Delhi High Court to shortly hear actor Rakul Preet's urgent plea to ensure that media does not broadcast any report on her in relation to the NCB investigation in the Rhea Chakraborty drug case.
This is the same prayer which was in the main Petition: Court
No. At that time there was no criminal investigation: Hingorani
Hingorani refers to Naveen Jindal vs Zee Media.
This Court discussed all the judgements and decided if it was appropriate to grant an injunction on media trial when investigation was pending. And the Court said yes: Hingorani
Hingorani reads Naveen Jindal judgement.
The power of high court has power to grant an injunction when investigation is at a preliminary stage: Hingorani continues to read.
Injunction was granted in Naveen Jindal in view of excessive adverse publicity and interference with the administration of justice and fair trial : Hingorani
After I moved Delhi HC, I saw that as per media reports, I was summoned by NCB on Sept 24. I was in Hyderabad and I had received no summons: Hingorani
They said I was dodging NCB and indulging in delay tactics. I received the summons subsequently: Hingorani
If you have grievance against any particular broadcast, file an appropriate plea. These channels are not before me: Court
Naveen Jindal was a civil suit not a writ petition like the present case: ASG Chetan Sharma
I will show writ court has jurisdiction: Hingorani
Hingorani refers to other media reports that damaged her reputation.
Media ran reports so damaging.. I don't know Kshitij Prasad.. they didn't question me. I didn't name (anyone). This is Republic. They say drug were sent to her house. This is fake news: Hingorani
Can I pass an order in their absence saying thier news in fake news?: Court
Respondents are statutory bodies. Court directed that my representation should be taken up but they have not shown any urgency: Hingorani
Jindal's case is that court can grant an injunction if I'm being prejudiced: Hingorani
Hingorani reads a judgment.
Injunction till investigation is complete is not unreasonable restraint: Hingorani
High Court has ample inherent powers : Hingorani
Such injunctions are preemptive orders: Hingorani
Fake news is being peddled. I don't do drugs. I haven't named anyone. I've been removed from films. My right to dignity, privacy, to be left alone is being violated: Hingorani
My representation is listed for Oct 23 now. Where do I go: Hingorani
I'm not hearing it finally today: Court
Representation is listed for Oct 3. Some channels are not my members. I don't represent channels: News Broadcasters Association
We are hearing a lot of complaints. We are sitting regularly and taking up matters. : Adv Rahul Bhatia for NBA
Take it up and file a status report: Court
What has Centre done? Have you considered the complaint?: Court
NBA is seized of the matter. Our process is on: ASG Chetan Sharma
It shouldn't be that nothing is being done in spite of the order: Court
@Rakulpreet is not an accused. She is just being asked to join the investigation. It is a sensitive matter. I am empathize with my friend's client but the reality is such that a balanced view has to be taken: ASG Sharma
You are representing I&B. You have power under Cable TV Act. She is saying that there are reports that are wrong. She may ve completely wrong but you can't simply say that this is a sensitive case: Court
Prasar Bharti says that it is an unnecessary party in this case.
We have no power, statutory or otherwise, in this case: Adv Rajeev Sharma for Prasar Bharati
Court issues notice in the application.
Prasar Bharati I think will have no role here: Court
Respondents shall file a status report before the next date of hearing on the steps taken by them on @Rakulpreet's representation: Court orders.
Averments are factual. What can the I&B Ministry say?: ASG Sharma
Then say that only : Court
Mr Hingorani you can make submissions on Prasar Bharati's role.
Some channels are not my members: News Broadcasters Association
Say that in your reply: Court
Hearing adjourned.
Matter to be heard next on October 15.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#BREAKING Supreme Court to State of UP: How can you just enter someone's home and demolish it without following course of law or serving notice?
CJI DY Chandrachud: We are not inclined to accept the request of the State of UP to adjourn the proceedings since pleadings are completed and the court is required to evaluate the materials placed before to decide legality of action.
