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 to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
#MadrasHighCourt while hearing petition challenging detention of YouTuber #SavukkuShankar under #GoondasAct asks Tamil Nadu authorities:
"How many people are telling lies in TV channels and media? All the similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons?"
Justice SM Subramaniam: Is it possible for government to run behind all such persons spreading false news? Only if it affects public order (you can invoke preventive detention) … How it (Savukku Shankar’s comments) affected public order?
#MadrasHighCourt #SavakkuShankar
Justice Subramaniam: It is the person who views YouTube – it his basic right (choose what to see). Can you stop your thought process?
YouTube may have good and bad videos, a person has a right to choose what to watch, Judge adds.
#SupremeCourt 7- judge constitution bench to deliver judgment shortly on petitions involving questions on the legality of sub-classifying reserved category groups, viz. the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Union of India had strongly defended reservation for downtrodden classes in India before the #SupremeCourt, while informing that it is also in favour of having sub-classifications among Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs)
CJI DY Chandrachud during the hearing had observed that there was a distinction between the "sub-classification" and "sub-categorisation" of communities.
The CJI had added that States may have to sub-categorise reserved category communities to ensure that reservation benefits reach more backward groups #SupremeCourtOfIndia