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.
Supreme Court hears plea pertaining to appointment of information commissioners.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Adv Prashant Bhushan: this is regarding appointment to information commissions. It has been 10 months from the last order. There are so many orders asking to appoint and the pendency is just skyrocketing. The RTI is being destroyed by not appointing information commissioners.
Bhushan: earlier what they had done is they air dropped one person, a journalist who was singing praises of the government and without any qualifications he was air dropped.
Justice Kant: sometimes people don’t apply. We can’t doubt everything. We exercise suo moto powers in case of senior designations because people don’t apply.
Supreme Court to shortly hear the issue concerning stray dogs and the Pan India policy on Animal Birth control rules implementation #SupremeCourt
Sr Adv Sidharth Luthra: One matter has come from High court. All matters are here
Justice Vikram Nath: we do not have compliance affidavit by any of the states.
Adv: MCD (Delhi) has filed it, Telangana, West Bengal.. also
Luthra: We have not been supplied
SC: only three compliance affidavits are filed but not on record. They are Telangana, WB and MCD. Notices was issued to all states and UTs. Let all be present before this court on 10:30 am next Monday along with explanation as to why not filed and no representation also here from the three mentioned here.
Delhi High Court heard the submissions of intervenor Broadband India Forum in the copyright suit filed by ANI against OpenAI.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar is appearing for Broadband India Forum.
The matter is being heard by Justice Amit Bansal.
Datar - LLM can access a large amount of information and create a unique response. We represent large players who have their own LLM models. Once the item is in public domain, I cannot verbatim reproduce it but I can access it.
Delhi High Court is hearing the suit filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) concerning copyright, trademark infringement suit against digital content creator and YouTuber Mohak Mangal.
Mangal has filed a fresh application seeking reinstatement of ten videos taken down by YouTube due to copyright strike by ANI.
Senior Advocate Diya Kapur and Advocate Nakul Gandhi are appearing for Mangal.
Sr Adv Kapur - They give me option to give a counter. The Court has not given injunction but this soverreign function is being discharged by YoutTube that the videos cannot be re-instated.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting gives an undertaking before Delhi High Court to formulate final guidelines for disabled friendly accessibility features on OTT platforms.
The matter was listed before Justice Sachin Datta.
The petitioners, specially abled visually impaired persons, were aggrieved by the lack of disabled friendly accessibility features in the recent Bollywood blockbuster movies on OTT platform.
"Shoe throwing incident" mentioned before Justice Surya Kant led bench
SCBA President Vikas Singh: This shoe throwing incident cannot go unnoticed like this. This person has no remorse. I have sought consent from attorney general and the criminal contempt be listed tomorrow. Social media has gone berserk
SG Tushar Mehta: consent has been given...It is the institutional integrity at stake.
Justice Surya Kant: We are all for free speech. Problem is how to regulate.
SG: The opportunity this institution missed taking and some action was needed.
Justice Kant: CJI has shown magnanimity and it shows that Institution is not affected as such
SG: The way this social media is being uncontrollably used..some are making a glory out of this.. and some are speaking of his courage etc. This is about institution..it cannot go on.
SC: We will treat this matter uninfluenced by anything else.
Sr Adv Singh: This is an insult to Lord Vishnu also. I am sure he took would not want this.
Justice Kant: Our religion has never promoted violence. Just think about this..in social media everything becomes a saleable thing.