Supreme Court bench assembles for hearing plea by 2012 Delhi gang rape convict Pawan Gupta regarding his juvenility.
Adv AP Singh appearing for Pawan Gupta submits that date of birth of Pawan is Oct 8, 1996.
Records about Pawan's age were concealed by Delhi police. It is a big conspiracy, submits AP Singh on behalf of Pawan Gupta.
They concealed all facts. Documents of age were submitted wrt to Akshay, Mukesh and Vinay Sharma but were concealed wrt to Pawan Gupta, submits AP Singh.
Bench says the issue regarding Pawan's age was raised before SC in the reviee petition and dismissed.
Can you keep raising new plea on the ground that new facts have come to light, asks Justice Ashok Bhushan.
The bench reiterates that plea about age was raised and rejected in trial court, high court and Supreme Court.
The 2013 order of Magistrate on juvenility was not challenged.
Did you produce the age certifcate before HC when the matter was argued in 2017, asks Justice Banumathi.
Yes, says Singh.
Plea of juvenility can be raised anytime and in any court even after a final judgment has been passed, AP Singh.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta commences arguments on behalf of prosecution.
The plea was taken at all stages and rejected, says Mehta.
The High Court had considered the plea that Pawan Gupta's DoB was Oct 8, 1996. It even recorded that plea and rejected it, submits Tushar Mehta.
This ground (on juvenility) can be raised at any stage but not repeatedly, says Mehta.
Justice Banumathi nods in agreement.
He is also raising it on the basis of same documents, says Mehta.
No, these are different documents, says AP Singh.
#DelhiGangRape2012: Supreme Court to pronounce judgment at 2.30 pm today on Pawan Gupta's plea on juvenility.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sudarshan News and media regulation: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Centre has filed a fresh affidavit calling for regulation of digital media before the court takes up issue of regulation of TV channels.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi is appearing on behalf News Broadcasters Federation which has sought impleadment in the matter.
Rohatgi says NBF is the largest body of tv channels in India with 160 members from different parts of the country.
He submits News Broadcasters Association is not representative of news channels and seeks permission to file an affidavit to put forth a self-regulatory mechanism.
Hearing against Sudarshan News commences before the Supreme Court.
Sanjay Hegde enters appearance on behalf of Zakaf Foundation of India.
"I have a watching brief in this matter. We are not a party to this matter," says Hegde.
Justice DY Chandrachud tells Hegde that Sudarshan News has raised substantial issues against Zakaf Foundation.
"But we are not here to investigate into your client. But Sudarshan News has sought to justify their programme on the grounds of your source of funding"
Sudarshan News and UPSC Jihad: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Sr. Counsel Anoop Chaudhuri appearing for petitioner says Sudarshan news has filed an affidavit with vague allegations and submits he wants to file a rejoinder.
Shyam Divan says it was difficult to file a detailed affidavit in two days. We (lawyers) are all in different locations.
We were ambushed by various applications/ interventions, he submits.
Sudarshan News files affidavit before Supreme court defending its programme Bindas Bol and the use of the term "UPSC Jehad".
The affidavit largely focuses on foreign funding received by Zakat Foundation, an orgnisation which supports civil service aspirants.
Sudarshan News has claimed that some such funds received by Zakat Foundation are from terror-linked organisations.
The organisations/ individuals named in the affidavit are Madina Trust, Muslim Aid (UK), Zakat Foundation of America and Zakir Naik
The affidavit says the TV channel has no ill-will against any particular community or individual and do not oppose selection of any meritorious candidate
"There is no statement or message in the four episodes broadcast thatmembers of a particular community should not join UPSC"
Supreme Court raises grave concerns about the manner in which debates are conducted by certain television channels.
Justice KM Joseph says many times panellists are not allowed to speak and anchor takes up most of the time and panellists are also half-muted.
Supreme Court berates Sudarshan news.
Here is one anchor who says one particular community is trying to gain access to UPSC. Can anything be more insidious than such claims. Such allegations affect stability of country and also casts aspersions on credibility of exam.
In the UPSC exam, all are subject to same tests, interviews and are assessed by same persons. But the insinuation is one community is trying to infiltrate the UPSC. Can such allegations without factual basis be allowed, asks Justice DY Chandrachud?