Custodial Interrogation is required to confront P Chidambaram with the relevant documents and other accused in the case to take the investigation further, Mehta
We are at pre chargesheet case. He is not providing all the documents required for investigation.. certain questions can be answered only when the accused is not under the protective umbrella.., Mehta.
Mere appearance becomes a formality when the accused in under the protective umbrella. This is a serious case..of monumental magnitude, Mehta concludes as he urges the Court to grant 5 days custody of P Chidambaram.
Kapil Sibal begins, informs the Court that co-accused Karti Chidambaram was granted regular bail by Delhi HC, Chartered Accountant Bhaskaraman is also on anticipatory bail.
Other accused, Peter and Indrani Mukherjea are on default bail, Sibal.
This is a case of documentary evidence. The Secretaries recommended the case to the Finance Minister and he approved.. The FIR was filed after 10 years, Sibal
Last night, the CBI said that they wanted to interrogate him... They didn't start the interrogate until 12 noon and asked him only 12 questions... By now they should know what questions to ask. The questions are not ready, Sibal
All co-accused are on bail.. they (prosecution) could have written a letter to me asking for the documents needed for investigation.. why did they not do that?, Sibal
When the judge reserved the Judgement for seven months, is this the 'protective umbrella' that I sought?, Sibal
I have serious objection with the manner in which the accused as dealt with.. What is written in the case diary is not evidence in the case but only to aid in such inquiry or trial, Sibal
P Chidambaram is a called four months after Indrani's statement is recorded in 2018.. for 11-12 months P Chidambaram is not called for interrogation, Singhvi.
To create a reason for custody now, they create a reason that Indrani is now an approver, Singhvi.
She turns approver in 2019 based on the same old statement given in 2018..Singhvi.
You (Prosecution) have not made allegations of tampering of evidence or flight risk against P Chidambaram, Singhvi.
Grant of remand is an exception. Investigating Agency must make out a strong case that without custody further investigation would be impossible, Singhvi reads out a Supreme Court judgement.
Further investigation is going on. We filed an affidavit before HC stating that further investigation under section 173 CrPc is going on. It is our statutory right.There is a need to interrogate, Mehta.
Justifying calling P Chidambaram for interrogation only once, Mehta says,
We had a reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that we may not be able to reach the truth unless the protective umbrella is removed.
The protection was removed only in August 2019 when the Delhi HC said that the gravity of the offense committed by the accused demanded denial of bail, Mehta.
A responsible Prosecution wouldn't reveal the chronology of the questions to be asked. Whatever questions were asked, were recorded.
I cannot be denied my right to interrogate.. it is my duty to the nation, Mehta
We are considering remand..flight risk etc are not relevant.. We are dealing with intelligent people.. we would be failing as Prosecution if we do not reach the root (of the matter), Mehta.
Sibal says he does not want the questions to be made public, only want to ascertain the genuineness of the question.
P Chidambaram permitted to speak.
On June 6, 2018, please ask for the transcript.. there is no question which has not been answered.
The allegation of 5 Million whatever were never put to me. Only asked me if I have a foreign bank account or my son who furnished the details.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka to shortly speak on: Robes cannot be Rented
Organised by Adhivakta Parishad Supreme Court Unit
#SupremeCourt
Justice Abhay S. Oka: When one becomes a judge of a court, any court, and in particular High Court and Supreme Court, apart from Bangalore Principles, apart from any other written norms, the judges are bound by several constraints and restrictions.
Obviously, all those restrictions come in for the purpose of maintaining dignity of the office and upholding the old principles that justice should not only be done, but it should be manifestly seen to be done.
And whether Bangalore Principles or not, we are bound by those constraints.
Justice AS Oka: For example, if as a sitting judge, I was invited by Adhivakta Parishad to speak on its platform, I would have politely said no because my belief was Adhivakta Parishad does have political inclinations.
When a judge demits office, of course, he is not bound by those strict constraints and restrictions which he had as a judge, but I personally believe that being a retired judge of the constitutional court, he must follow certain restraints and constraints. @AdhivaktaP
Supreme Court to hear today plea filed by Assam government challenging the transit anticipatory bail granted to INC leader Pawan Khera in a forgery and criminal conspiracy case
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar
The case was registered against Khera following his recent claims that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife Riniki Bhuyan holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad.
SG Tushar Mehta (for Assam): it’s a case of patent lack of territorial jurisdiction. No averment in the petition why telangana high court. Offence committed in Assam, FIR in Assam. Neither he says why Telangana.
Court: he is saying petitioner wife is staying in Hyderabad.
