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.
Delhi High Court to hear the appeal filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging a single judge order rejecting her plea to discharge Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital and transfer to Medanta Hospital.
The matter is listed before Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
From the government's side, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit will appear.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal is likely to appear on behalf of Angmo.
Can a law graduate be denied enrollment as an advocate merely because there is a pending criminal case against them? Supreme Court hears
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan
The case concerns KR Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant by profession who also completed his law degree. When he applied to enroll as an advocate, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry rejected his application. The Bar Council cited a pending criminal case against him involving Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bar Council's rejection was rooted in a 2017 judgment by the Madras High Court. That order had directed Bar Councils to prevent the enrollment of law graduates with pending criminal cases. It was intended to be a "temporary measure" to keep people with criminal backgrounds out of the profession until the legislature amended the laws.
Supreme Court hears plea by Delhi Police against Delhi High Court’s decision to allow Devangana Kalita, an accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, to inspect the unrelied documents in malkhana - a secure storage room or warehouse inside a police station where physical evidence and seized properties are stored.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi
ASG SV Raju (for Delhi Police): inspection is not warranted. She is not entitled to any documents till the charges are framed. What is the purpose of inspection at this stage? This is unrelied upon documents. I’ve got extracts of judgements on this point. Only prosecution documents are to be looked at.
Raju: please have a look at the Sarla Gupta judgement. Trial starts after charges are framed. Before commencement of trial they have no right to inspect. Trial has not started now. Suppose she is discharged, where’s the question of inspection?
CJI: There is lack of uniformity in facilities for retired judges. Some states are giving all that is needed. But some states do nothing at all
Justice Bagchi: Security of one police officer for five years is reasonable for a high court judge..because they deal with sensitive issues also.
CJI: See the clause Rs 15,000 for secretarial services, security, travel etc
Adv: Yes the multiplier is low. But we are giving 50,000 also
CJI to SG Mehta: The govt should constitute a committee.. the issue is some basic amenities to be provided for HC judges. There is a need for uniformity. Centre can prescribe some norms as centre also releases some funds. If centre does not constitute then we have to
CJI: It appears that the Union of India is also a rightful stakeholder, especially when we expect that a part of the differential burden ought to be shared by the Union and the States in a defined manner.
There can indeed be no doubt that these facilities must be ensured on a uniform basis, as there is no reason whatsoever for such amenities to vary from State to State.
Keeping this perspective in mind, we have impressed upon the Union of India to constitute a committee to lay down uniform guidelines and also the manner and mechanism for financial assistance.
Such a committee shall be constituted within two weeks. Thereafter, the committee shall submit its recommendations to the Union of India and also place the same before this Court within three months from the date of its constitution.
List this matter after three months.
Sr Adv Amit Sharma: On the last occasion, Your Lordships had directed all the High Courts to file affidavits indicating whether they were facing any difficulty pursuant to the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court. All the High Courts have filed their compliance affidavits.
I would only request that the learned Amicus prepare a compilation of those affidavits and place it before this Hon'ble Court, so that if any further directions are required, the Court may consider passing them
Delhi High Court to hear at 2:30 pm the plea filed by Gitanjali Angmo, the wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, seeking to declare his confinement at Safdarjung Hospital as unconstitutional and permit transfer to a hospital of his choice.
The urgent hearing will take place before Justice Mini Pushkarna.
The hearing will commence at 3pm. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Standing counsel Ashish Dixit are likely to appear.
Case of attack on a supreme court lawyer [Pankaj Sharma vs State of NCT]
AG R Venkataramani: I have said let him be taken to a government hospital. Let a medico legal report be taken so that his injuries can be ascertained. I acted in his best interest.
Sr Adv Vikas Singh: No as an attorney general you should have done more
CJI: There was a sharp object...
AG: That is what.. they say he brushed against a wall.. That is why I said medico legal report needed
Justice Bagchi: See intention is important in such cases and not the gravity of the injury. Injury is on a vital part of the body.
Sr Adv Singh: Status report is saying that a compromise is being forced.
Sr Adv Vikaas Pahwa: The accused RWA president is being protected by the local police
Singh: Crime branch should investigate...if section 109 is not attracted here then what else
Sr Adv Siddarth Dave: This lawyer regularly appears before this court.
Justice Bagchi: The investigating officer has to give the widest possible berth and then go for the medical opinion.
Adv: But arrest has to be there now
Justice Bagchi: Arrest? Why arrest ? Now next time you make an anticipatory bail plea..we will say arrest all accused
Adv laughs
Justice Bagchi; what are you all saying. You all are officers of this court