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.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court begins hearing reference on the interpretation of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, in the State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh batch of cases
#SupremeCourt
Sr Adv CU Singh: There are two notifications ... Now the old industrial disputes act has been repealed.
Sr Adv Indira Jaising: Any judgment rendered by the court in interpretation of the old law will impact the new law. One side seeks reconsideration of Bangalore water supply and one side says no such reconsideration needed.
CJI: While taking a view on Bangalore water supply .. we can give a word of caution that the interpretation is for the law which used to exist
Jaising: There is an unavoidable overlap. All conclusions should be without prejudice.
AG R Venkataramani: so whether a challenge to the new law can lie when there is no such challenge before this court
AG: I have placed my written submissions and compilations for the Court’s consideration; I will be referring in particular to Volumes 4B and 5B. The principal issue, as framed, is whether an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and what the correct legal position is. A second, distinct issue arises from the 1982 Amendment, particularly in the context of social welfare activities and governmental functions, and whether such activities fall within the expression “enterprise.” This in turn raises the question of what constitutes a “sovereign function” of the State and whether such functions are excluded from the ambit of Section 2(j). To address this, it is necessary to go back to the earlier reference order and the line of judgments beginning with Bangalore Water Supply.
Delhi High Court modifies bail conditions imposed on accused Neelam Azad in parliament security breach case.
The matter was listed before Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
The matter pertains to an incident in which some persons entered the parliament building and threw smoke canisters when the Lok Sabha was in session. Azad was arrested by the Delhi Police on December 13, 2023 and granted bail in July 2025 subject to conditions.
Supreme Court hears the case regarding mandatory requirement of three years' practice at the Bar as a uniform eligibility condition for entry-level judicial service posts
Sr Adv Sidharth Bhatnagar, Amicus: High Courts are of the view that three years should remain. But for disability ..some accessibility needs to be given. Allahabad HC says it is not capable at the moment it is too early for a view. Delhi HC says three year practice has been reintroduced as in terms of SC judgment. Committee says relaxation for disabled may lead to disparity
Amicus: Faizan Mustafa for CNLU says no experience needed at all and should be done away with.
Sr Adv Pinky Anand: This practice is not even consistent to their skills of being adjudicators. Thus this is a Roadblock. Average age of aspirant will be 29.
“If you keep on investigating when will charges be heard? For two years you cannot sit when somebody is in jail”: Delhi High Court to Delhi government in bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Naresh Balyan in connection with his arrest under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The matter was listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The Court today heard arguments on behalf of Balyan. Senior Advocate Rebecca John apeared for Balyan.
John - They took my voice samples. They have not taken voice samples of anybody else. We dont know if it is gangster, they are claiming that it is a gangster. Who is this other person?
Supreme Court hears plea against the violation of woman rights under the succession laws under Muslim personal law
CJI Surya Kant: You are challenging 1937 act.. then what will apply? What about the vaccum?
Adv Prashant Bhushan: Shariah law says woman entitled to half of what men are entitled to. So in Shayara Bano held that even triple talaq was part of personal law but still struck down since violative of article 14
CJI: suppose there are two statutes. One protects article 14 and one does not. Ofcourse the other is struck down. Then our question what about the vaccum created
Bhushan: Indian succession act shall govern.
Justice Bagchi: If 1937 act is not there..will Muslim succession not be governed by personal law as under Article 372.
CJI: in our over anxiety of reforms we may end up depriving them (Muslim woman) on getting less than what they are already getting. If it goes away (the 1937 act) then what is the question.
#SupremeCourt
Supreme Court to hear batch of cases concerning the SIR process in West Bengal
Fresh petition also listed challenging the deletion of voter names due to non acceptance of key documents
#SupremeCourt #WestBengalSIR
Sr Adv Menaka Guruswamy: About 7 lakh claims have been decided by the judicial officers. 63 lakh was under adjudication. 57 lakhs are remaining.
CJi: we knew you people will run away when judicial officers are appointed. HC Chief justice has told us 10 lakhs decided. Today morning we are informed. Your application is premature and it shows as if you don't have trust. How did you dare such applications are filed? No one should dare question the judicial officers
Guruswamy: We are not questioning
CJI: you may have not. But there are questions. As a Chief justice of India I will not tolerate this.
Guruswamy: No one can question the JO at all. We have appeared before the chief justice and it was an honour to appear before him.
Guruswamy: JOs now have 50 lakh cases to be broadly decided. There are roughly 48 lakh mapped voters.. we say they are mapped because they were in 2002 electoral rolls and they have voted..
CJI: that is why SIR is there. All genuine will be included. All unauthorised etc will not be there. That is being looked at by the judicial officers. Why should we look into this. Till a day before voting if the cloud upon a voter is removed then he can vote.