Mehta: he places on record Aadhar card in page 98 where wife is staying in Delhi. He places both. Which shows even his wife stays in Delhi. Sometimes he keeps travelling. Is this the law? Someone can buy or rent 10 properties in 10 different states. This will qualify as forum choosing. This is abuse of law.
Quaraisha Yeasmin vs Election commission of India: WEST BENGAL SIR APPEAL TRIBUNAL ISSUE
Adv: In some cases Election commission has not even placed the orders before Justice Sivanganam. ECI is not aware of what's happening... Appeals are not being taken up. Let freezing date be extended.
CJI: go before the appellate tribunal and say all this
Adv: If I am not allowed to argue then what's the use? But will appeal be decided within a time frame or keep extending?
CJI: so you want us to put the former chief Justices and judges.. under pressure .
Adv; Those who have addhar and passport.. will be allowed that's what this court has held
Justice Bagchi: Calcutta HC Chief has informed manner and mode of appeals have been formulated. It has started hearing from today. We cannot say hearing x appeals from today
Sr Adv Naidu for ECI: will have always placed all records. Now we are blamed for helping. There are 30 lakh appeals.
#westbengalsir #SupremeCourt
Justice Bagchi: Unless and until there is enormous amount of voters excluded or materially affect the election...the election cannot be cancelled. If 10 percent does not vote and winning margin is more than 10 percent then..
CJI: only academic excercise
Justice Bagchi: if it's less than 5 percent then we have to apply our mind. Earlier a candidate was given primacy before the appellate tribunal because a candidate cannot be denied the right to contest. Please don't think the question is not in our mind that what about those who are excluded !
Justice Bagchi: if an objector files an appeal against inclusion. Then again that person also has to be removed. So we had judicial officers and then appellate tribunals.
Sr Adv Naidu: the court was not even inclined to have the appellate tribunal firstly.
Justice Bagchi: we have permitted the constitutional authority to go into purity of electoral roll issue. Your original ECI notification on SIR did not touch 2002 list.. but your logical discrepancy list rejection reasons are 2002 list etc. your notification touched people who relates to people in the 2002 list. 2002 list is the benchmark. See in your final list you did not delete the 2002 list members. When Bihar SIR was argued, submissions of ECI was unequivocal that 2002 list members need not given any document. Please see your written submissions in Bihar case. You had said 2002 electorate need not give Documents..
Sr Adv Naidu: but they have to prove that they are the same person as in 2002 list. They are using alias etc.
Justice Bagchi: now you are improvising the submissions which you made earlier.
Sr Adv DS Naidu: This court delivered a judgment (on women representation) to empower women. But some are misusing it.
#SupremeCourt
CJI: this court by an order dated December 8 2025 under Article 142 ensured 30 percent women representation in each state bar council. 10 percent was by co option and 20 percent by election. This court also appointed the high powered election supervisory committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. State election committees were also constituted. At the outset we acknowledge the herculean task done by the committee.
CJI: in that process the supervisory committee has passed a self speaking order on February 9 in order to clarify how the 20 and 10 percent representation is to be given effect to. We are informed that BCI has issued a circular that selection of candidates for 10 percent co option shall be made by BCI rules.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: More than 10,000 farmers commit suicide every year. MSP is given which is below the cost price. It should be cost price plus 50 percent. Only wheat and grain is procured at MSP. Farmers are in acute distress. This is twin hammering.
CJI Surya Kant: Lot of mathematical formulas being cited. Difficulty will arise in cost of land and capital. Will it not vary from state to state or district to district.
Bhushan: I am not asking for the actual cost plus 50 percent.
Bhushan: govt own calculation for weighted average cost should be paid.
Justice Bagchi: you are almost asking us to rewrite the economic policy of the country. Look at the Pleadings.
Bhushan: drafted by my junior. But please see... It is okay for the govt to give free ration but that does not mean that affect on farmer is such that they don't get the cost and commit suicide.
Bhushan: take weighted average cost of the whole country and pay that much.
CJI; there are farmers with big chunk of land. There cannot be an uniform policy for all you see.
Supreme Court resumes hearing case where it recently pulled up 2 senior IAS officers from UP for not following court orders and halting the demolition of unauthorised commercial structures due to "public hue and cry."
Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan
The court noted that schools, banks, hospitals etc were being run from the unauthorised buildings and ordered immediate sealing.
It also said that if any untoward incident happens in any of the illegal buildings till demolition takes place, the IAS officers would be held personally liable.
Sr. Adv. Rajiv Shakdher (for Chairman, UP AEVP): we have shifted the students out of the schools, hospitals, the banks have also moved. We have sealed all of it.