#SupremeCourtofIndia @myogioffice
CJI: The following position emerges from narration of facts: state of UP has not produced original width of state highway notified as national highway, no material was placed to show whether any inquiry was conducted to figure out encroachers, there is no material produced to indicate that land was acquired before demolition was carried out. The state has failed to disclose the precise extent of encroachments, the width of the existing road, the width of notified highway, extent of property of petitioner which feel within central line of highway and why the demolition was needed beyond the area of alleged encroachment. NHRC report shows demolition was far in excess than the area of alleged encroachment. #SupremeCourtofIndia
#BREAKING
CJI: The demolition was carried out without any notice or disclosure to the occupiers of the basis of the demarcation or the extent of demolition to be carried out. It is clear demolition was high handed and without the authority of law. The petitioner states the demolition was only because the petitioner had flagged irregularities in road construction in newspaper report. Such action by the state cannot be countenanced and when dealing with private property law has to be followed.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the challenge to the Allahabad High Court verdict which struck down the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: the judgment goes against the principle of secularism.. it essentially helps that concept by allowing this education..
CJI DY Chandrachud: secularism essentially means to live and let live
Rohatgi: the HC has gone against it.
#Madrasas #SupremeCourt
CJI: are you standing by the validity of the act...
ASG KM Natraj: Yes I support the validity of the act. But since constitutionality has been struck down we want to say something. we are defending the legislation but the state did not file a SLP
ASG: when high court struck down the act, we accepted it.
CJI: but you are saying you stand by the act
ASG: yes we filed a counter.. supporting the law. we can support in legal issues
CJI: as a state you have wide powers under section 20 to ensure basic quality of education in madrasas and as the state if you find that this basic level is not followed then you can intervene and that was your stand before the HC and you said act need not be struck down
ASG: the law can be struck down if it is against fundamental rights or its foul of legislative competence. But in this case... it has to be tested only against part III of the constitution.
#SupremeCourt to shortly hear PIL by BJP leader and former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy seeking deletion of the terms "socialist" and "secular" from Preamble to the Indian Constitution
The plea challenges 42nd amendment Act which added terms "socialist" and "secular" to describe India in Preamble.
Plea also challenges provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951, requiring political parties to give undertaking to uphold secularism to get registered.
Bench: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar
#SupremeCourt is hearing appeal against April 8 order of Delhi High Court recognising Central Delhi Court Bar Association as main bar body for Rouse Avenue District Court
Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Delhi HC had rejected claim of Rouse Avenue Bar Association, Delhi Rouse Avenue Court Bar Association & Rouse Avenue District Court Bar Association which had all staked their claim to be declared as recognised bar association for Rouse Avenue Court
Appeal against Madras HC judgment which ordered police investigation into the ashram run by Sadguru, Isha Foundation
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: These are issues of religious freedom. This is a very urgent and serious case. This is about Ishal foundation, there is Sadguru who is very revered and has lakhs of followers.
#Sadguru #SupremeCourt
SG: HC should have been very circumspect. This needs your attention
#sadguru
The plea is by Isha Foundation, led by spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, as a team of 150 police officers descended upon its Thondamuthur ashram on Tuesday.
The search, spearheaded by an Assistant Deputy Superintendent from Coimbatore, came at the directive of the Madras High Court, which requested a comprehensive report on all criminal cases tied to the foundation
Supreme Court to shortly hear case where it said it will issue guidelines for bulldozer-led demolitions and anti-encroachment drives.
#SupremeCourtOfIndia #SupremeCourt #Bulldozer
Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde: I am for the fruit seller in Jahangirpuri in whose matter it first reached here. I only urge that it be listed today along with this and tagged.
SC: Okay. Did you tell the other side?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: I am appearing for three States including Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Very dispassionately I will give my suggestions, UP has in fact shown the way.
SC: But can being criminal accused be a ground?
SG: No absolutely not. Even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism. Like my lord said it cannot also be that notice issued stuck one day before, it has to be in advance. Town planning authorities have that provision, lordships may say written be given by registered post so this pasting business stops and it gives 10 days time from date of receipt.