Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul takes up for hearing petition which had sought clearance of the protest site in Delhi's Shaheen Bagh where sit in protest against CAA was being staged.
Advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi declines to withdraw his petition.
Petitioner in person Amit Sahni: I have only thing to say that such kind of protests should not take place in future. Even yesterday there was a chakka jam in Haryana
Petitioner Amit Sahni: political compulsion cannot be the reason to continue such protests. Such protests cannot continue. Despite your direction to not block roads, some protests went on for 100 days. Keep this matter pending and pass directions
Adv Mehmood Pracha: if such protests are happening peacefully then no directions should be issued. Some persons were sent earlier in such protests to create a riot. This should not happen again
Pracha: State machinery was misused... Protests were proceeding for months there peacefully.
The aspect of violence is a crucial aspect which has to be considered.
(Pracha calls for a universal policy for holding such demonstrations)
Justice Kaul: There cannot be a universal policy because situations and facts are different every time.
Justice Kaul notes that #COVID19 pandemic led to a change in the situation so the experiment carried out by way of appointing interlocutors could not be seen.
#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.