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 shortly resume hearing its suo motu case on stray dogs.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
#straydogs #SupremeCourt
The court is expected to continue reviewing compliance affidavits filed by various states with respect to its 7th November order relating to removal of stray dogs from institutional areas etc.
Yesterday, the Court took a dim view of “vague” affidavits filed by some states.
Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agarwal: Punjab has not submitted any action plan etc.
Counsel for Punjab: there is a budgetary allocation of 11cr. There are 20 dog catching vehicles available. There is a district level committee which we have formed. We have given a full action plan for institutions.
Court: how many dogs have you collected from institutions?
Counsel: for Malerkotla it is 108. I will place as and when information comes.
Supreme Court to hear petitions challenging the University Grants Commission (UGC)'s recently notified rules intended to prevent caste discrimination in educational institutions #UGC #UGCRegulations #SupremeCourt
The rules have been challenged for excluding 'general category' students from complaining under its grievance redressal mechanism #UGC #UGCRegulations
University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 was notified on January 13 and applies to all higher educational institutions in India.
Its objective is to "eradicate discrimination only on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions."
MK Stalin case: Supreme Court hears plea by AIADMK leader SA Duraiswamy challenging TN CM Stalin’s 2011 assembly election win from Kolathur constituency.
The plea alleges that Stalin and his party representatives indulged in corrupt practices, particularly by providing money and gifts to secure votes.
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi.
Sr. Adv. DS Naidu, appearing for Duraiswamy refers to a prosecution witness statement:
Naidu: the witness is the editor of a magazine called “kumudam snehidi”.
Court: what’s the meaning of that?
Another counsel: kumudum means lotus. Snehidi means friend.
Naidu: a friend of lotus. May be figurative meaning.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (for Stalin): most inappropriate definition.
Court bursts into laughter.
Naidu: kumudam was once India’s largest selling family magazine. It’s basically a women’s magazine. Like women’s era. It’s the women’s wing of kumudam publications. Perhaps, the lotus is being compared with women and Snehidi is the friend of the woman, or the fairer sex.
Justice Maheshwari: (in jest): we can’t say anything…
Plea concerning seizure of electronic devices during criminal investigations
Sr Adv A Sundaram: some sort of information is being looked at. No predicate offence against me and my phone is being looked to find a link with predicate offence. There needs to be some guidelines to stop such fishing and roving inquiry. Where is my privacy I ask ? If my phone contain something.. then how it affects them.. there is nothing.
CJI: tell us why your mobile has been taken away ? There are people siphoning off thousands of crores and phones cannot be looked into? If they rely on something which is not related to this then we can intervene. We can look at it from case to case also. But not like this. Let them see first.
Sundaram: Then my plea becomes infructuous!
CJI: why did they come to you.
Sundaram: please see the summons, nothing against me.
Justice Bagchi: This is a fallacious argument by you Mr Sundaram. ECIR is in respect of an offence and not an individual. There is no notice needed for seizing a device.
CJI: you are behaving as if you have nothing to do. ED just raided your place early morning as if you called them for tea.