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 appeal against Allahabad HC order upholding the trial court’s order permitting a court-monitored survey of the Sambhal Masjid
Justice PS Narasimha: It is being argued that this case has to be seen from the lens of Places of Worship Act, 1991
Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain: Just by saying that the act is attracted does not attract the 1991 act.
SC: Question is survey arising out of 1991 act or the ASI act..
Sr Adv Huzefa Ahmadi: They say 1991 act does not apply..HC says there is no bar..I am in appeal and in meanwhile all surveys were stated.
Jain: On the face of it
Justice Narasimha: Yes you have a point that it is not concerned with 1991 act.. and HC gave finding against the Muslim side.. so we need to hear this.. the challenge is pending here...
SC: Mr Jain appearing for Respondent 3 to 8 takes notice of the SLP. It is surprising as to how two appeals have been filed by the same parties.
Jain: In court 4 item 10 has been dismissed.
Ahmadi: it is the mathura case...
SC: we were about to issue notice.
Justice Narasimha: Let us take a look at court 4 item 10 order.. we do not want to pass inconsistent orders. Let it be listed on Monday.
Supreme Court to resume hearing the Bihar SIR case today
Earlier the top court had asked the Election Commission of India @ECISVEEP to upload online the list of 65 lakh voters proposed to be deleted during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision
#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India: We have complied with it letter and spirit. Apart from BLA and panchayat we have also pasted this outside police stations.
#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Dwivedi: Anyone wrongly excluded can file form with supporting documents.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: they have complied with the direction but the problem which has arisen
Supreme Court to shortly pronounce judgment on petitions seeking stay on suo motu directions passed Justice JB Pardiwala led bench to remove the stray dogs in Delhi NCR #StrayDogs #SupremeCourt
Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had observed that the menace of dog bites directly infringes the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court had noted that over 25,000 dog bite cases were reported in Delhi in 2024, with over 3,000 in January 2025 alone, and that sterilisation rules had failed to control the problem over the past two
Thereafter a three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard pleas seeking stay on the order passed by Justice Pardiwala led bench.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant to shortly speak at the inaugural lecture series organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The lecture is titled “Justice for all- Legal Aid and Mediation: The collaborative role of Bar and the Bench”
#SupremeCourt #SCBA
Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh (President, SCBA): Justice for all and mediation go hand in hand. It is only in the mediation process that there are no losers. In litigation there is one side which feels that it has not got justice. In mediation both sides feel like they have got justice. Justice for all is embedded in the concept of mediation.
Singh: the bar and bench should always to first think of settlement when it comes to any litigation. As litigation goes further, bitterness increases. If bar and bench both play a role in mediation and legal aid process, it will be a big opening in this subject. Today we have 5.36cr pending cases in the country. If mediation succeeds in this country it will drastically and overnight reduce the pendency of cases in this country. It can unclog the system. And ensure people in this country get justice.
Supreme Court hears a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing historical monuments and Sufi saints’ graves in Delhi’s Mehrauli.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan
J Nagarathna: Why do you want to demolish it?
Counsel for DDA: It is a forest area.....we are against ancillary construction that come with Dargah.
J R Mahadevan: There is an express order there shall be no construction
Advocate Nizam Pasha referred to the Court’s previous order, contending that since the ASI has established the Dargah as a 12th-century monument, the opinion of the religious committee holds no relevance.
Delhi High Court is hearing on behalf of Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) seeking intervention in the copyright infringement suit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Open AI.
The matter is being heard by Justice Amit Bansal.
Senior Rajshekhar Rao appearing for DNPA - It reduces my inventive to create. If ChatGPT is 'ChaatGPT' then..At some point a large chunk of my population will die. The distinguishing feature in US law is that it does not recognise storage.