#BombayHighCourt to continue hearing today in the petition filed by Kangana Ranaut challenging the BMC's demolition of portions of her property on grounds of alleged illegal alterations.
Court is told that Adv Pradeep Thorat (for Sanjay Raut) cannot appear today due to personal difficulty. Counsel appearing instead asks Court for 10 mins to make submissions after submissions by Anil Sakhare.
Sakhare refers to submissions by @KanganaTeam that in retaliation to a tweet on September 5 criticising the
Mumbai Police, an interview was given by
Sanjay Raut
Sakhare: Then she lies and says around the same time @mybmc visits the bungalow.
Sakhare refers to submissions by #KanganaRanaut that the BMC's actions were a counterblast and a consequence of displeasure of persons in power; that malafides of respondents (BMC, Executive engineer and the State of Maharashtra) from the timing of action etc.
Sakhare: Law on the issue is very clear. Malafide allegations are very easy to make and difficult to prove. Here the malafide allegations are general, vague, without material particulars and no proof is adduced.
Sakhare: Party alleging malice, in fact, has to set up evidence, enter a witness box, the party should have opportunity to cross-examine, lead oral evidence - then a civil court can adjudicate whether there is malice in fact of not.
Sakhare: The remedy of a civil suit is appropriate where allegations of malice in fact are argued. Article 226 petition need not be entertained (by the High Court).
Next, Sakhare cites Ajit Kumar Nath. He argues that there is a presumption that the power by a Govt official has been exercised in good faith. Allegations of malafide require proof of a high degree of credibility.
"Malafide is the last refuge of a losing litigant", Sakhare cites a caselaw.
Sakhare: In the present case, the @KanganaTeam has no case on merits.
She is unable to prove the case on facts or laws. So what is better? Allege malafides and divert the attention of the court.
Sakhare: Except for her word, there is no connection...The Petitioner, as a last refuge, as a losing litigant is making allegations of malafides, which should not be entertained.
Sakhare: You make serious allegations against the party in power, officers of the statutory organisation, don't give any material particulars and require the court to connect a tweet here and another tweet there - that should not be permitted.
In response to Court's query, Sakhare informs the Court from June 2019, the impleaded BMC officer (respondent 4) is attached with the Ward concerned.
Sakhare further reads the officer's denial of having any ill will towards Ranaut or of having done anything on extraneous grounds
Sakhare reads further that it is factually incorrect that when the petitioner's advocate came on September 9, the BMC officer locked the bungalow from inside and malafidedly continued demolition.
Court: This is all denials, we have seen that.
Sakhar: No proof is given except her tweets. Such type of allegations - it is not a regular burden to discharge, it is a heavy burden.
This is the last resort of a litigant with no case on facts or law - to go on making allegations, divert court's attention and get some relief.
Court: We have a simple question to ask you Mr Sakhare.
What was this designated officer doing before they rushed on September ... ? What were they doing when the entire work came up? What made you go only now?
HC: You're saying that there was some extension. First you used JCB to break... Anyone on the street can see that extension. What were your officers doing when it was put up?
Sakhare: Our case is it was an ongoing construction
Court remarks that the work was over by then!
Court: Only when they were painting and making some finishing touches.
All this work was going on. No one saw it? A huge superstructure came up and all your officers turned a blind eye until 5/7 September.
Counsel for R 5 (@rautsanjay61) : He is not concerned with this demolition matter. There was no threatening message. He only said that the petitioner is very dishonest and that media is supporting such dishonest...
Court: What is "Kanoon kya hein?" (Raut's remark- "What is law")
Counsel for R 5 (@rautsanjay61): That was a remark made after Petitioner said that Maharashtra is not safe.
Court: You are the leader, a parliamentarian. Even we don't agree with what the petitioner has said. But is this the way to address?
Court: Even we don't agree with a word of what is said (referring to @KanganaTeam's remark on Maharastra's safety). We are all Maharashtrians. We are proud of being Maharashtrians, but is this the way to react?
Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf for @KanganaTeam makes submissions countering Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy's submissions that the petitioner was being "cagey" about when the work was carried out and who carried out the work.
Saraf further asserts that the @mybmc has not given answers on:
- Why they did not have a detection report
- Why mukadam took no photos, and why they lied first that the mukadam had taken photos
- discrepancies in documents
- the names of the workers alleged to have been present
Saraf: None of these are even attempted to be answered! I take strong objection - to say Court's umbrage is taken advantage of when a citizen approaches it
Saraf:@mybmc has not answered why this case was treated as critical matter?
Just because construction may be irregular, does it give a licence to a statutory authority not to follow the law? Are laws meaningless textbooks? he adds
Saraf, referring to @mybmc submission that a toilet was illegally constructed in an open chowk in @KanganaTeam 's office: On a lighter vein, maybe I thought there are many who think best in the bathroom.
Even if there was a formality, I could have got it regularised.
Aspi Chinoy (@mybmc) and Saraf make submissions disagreeing on the applicability of guidelines in Thopte case and the SC's Sunbeam's case to demolition proceedings under Sec 345A, MCGM Act.
Hearing adjourned, submissions to continue on Monday. #BombayHC to Saraf: We take it your submissions will be lengthy.
Saraf: Yes
Court: Don't ask us to go through this page and that page
#SupremeCourt is hearing plea challenging Karnataka HC dismissal to petitions challenging State government's decision to withdraw consent for CBI probe into corruption allegations against Congress leader & Deputy CM DK Shivakumar @CBIHeadquarters @DKShivakumar
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
On August 29, the Karnataka High Court rejected two petitions filed by CBI & BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal challenging Congress-led Karnataka government's decision to rescind consent for probe against Kumar
@BasanagoudaBJP
"If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block Wikipedia in India."
Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia for not complying with the Court's order directing it to disclose info about people who made edits on ANI's Wikipedia page.
@Wikipedia @ANI
ANI has sued Wikipedia for defamation.
The news agency has said that Wikipedia allowed defamatory edits on its page which referred to ANI as the "propaganda tool" for the present government.
HC had ordered Wikipedia to provide subscriber details to ANI of three people who made edits on its page.
Today, ANI filed a contempt application in the High Court alleging that the order has not been complied with.
#SupremeCourt bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud hears the case of ABP news channel against the case it faces for airing interview of dreaded criminal and gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, prime suspects in the Sidhu Moose Wala murder case
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: This is Article 19(1)(a) case and the HC order has a chilling effect on free speech. This is investigative journalism and nothing else. The journalist knows that phones are readily available in the jails. He used his sources and conducted the interview.
Rohatgi: HC was just considering how inmates get such benefits and someone pointed out the interview. The HC then directed FIR against the journalist. This is killing the messenger and then who will expose the rot? this is the state of investigative journalism!
CJI: the fact remains that you gained access to the jail and publish an interview in TV channel, whose permission did you take? we see the broader point of 19(1)(a)... but there are restrictions by virtue of incarceration...
Rohatgi: if at all this case has to go on then let it to go to CBI. how can the punjab police look into this at all ?
#Supremecourt
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
#MadrasHighCourt while hearing petition challenging detention of YouTuber #SavukkuShankar under #GoondasAct asks Tamil Nadu authorities:
"How many people are telling lies in TV channels and media? All the similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons?"
Justice SM Subramaniam: Is it possible for government to run behind all such persons spreading false news? Only if it affects public order (you can invoke preventive detention) … How it (Savukku Shankar’s comments) affected public order?
#MadrasHighCourt #SavakkuShankar
Justice Subramaniam: It is the person who views YouTube – it his basic right (choose what to see). Can you stop your thought process?
YouTube may have good and bad videos, a person has a right to choose what to watch, Judge adds.