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.
[Arvind Malhotra vs High court of Himachal Pradesh]
Sr Adv Balbir Singh: My reply on 25.9.2025 was made and the recommendation was made on 23.9.2025. Collegium recommendation says two vacancies were there for promotee judges . 2 juniors were recommeded. I was interacted with on 19.9 and recommendation on 23.9 without having my reply.
Justice BV Nagarathna: These are matters where on judicial side we cannot say disclose this and disclose that. Merely because you are a senior does not mean you will be recommeded. Once collegium discusses, we cannot intervene. There is secrecg involved also... There is no rejection of your candidature. We don't know what does your recommendation say. It is about subjectice satisfaction of HC collegium ..can supreme court on judicial side ask them look into this and look into that. If this happens then where are we heading ?
Justice Joymalya Bagchi: We would have understood if HC collegium went against sc order etc. but this decision of HC has gone further and has been accepted by the supreme court.
Justice Nagarathna: We cannot ask the collegium of HC to disclose any reasons etc.
Singh: But after my representation the supreme court had asked the HC to reconsider the petitioner
Justice Nagarathna: How can you say reconsideration is not done?
Justice Bagchi: Screening committee gives it to the recommendation body. Now you cannot challenge screening committee order.
Justice Nagarathna: There is no cause of action. In Karnataka, for 3 vacancies, 9 are called.. 3 are selected. So others cannot adopt this mode and manner..
Justice Nagarathna: There is no procedural flaw in this as of now. Even you don't know if the name is dropped, removed, etc.
Justice Bagchi: Supreme court collegium endorsed and accepted HC recommendation. Now we cannot open this in judicial review.
Justice Nagarathna: If it has been deferred.. there is a chance the name shall be reconsidered..
Supreme Court hears the plea concerning lack of ladies bar rooms across court buildings in India
CJI Surya Kant: I have constituted an All India Judicial Infrastructure committee.
Adv: In Mathura, the ladies bar room is locked. Same situation is in Ghaziabad. 60 percent of courts should have ladies bar room immediately.
CJI: the young lawyer corpus funds is also important.
CJI: the issues raised here touch upon larger questions of inclusiveness and long term sustainability of women lawyers in the legal profession. The petitioners have cited lack of ladies bar rooms and other facilities across High court , district court and other court buildings.
CJI: A young advocate corpus fund has been suggested to be formed with the aim that legal profession remains accessible to all. The petitioners have placed on report results of a survey undertaken by them in a structured format. The survey was circulated among women advocates across courts and information was collected from numerous district and taluka courts. The data reveals that in majority of court complexes, either no ladies bar room exists or facilities given is wholly inadequate and other facilities such as washrooms, nursing facilities, creches etc are not available.
Delhi High Court to shortly pronounce its judgment in a plea filed by Telegram challenging the ban on the platform till June 22 in view of the NEET exams.
Justice Tejas Karia to pass orders at 10:30 AM.
#Telegram @telegram @durov
The Court had reserved its verdict yesterday after hearing arguments from Telegram's lawyer, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Central government.
Order: After considering all the arguments, we find that given the emergency nature, the reasons supplied are sufficient and government has followed the procedure in Section 69A. The challenge ont eh ground of non supply of reasons can't be held. Both the orders are well founded and supported by reasons. The orders do not suffer from non application of mind. We have also held that under IT Act there is no reason to excluse the platform fromt he admit of "information".
[Sabarimala gold theft case] Kerala High Court today recorded that the SIT has gathered “substantial and convincing materials” indicating the involvement of the accused in transactions relating to the removal and gold-plating of the Dwarapalaka idols in 2025.
Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar were informed by the SIT today that the investigation has reached its final stages.
The SIT also told the Court that it is examining the alleged criminal conspiracy behind the transactions and the role of certain Travancore Devaswom Board officials who held responsible positions at Sabarimala during the relevant period.
Supreme Court says Family Courts should ordinarily assess parents first and decide whether psychological evaluation of a child is necessary before directing such evaluation; lays down safeguards against unnecessary psychological assessment of children in custody and visitation disputes.
Justice N Kotiswar Singh:
• Family Courts must first appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents, particularly the parent having present custody of the child, before deciding whether any psychological assessment of the child is required.
• No psychological assessment of the child should be conducted if the Family Court, based on the psychologist's report, finds such assessment unnecessary or undesirable.
• If an assessment of the child is required, it must be carried out by an independent child psychologist in consultation with the psychologist already treating the child, with minimum interaction so as not to disturb the child's mental condition.
• Family Courts must remain conscious that a child's psychological needs change with age and may require periodic review and assessment.
• Courts must examine concerns relating to parental alienation syndrome and false memory creation against the other parent, while ensuring the child is not exposed to influences that may foster such tendencies.
Justice N Kotiswar Singh :
• We emphasise our role as parens patriae and held that child custody, visitation and parental access disputes involving growing children are dynamic in nature and constitute a continuing cause of action.
• Parents are at liberty to seek modification of orders before the Family Court from time to time as circumstances evolve.
• Parties must apprise the Family Court of the status of proceedings pending under the POCSO Act against the respondent, as those proceedings may significantly affect decisions concerning visitation and custody rights.