Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde has a discussion with Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta on the validity of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017.
SG Mehta points out that there is a presumption of unsoundness of mind or mental illness that gets attached with a person attempting to commit suicide.
CJI: But it is not necessarily unsoundness of mind always. There were these monks in Vietnam who killed themselves in protest. They were in a complete calm state of mind, there was no unsoundness of mind.
Then there is also the example of Jain persons and Santhara.
Sg Mehta explains to the Court how Santhara is described in the Jain faith and what it entails.
CJI: Nonetheless they are deemed to be under severe stress under this no?
Mehta: f it is treated as an attempt to commit suicide
CJI: But the attempt is not to commit suicide but to liberate yourself from this miserable world… I know the issue on santhara is pending before this Court.
Supreme Court issues notice to the Centre to explain the validity of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act and to show cause as to why the Section should not be declared as unconstitutional.
The discussion was fuelled in a petition which highlighted the trend where people purposely jump in the animal enclosures in Zoos in an attempt to commit suicide. This leads to the confinement of animals affecting them adversely.
On the petition, Senior Advocate ANS Nadkarni has been appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.