Bench of Justices SS Shinde and GS Kulkarni hears plea filed by Sameet Thakkar (accused of publishing objectionable caricatures against the Uddhav Thackeray Chief Minister of Maharastra) today.
Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for Thakkar points out that a fresh FIR is filed with BKC police by same complainant.
Chandrachud seeks directions to the police to not arrest Thakkar as he is going to co-operate with the police and for a copy of the FIR be given to Thakkar.
Court notes that Thakkar had previously not co-operated with the police based on records which show there were several notices sent.
Chandrachud points out that as soon as the Court granted him protection from arrest, he appeared before the police station.
Chandrachud adds that Thakkar only left the police station where he was directed to appear, when he was informed that the BKC police will be coming to arrest him.
Court demanded to know why couldn't Thakkar just appear when notice is given, when he receives notice.
Court: We exercised discretion, and granted him protection, but we see conflicting evidence. Addl. Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik says he ran away, you say he did not run away.
Court asks APP: Where is the new FIR? Isn't he entitled to get a copy?
APP adds that the police has also issued notice under Section 41A CrPC (appearing before the police)
Court says they will take up the matter at 3 pm today, and directs APP to produce a copy of the FIR and the notice under S.41A.
Court took the matter at 3.45pm.
APP produced a copy of the FIR and asked the Court to issue directions to Thakkar to appear before the Police.
Court recorded APP's statement that no coercive action will be taken.
Chandrachud sought leave to add the copy of the FIR in the petition and appropriately modify the petition.
Leave was granted.
Matter is listed on Monday October 12 at 3 pm.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#2G: Delhi High Court to shortly begin hearing appeals preferred by CBI and Enforcement Directorate against the acquittal of all accused in 2G Spectrum case.
Justice Brijesh Sethi is hearing the appeals on a day-to-day basis.
#SupremeCourt Bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao resumes the hearing on petition filed by the Madras Bar Association (MBA) assailing the Tribunal Rules of 2020 on grounds of being in violation of principles of separation of power.
Attorney General for India KK Venugopal begins making his submissions.
AG: Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew had upheld Section 184 of Finance Act in its entirety which says that the tenure should not exceed five years.
AG: Reappointment is by the same selection committee. This is an entirely safe procedure where if a member is writing judgements in time and is working with integrity, then the member can be reappointed.
Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik
of Bombay HC hear the plea filed by Wadhawan brothers (DHFL) challenging the arrest order of Sessions Court, Chennai, granting custody of the brothers to Economics Offences Wing (EOW) Chennai.
Desai points out to the court that the Sessions Court, Chennai granted an ex-parte order of custody without following the proper procedures given under CrPC.
He adds that both the brothers are now in the custody of Chennai police.
State informs the #BombayHighCourt , they are willing to increase no. of local trains. AG Kumbhakoni for State said: State is acting parens patriae.
Bench of Chief Justice and Justice GS Kulkarni hearing the matter pointed out that they can pass guidelines for safer travel.
AG Kumbhakoni for State argued that they were trying to open the sectors in a phase-wise manner so as to ensure there is no burden on the medical care facilities.
But since now, the number of affected people is reducing, they have started opening more sectors.
AG also pointed out that citizens are not strictly complying with social distancing rules.
Court: What have you done for the employees of restaurant and cinema?
Court asked State to assess new demands that will come up after opening of new sectors.
Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: This year has been the worst ever in conducting CLAT. This exam was conducted online
Justice Ashok Bhushan: This was a difficult year?
Sankaranaryanan: Other online exams were also held this year. CLAT consortium says 21,000 objections were recieved
Sankaranaryanan: In lot of questions, wrong model answers were given. Out of 40,000 objections, 20,000 were on question and answers. I am on the other 20,000. The cut off in this exam is not even 0 but -4. This is not only in this exam but in the history of any exam
Mumbai Police Commissioner has filed a case on criminal breach of trust. Says, will share the findings with the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry.