.

Not convinced by the Kumar's arguments the court stayed the proceedings before the Election Commission, the court listed the matter for hearing on December 2nd.

Important Matters in the #SupremeCourt on 2nd November 2011

Court 3/104. Shushil Ansal v/s CBI (Uphaar case)
Court 5/101. 1993 Bombay Blast case
Court 6/69 Gutkha Issue (Ban on plastic pouches)

Supreme Court warns newspapers of misreporting proceedings of 2G case

Supreme Court expressed deep anguish on misreporting of 2G case bail proceedings by print media without naming a particular big English language newspaper.

Yesterday the court had just asked the CBI to tell if the agency had said in the lower court that they had no objection to the grant of bail to five accused in 2G scam. But the papers reported that SC had asked why the agency had taken two different stands on 2G bail.

Warning the papers to report in a proper manner, Justice G S Singvi observed that they are in serious trouble and we are heading towards that.

Justice Singvi also mentioned in his order that the misreporting of the Supreme Court proceedings should not influence the lower court judge in any way while deciding the bail of the accused in 2G scam.

The CBI also infored that the agency did not oppose the bail of five of the accused as they have been charged with different sections. Justice Singhvi said that no one can question the right of the investigating agency and the public prosecutor on their decision on this.

The bench is hearing the bail applications of five corporates accused in 2G scam and the court has reserved the judgment in this case.

Important matter in the Supreme Court on 1st Nov 2011

Court 1/9 (pil.04) Center for PIL v/s UOI.
Court 2/21 (pil) Arvind Sharma v/s UOI
Court 3/104 (Uphaar Case) Sushil Ansal v/s CBI
Court 5/101 Bombey Blast (93) hearing starts
Court 6/40 Mirchpur violence case
Court 6/301 (3.50 pm) Bail matters of corporates accused in 2G scam Sanjay Chandra, Vinod Goenka, Hari Nair, Gautam Doshi & Surendra Pipara

SC notice on mysterious death of NC worker Yusuf Shah

By Sumit Nagpal

#SupremeCourt issues notice to Central Govt and J K Govt on a petition filed by Prof Bhim Singh asking for a CBI inquiry into the death of National Conference worker Yusuf Shah. Shah died in mysterious circumstances after he visited the house of present Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.

It is alleged that he was acting as a middleman for various politicians to get MLC seats in the state. He allegedly paid money to Abdullahs for getting a MLC seat to a local politician.

The court has asked for the responses in two weeks.

Supreme Court questions Central Govt's Haj Policy

The Supreme Court on Tuesday frowned on the Centre's practise of "politicising" the annual Haj pilgrimage by permitting official delegations to accompany the pilgrims, for which the government offers huge subsidy, saying "it's a bad religious practice". "What kind of practice is this? May be it had political use but It is a bad religious practice. It is not really Haj," a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai observed.

The apex court made the remarks while dealing with the Centre's appeal challenging a Bombay High Court judgement which had directed the ministry of external affairs to allow certain private operators to operate the services of 800 pilgrims out of the 11,000 pilgrims earmarked under the VIP quota subsidised by the government. The bench had on October 10 stayed the high court order.

The apex court on Tuesday, while extending the stay however, minced no words in expressing displeasure at the manner in which VIPs, particularly government officials, go on the pilgrimage at the cost of the state exchequer.

The bench told Attorney General G E Vahanvati and counsel Harris Beeran, appearing for the Centre, that the government must evolve a new policy for Haj next year which would be monitored by the court. 

"We will oversee the policy. We will keep the matter pending till then," the bench said.

Justice Alam pointed out that in the past the "Haj pilgrimage was undertaken by people in their old age at their own costs after discharging all their duties." But now, the government is funding the pilgrimages of even officials and other VIPs which it said is a "bad religious practice.

(Via PTI)

SC notice to UP govt on F1 racing event

#SupremeCourt issues notice to UP govt on a PIL challenging the exemption of entertainment and luxury tax granted to JayPee group which is organising Formula 1 racing event

A bench of Justice D K Jain issued the notice after the counsel for the petitioner raised objections on UP government showing ''favour'' to the JayPee group. The petition alleged that the website of the organisers offered tickets of crores of rupees and the exemption of entertainment tax is not at all justifiled.

The issue shall be taken up for urgent hearing on Friday.

SC reduces the compensation to Uphaar tragedy victims

In a big jolt to Association of victims of Uphaar tragedy, Supreme Court reduced the compensation payable to the victims. The court also absolved MCD and the licensing authority from paying the compensation. The Court however issued some guidelines for cinema halls across the country.
A bench headed by Justice R V Raveendran ruled that Ansals shall have to pay 85% of the compensation and 15 % has to be paid by Delhi Vidyut Board.According to the apex court now the each dead who was more than 20 yrs of age shall be paid an amount of Rs.10 lakh instead of 18 laksh and dead who r less than 20 yrs of age shall be paid 7.5 laks instead of 15 lakh. Punitive damages on Ansals reduced from 2.5 crores to 25 lakh now.
The court went on to issue the guidelines for cinema halls across the country. According to the guidelines, 

• All the cinema hall owners shall have to draw an emergency plan to handle cases such as fire tragedy.
• The cinema hall owners will have to show a short documentary showing how can the patrons go out of the hall in case of emergency. 
• The staff of the cinema halls have to be trained by conducting mock drills atleast once an year. 
• The entry doors of the cinema halls shall not be bolted from outside so that patrons can go outside in case of an emergency. 
• The government shall have to make separate rules for multiplexes.Existing system to Police granting a licence for the cinema halls has to be abolished. 
• The govt will have to create an authority to deal with such things.
• The cinema halls will have to be categorised in three categories as far as fire safety is concerned. Green is good, yellow is moderate and red is poor fire safety compliance.

The Association of the victims of uphaar tragedy  (AVUT) filed a civil writ petition on 28^th July 1997 in the  Supreme Court against 40 respondents which includes Sushil Ansal,Gopal Ansal,companies share holders,staff of uphaar cinema & various  government agencies , but the same was refered to delhi high court. the main prayer in writ of the association is as under:

1. Direct the Union of INDIA to ensure that no cinema hall in the country is allowed to run without LICENCE GRANTED after strictly observing all the mandatory conditions prescribed under the law
2. To award punitive damages against the Respondents to   pay sum of Rs 100 crores jointly or severally to AVUT for the purposes of setting up and augmenting the centralised accident and trauma services and other allied services in the city of Delhi under the supervision of the hon’ble delhi high court.
3. To award damages against the Respondents jointly or severally to all the victims who lost their lives a sum of Rs 11.8 Crores with the directions to equally distribute the same to the first degree heirs of all the victims.
4. Award damages against all the respondents jointly or severally to the tune OF RS 10.3 crores to the injured to be distributed evenly or as may be considered just and proper by the hon’ble court.

Facts you must know about courts reserving judgments!

By : Sumit Nagpal

Never thought that people would be so much interested to know about an aspect which is just a normal procedural thing for all who are associated with court proceeding. Yes! I am talking about court reserving the judgments.

When the bench of Justice G S Singhvi and Justice A K Ganguli reserved its verdict on the petition filed by Subramaniun Swamy asking for a CBI inquiry against the Home Minister P Chidambaram for his alleged role in 2G scam, I was flodded with queries on twitter. People wanted to know why couldn't the court decide the matter the same day? Someone asked what does it mean when we say the judgment has been reserved? I even tried responding to few but gave up as never ending queries were pouring in. So finally writing this to clear the doubts on courts reserving judgments.

Q : What does it mean that the court has reserved its judgment?
A : When a court reserves the judgment, it means the matter has been kept in abeyance for a while. This is done after all the parties have completed their arguments and all the written submissions have been filed in the court.

Q: Why do judges reserve a judgment?
A : The judges reserve a judgment so they can write a judgment. One must understand that a judgment is not a single page order of few lines, the judgment contains the summery of arguments of both the parties, the law of the land, previous judgments on the issue, conclusion and the reasons for arriving on that conclusion. Judges need time to refresh in their memory, the arguments of each party, do research by reading previous judgments and judgments on similar issues in other countries and finally think about the reasons for arriving on a particular conclusion. This entire excersise is very laborious and time consuming.

Q : What is the normal timeframe in which a judgment should ideally be delivered?
A : There is no fixed timeframe for the judges to write judgments but six months is considered to be a reasonable time for passing a judgment. If a judge keeps a judgment reserved for more than six months, any of the party can mention to the Chief Justice about this.

Q : What happens to a reserved judgment if the judge retires?
A : If anything like this happens, the new bench will hear the matter afreash. A judge can not sign/pronounce a judgment after he retires.

Q : Is it necessary for a judge to reserve judgment in every case?
A : No! Its not at all necessary for a judge to reserved judgment in all the cases. Generally the court reserved judgments in cases of extreme public importance, cases which will have greater impact on the polity of India, cases in whcih the courts are laying down some new law etc. In many cases, judges deliver the same day the arguments are complete.

Conclusion

I have tried to answer most of the questions about courts reserving judgments. If anyone of you still feels there is something left, please leave a comment, I will answer that also.

End monitoring of riot cases : Gujarat to SC

The Gujarat government today demanded that the Supreme Court should end monitoring of the Gujarat riot cases as the trial in these cases are going on.The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice D K Jain, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice P Sathasivam however refused to give any relief to the state government saying nothing much will happen in few more months.

While arguing for state government Mukul Rohatagi said ''..why should the monitoring go on now? When the chargesheets in these cases have been filed? The Supreme Court should not stop the monitoring...''

Refusing to give relief for now, Justice D K Jain observed ''...monitoring is gone for quite some time, it is not that we have laid down a new law, nothing will happen in few more months...'' The court however assured Gujarat government that they will consider the plea of ending the monitoring.

The court also pulled up the Special Investigating Team headed by former CBI chief RK Raghvan for changing its stand on video recording of the trial court proceedings in Gulberga Society riot case. The SIT Chief had last year in March had written a letter to the apex court asking its permission to videograph the proceedings but today when asked by the apex court it said there was no need for it.

The court went on to say that they will have to see what was the object of SIT behind this application, suppose their is a supplementary chargesheet?The court is monitoring nine riot cases and the state government wants the monitoring to end.

The court at present is monitoring 10 sensitive cases after the National Human Rights Commission and various NGOs termed the investigations into these to be shoddy and unreliable. The 10 cases being monitored are: Gulberg Society, Ode, Sardarpura, Narodao Gaon, Naroda Patya, Baranpura, Machipith, Tarsali, Pandarwada and Raghavapura.