Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice UU Lalit to shortly hear the plea filed against the Bombay HC order which dismissed the petition seeking for interim bail on medical grounds of lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj #NIA #SupremeCourt #SudhaBhardwaj
Bharadwaj’s counsel Ragini Ahuja had earlier told the Bombay HC that the activist had been in jail for over two years.
Ahuja had said Bharadwaj had comorbidities that put her at a higher risk of contracting the virus. #COVID19
NIA counsel, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, argued against giving bail to Bharadwaj saying that if her condition required hospital care, the state would provide for it.
Singh had further informed HC that 81-year-old co-accused, Varavara Rao, who was admitted to a state-run facility and then a shifted to the private hospital - on intervention of the National Human Right's Commission - for treatment of COVID-19 and other ailments in July.
Hearing begins.
Senior Adv Vrinda Grover for petitioner : I am in custody since 2 years as an undertrial. charges are not proved. i am only seeking interim bail
Justice Lalit: please check the medical report
Grover: Sudha Bharadwaj is suffering from diabetes and comorbidities
Justice Lalit: she is 58 and is not severely diabetic
Grover: she has developed two diseases in custody. one is a heart disease which is a ticking time bomb. it needs a cardio profile, lipid profile.
Grover: Let me get the check up done. She has also developed arthritis. She has never abused any court order.
Justice Lalit: What is the case
Grover: there is a criminal conspiracy which is set to be hatched by her. she was practicing in bilaspur HC. It is nobodys case that any material is recovered from her but from someone else's phone.
Justice Lalit: Why don't you file a fresh bail plea?
Grover: there is one pending in HC
Justice Lalit: So the application on merits is pending.
Her sugar is 114 and not so serious
Grover: our contention is the heart disease
Justice Lalit: but that is not a part of this plea
Grover: She is suffering osteo arthritis and cardiac issues and this she has developed while in custody. (reads the medical report).
Justice Lalit: the HC order says the medication is in order
Senior Adv Grover: I only seek your indulgence to get checked. These tests cannot happen in the jail hospital
Justice Ajay Rastogi: She was examined on August 20 by jail authorities
Grover reads the medication being given to her by the jail hospital
Justice Rastogi: are you saying this report is false? You have a good case on merits. why don't you file a regular bail application
Justice Lalit: Either you withdraw it or we will dismiss it
Justice Lalit: the condition deserves a deeper look and a regular bail plea can be filed.
#Bombay High Court is set to shortly hear stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra's plea seeking quashing of the FIR filed over his 'Gaddar' remark allegedly directed at Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
@kunalkamra88
A bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice S M Modak had earlier adjourned the matter to today, April 16, after taking note of the interim protection granted to Kamra by the Madras High Court.
On April 7, the Madras High Court had extended Kamra’s interim protection from arrest till April 17, while hearing his transit anticipatory bail application.
Supreme Court to deliver judgment on petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor RN Ravi's refusal to grant assent to several bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly, including those concerning the appointment of Vice Chancellors to State Universities #SupremeCourt
The State had moved the Court seeking directions to the Governor/ President to decide or give assent to bills passed by the State legislature in a time-bound manner.
The State government has argued that the Governor, by indefinitely withholding assent on these bills, was holding the entire State to ransom. In such a situation, the Court must intervene, the Tamil Nadu government argued.
Bench assembles
Justice Pardiwala: We are ordering de tagging of one writ. 1271/2023 will be heard separately
Supreme Court hears the case where it took objection to the absence of an advocate-on-record (AoR) in court during the hearing of a case filed through him
Justice Bela Trivedi: You could not have filed the SLP. If you don't get it you should not be a AoR. I will not leave the case just like that. You took undue advantage of some thing
AoR: I take responsibility
SC: you have no option but to take this. Apology will not do
Justice Trivedi: judgment had come and you are challenging it. Should you not read the papers. Where is the scope for any explanation.
AoR: my learned friend
SC: don't say learned fried. We are agitated and pained. Day in and day out we are seeing this. It is you and only you. For surrendering you say condone delay. Then in condonation application.. what kind of language is being used
AoR: the plea has been drawn by someone else
Justice Trivedi: So what ?????? It bears your signature or not
Scenes from the Delhi High Court after the declaration of Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) election results. Senior Advocate N Hariharan has been elected as the President of DHCBA.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan secured 2,967 votes and won by a margin of 87 votes. Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal came second with 2,880 votes.
The other two candidates - Senior Advocate Abhijat garnered 1,429 votes and Senior Advocate Vivek Sood garnered 339 votes.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan after winning the elections.
#Breaking Bombay High Court has overturned a Family Court decision that denied the request to waive the statutory cooling-off period for the divorce of cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma under the Hindu Marriage Act.
#BombayHC #YuzvendraChahal
A bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar has also directed the family court to decide the divorce petition by tomorrow considering Chahal's participation in the upcoming IPL
The couple that got married in December 2020 was living apart since June 2022.
#SupremeCourt to shortly deliver judgment on this significant issue
The court to hand down verdict in the suo motu case concerning visually impaired in judicial services
The genesis of the case lies in the rules governing judicial appointments in Madhya Pradesh which contained discriminatory language that prevented blind individuals from becoming judges.
This exclusion was challenged after a mother, whose visually impaired child aspired to the judiciary, wrote to the court, leading to a court-initiated public interest litigation.
Justice R Mahadevan: we have treated it as the most important case. We have touched upon constitutional framework also and institutional disability jurisprudence...