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.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: I got a report from the Telegraph now
CJI Surya Kant; I don't want to politicise it. But we got reports since 2 am. 5 pm they gheraoed the officers and till 11 pm there was no one
Sibal: it is unfortunate.
Sr Adv Menaka Guruswamy: Most of the officers have been transferred out of the state
#SupremeCourt @MamataOfficial
Sr Adv DS Naidu: Earlier judicial officers were being threatened. Now it is becoming physical. If its mobocracy no one can help
Justice Bagchi: Top most civil servant was contacted by the Chief justice of high court. It makes no good case by saying we are not associated. All leaders need to condemn this in one voice. We are here to protect the special officers. Their orders are deemed to be orders of our court
SG: now state cannot be entrusted with the security of judicial officers.
Justice Bagchi: we leave it to ECI to get forces from anywhere and ensure security of judicial officers.
Sr Adv Sankarnarayanan: These villagers are.sayonf they will continue to protest...we will all co-operate. CAPF or anything.
Justice Oka is giving the 45th JP Memorial Lecture organised by PUCL India.
Justice Oka: Remembering Jayaprakash Narayan today, I go back to my first brush with his movement — I was 14, reading one Marathi and one English newspaper a day, without fully grasping the moment that would define a generation. JP, a committed Gandhian and colleague of leaders like N.G. Ranga, emerged as the leader of the youth in the 1970s; only later did I realise how much my generation underestimated the depth of his ideas.
#JusticeOka
Justice Oka: From his writings and speeches, one thing stands out: his unwavering faith in non-violence. For JP, non-violence was not a tactic, but a way of resisting evil with moral strength. He reminded us that negotiations, arbitration, friendship or mediation may succeed or fail — but for those who truly accept non-violence and are prepared to resist evil non-violently, there is no failure. That single idea has stayed with me: those who accept non-violence, and prepare themselves to resist whatever evil may come non-violently, discover a strength that no defeat can erase.
When I revisited JP’s life, I felt his active public role was cut short. Had he remained in public life for another 10–14 years perhaps we would have seen a different India.
#JusticeOka
Justice Oka: Let me now turn to today’s theme: where do we see the judiciary today, within the framework of our Constitution, which promises justice – social, economic and political – to every citizen. Our courts have, in many instances, delivered substantive and even spiritual justice, and I say this as someone who has seen the system from within. Yet I have consistently said: when the Constitution, the government and the citizens placed great expectations on the justice system, we did not fully live up to those expectations.
Delhi High Court stays further investigation and proceedings in FIR lodged against Tamil Nadu MLA and Secretary of Student Wing Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), C.V.M.P. Ezhilarasan, for organising a protest challenging proposed UGC laws, at Jantar Mantar on February 6.
The matter was listed before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
Senior Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the politician. He stated that the perusal of the FIR would itself show that there is no allegation that the peaceful protest held by the petitioner and his associates caused any obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the plea against Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale
Notably, Wangchuk’s detention was revoked by the Centre on March 14.
@Wangchuk66
While revoking Wangchuk’s detention earlier this month, the Centre said the decision was taken after considering the need to foster “an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust” in Ladakh.
Supreme Court Bar Association flags off its first National Conference on the theme “reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice”.
Justice Mehta: if a true picture is provided to litigants by lawyers at the first stage the chances of mediation succeeding would increase manifold.
Justice Mehta: But the most stumbling roadblock is the government. The experience in the national Lok Adalats where we hold pre-litigation mediation sessions is sad to say the least. There is hardly a single department of this government which comes forward with a positive response.
The person who is an accused is praying for protection? You are a suspected accused. You are trying to sensationalise the issue: Uttarakhand High Court to gym owner ‘Mohammad’ Deepak Kumar
The Court is hearing a plea filed by Kumar seeking quashing of an FIR agains him.
I have been receiving consistent threats: Kumar’s counsel
You are investigation: Court
That is a different thing: Counsel