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.
Stray dogs case: Supreme Court to shortly pronounce verdict in its suo motu case to manage stray dog population across the country.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
The Court had reserved its verdict on January 29 after hearing the final leg of submissions made by various States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).
Court: we have divided the judgement into theee parts. We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of Nov 7 judgement. We have dismissed all the applications.
Court: In para 85 we have concluded- this courts finds no reason to interfere with the Nov SOP by AWBI. The challenge does not merit acceptance in the light of conclusions herein above. All IAs challenging the SoPs stands dismissed.
BCI Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra requests CJI led bench to constitute another
High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee similar to the one headed by former Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to oversee bar council election disputes
#SupremeCourt
Sr Adv Kumud Lata Das: Let BCI not be a member of this committee.
Mishra: this is very very bad
Das: Don't raise your voice against me. You only want to make the women members subservient to you. Please don't shout at me. You are virtually a permanent chairman..from 2010 to 2026 you are the only one who can become the BCI Chairman
Mishra: these are absurd allegations.
CJI: We are constituting two more election tribunals.
Supreme Court today to pronounce judgment in a narco-terror case from J&K, where the accused has spent nearly five years in custody despite no contraband being recovered directly from him
#SupremeCourt
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: this case raises an important question concerning the interface between Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. More particularly, the issue concerns the propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it.
Then, after narrating the facts and the submissions, and also referring to two judgments in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and gumfisha Fatima v. State, we have said in para 26:
There are two judgments of this Court which we need to deal with before proceeding ahead. These two judgments, Gurwinder Singh and gulfisha Fatima, have taken a somewhat divergent view from the clear, distinctive trajectory taken by this Court for grant of bail even under special enactments like TADA, UAPA, and NDPS.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: A decision made by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such binding precedent must either be followed in full, or in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger bench.
The position of law emerging from Najeeb and Sheikh Javed Iqbal is therefore clear. Watali cannot be invoked to justify indefinite incarceration of the accused under the UAPA.
For the aforesaid reasons, the attempt in gurminder to read Watali as laying down a general rule of denial of bail notwithstanding the period of incarceration is difficult to reconcile with this Court’s own subsequent clarification of what the ratio in Watali actually meant.
We also note that the bench in Gurwinder formulated the so-called twin-prong test governing grant of bail under the UAPA. It held that inquiry under Section 43D(5) must proceed in two sequential stages. First, whether the accusation is prima facie true, and second, only if the first question is answered in favour of the accused, whether ordinary bail considerations such as flight risk, etc. would justify the relief. If the first stage of the twin-prong test is satisfied against the accused, bail becomes absolutely impermissible.
With respect, this test flows neither from the text of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, nor from Najeeb. In fact, on the contrary, it is in the case of Najeeb where it is categorically stated that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act provides no more than another possible ground, namely, that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like possibility of tampering with evidence, etc.
SG Tushar Mehta: CBI appeal is listed before the Delhi High Court
Sr Adv N Hariharan: I am in the position to show that the prosecutrix is not a minor. The AIIMS board says she was not a minor. All reports are in his favour still he is in jail.
SG: The main conviction is under 376(1) IPC for remainder of his life
CJI: Prayer was only to suspend the sentence. There are issues which require consideration.
SG: it has to be seen whether MLA is a public servant for the POCSO
Justice Bagchi: we do not endorse the hyper technical conclusion of the high court. This is a penal legislation which protects children from sexual exploitation.. section 21 of IPC and prevention of corruption of act..
SG: MLA is in a dominant position.
CJI: HC has suspended the sentence. We have stayed by it. Now there is suspense whether order is illegal, erroneous etc. Now in this area..HC will be reluctant to hear the main appeal.
CJI: we can set aside the order. HC can decide the appeal or if it's taking time .HC can decide the application for suspension of sentence.
Supreme Court to resume hearing today petitions challenging a 2023 law which excluded the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel to appoint the CEC and other election commissioners.
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma
Retd. IAS SN Shukla argues on behalf of Lok Prahari: we have challenged not only section 6,7,8 and also the appointments made there under. The basis is not just the judgement in Anoop Baranwal but proven legal infirmities based on governments own records that I have obtained through RTI.
Court: have you received a copy of the counter?
Shukla: only union of India has filed counter yesterday.
Court: have you received the copy? Please address us on merits.
Shukla: the impugned provisions are ultra vires articles 14 and 324.
Supreme Court remarks on women empowerment and patriarchal mindset in a divorce case between an Army officer (husband) and a dentist (wife) - Thread 🧵
The couple was granted divorce by the family court and the high court on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife for starting her own dental clinic away from Kargil, where her husband was posted.
The wife approached the Supreme Court not disputing the divorce, but seeking expungement of findings on cruelty and desertion.
Court: In the present world, where women are making strides in leaps and bounds, merely because the husband was an Army Officer posted in a remote location, the expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in Dentistry, is indicative of regressive and feudalistic mindset.
Court: It must be emphasised that a well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within the rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone. Marriage does not eclipse her individuality, nor does it subjugate her identity under that of her spouse.
Court: The expectation that a woman must invariably sacrifice her career and conform to traditional notions of an obedient wife meant for cohabitation, irrespective of her own aspirations or the welfare of the child, reflects a line of reasoning that is archaic, ultra-conservative, and cannot be countenanced.
Court: What is portrayed as defiance in the impugned judgments is, in truth, an assertion of independence; what is labelled as desertion is, on a closer scrutiny, a consequence of circumstances shaped by professional commitments.