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 directs counsels representing Delhi University, Delhi Police, Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) President Aryaan Maan and other contesting candidates who allegedly violated court orders, Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and guidelines framed for conducting DUSU Elections, to be present before court on next date of hearing.
The matter was listed before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
Court - Where is the university counsel? Where are the students?
Counsel appearing on behalf of Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) representing Union of India and Delhi Police stated that his senior is not available.
[Case of rape of a four year old girl in Ghaziabad]
Sr Adv N Hariharan: They have dragged father and wants to record Sextion 164 croc statement. If investigation is complete then why to record it now. You say chargesheet is filed and now this. Police man can be seen dragging the father. The father is right here. He was asked not to change the statement. If trial is there then he will be summoned. He was dragged by police..these two hospitals have filed affidavits saying the child was alive..where is the need for coercion.
Hariharan: As far as this situation is concerned. The investigation officers etc are behaving very differently. Not a single person examined in the hospital. Why is it that they are shielding the hospital. This requires a probe
Hariharan: no medical attention was given to the child. They had the facilities.
CJI: records indicate as alleged by the father of the child is duly noticed in our earlier order. Petitioner grievance has been that their needs to be fair probe and that there is negligence on part of local police and two private hospitals.
Plea before Kerala High Court alleges nearly 6000 government employees deputed for election duty did not receive their ballot papers in time to vote.
They also allege that they have not received the allowances payable to them for election duty.
The petitioners are members of the Jojnt Council of State Service Organisation of govt employees.
Despite specific directions to pay
₹6000 per BLO for the SIR of electoral rolls, members of the petitioner association claim to have received only ₹2000 for months of work.
"The members of the 1st petitioner association undertook several months of work as part of the SIR of electoral roles as Booth Level Officers, going door to door in unfavourable weather conditions. While the Chief Electoral Officer has commended the BLOs for their work,
the commensurate incentives have not been paid", the petitioners contend.
Supreme Court to hear the West Bengal SIR case today. With phase 1 of the polling over, the court is likely to witness mentions concerning non inclusion of voters, incidents of violence, and the functioning of appellate tribunals
#SupremeCourt @MamataOfficial #WestBengalLegislativeAssemblyelection2026 #SIR @abhishekaitc @ECISVEEP @BJP4Bengal
NIA submits it's first report in the suo motu case concerning attack on west bengal SIR judicial officers
ASG SAV Raju: Give us time for chargesheet. They are neck deep in investigation
CJI: we are granting.
Sr Adv Kalyan Banerjee: Only 136 appeals have been disposed off out of 27 lakhs filed. This is very very sad.
#Breaking
Delhi court orders FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for objectionable posts about Newslaundry’ Manisha Pande and other journalists.
@Iyervval @MnshaP @newslaundry
The court says that Iyer-Mitta made sexually coloured remarks against Pande and other journalists and the same are prima facie intended to insult Pande and she has been named in the tweet as well.
“Therefore, on perusal of
the application and the material placed on record by the
complainant, this Court is of the view that the content of the
tweets posted by the accused on “X” platform discloses
commission of cognizable offences under section 75(3) and 79 of
BNS,” the court says.
“This Court is of the view that police investigation is necessary as the offence has been committed in cyber space on platform "X". Therefore, police investigation is necessary to verify the user account on platform "X" from which the said tweets were published. Further police investigation is also necessary to trace and recover the computer source/electronic device from which the said tweets were published. This Court is also of the view that the Action Taken Report which was filed by PSI Ombir in the present case is not satisfactory as the above stated tweets were not considered in the report,” the court adds.
Delhi High Court seeks response of YouTuber Shamita Yadav on the contempt petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia over defamatory content on social media concerning his appearance on a TV news show.
Bhatia appeared in person to argue his case - it is imperative to note that attacking the dignity of person using obscene and sexually suggestive language under free speech cannot be permissible under any circumstances.
Bhatia - She is repeatedly using the terms “nanga” and “bhajpille”. She is aware that there is a case filed agasint her also. She starts by saying, defamation case on me? She uses obnoxious words, she being a lady. She is an officer of the court as well. She also has to maintain dignity.