Former civil servants from an informal collective "Constitutional Conduct Group" seek to intervene in a plea before the Supreme Court against @SudarshanNewsTV 's #UPSCJihad program on the issue of recruitment of Muslims in UPSC. @SureshChavhanke @Vakeel_Sb
Plea states that several legal provisions prohibit, criminalize, or otherwise penalize what is colloquially known as "hate speech." The applicants have urged the court to set out the scope and meaning of hate speech for more clarity on the subject.
Supreme Court to hear plea by Enforcement Directorate accusing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State officials of interfering with the central agency's investigation and search operations at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder, Pratik Jain #SupremeCourt
#IPAC @MamataOfficial @dir_ed
Enforcement Directorate has also filed an application seeking suspension of West Bengal Police top brass, including DGP Rajiv Kumar, alleging they aided Mamata Banerjee in obstructing ED raids and removal of evidence; plea seeks directions to Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training, and recalls Kumar’s past dharna with the CM as Kolkata Police Commissioner @MamataOfficial #IPAC @dir_ed
Justices Prashant Mishra and Vipul Pancholi assemble
@MamataOfficial #IPAC @dir_ed
Delhi High Court is hearing the petition filed by former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav against a trial court order framing criminal charges against him and his family members in the alleged IRCTC scam case.
The matter is listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal arguing for Prasad - They [CBI] refer to 2 communications that have no relation to any corrupt practice.
Calcutta High Court to shortly hear petitions concerning the Enforcement Directorate’s recent raids on political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain.
Follow this thread for live updates 🧵
All India Trinamool Congress and the Enforcement Directorate have filed separate petitions. Justice Suvra Ghosh will hear the matter at 2:30 PM.
Supreme Court hears bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah booked under the UAPA for conspiring to secede Jammu & Kashmir from India.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Sr. Adv. Colin Gonsalves (for Shah): the chargesheet mentioned a large number of accused persons.
Court: what is the primary allegation?
Gonsalves: yes. I will. I am not there in the main chargesheet. Not in the first supplementary chargesheet. I was added in the second supplementary chargesheet.
Court: you were booked for provocative speeches etc?
Gonsalves: yes and terror funding. The last speech I gave was in 1993. The story of terror funding was one one Mr. Wani was carrying money amounting to 75 lakhs meant for me. Wani was acquitted in the ED matter. I was given bail in the ED matter.
Court: since when are you in custody?
Gonsalves: total custody in and out all together is 40 years. In this last FIRs 6.5 years. The period of custody that I have undergone in all the FIRs is 40 years including detentions.
Supreme Court hears plea by Niranjan Das, an accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case in which FIRs were registered in Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
Das seeks transfer of trial in UP FIR to Chhattisgarh liquor scam. Bench led by CJI Surya Kant hears matter.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appears for Das.
CJI Surya Kant: You are saying the allegations in the two states are similar. But Coordinate bench says that they are state specific
Court notes that in UP FIR, there are co-accused from UP also. If trial is transferred in Das’ case, co-accused in UP also affected.
CJI: What about a (co-accused who is) permanent resident of Noida (if trial is transferrer to Raipur, Chhattisgarh)?
Supreme Court to resume hearing its suo motu case on stray dogs today.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
#Straydogs #SupremeCourt
On the last hearing, the Court was cautioned to take expert advice in the case so that it doesn’t end up like the recent Aravalli ruling which had to be stayed after concerns were raised about the absence of domain experts in the committee appointed by the Court.