Supreme Court bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta to hear appeal by @DelhiPolice challenging the #DelhiHighCourt order granting #bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal in a Delhi Riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act #SupremeCourt#UAPA
.@DelhiPolice has stated that the High Court decided the case on a" pre-conceived & a completely erroneous illusion, as if, the present case was a simpliciter case of protest by students." #supremecourt#UAPA
Case pertains to @DelhiPolice probe into the "larger conspiracy" that led to the riots in the capital’s North-East area in February 2020 #DelhiRiots
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: in this two matter, third matter contains the lead judgment. It is Asif Iqbal Tanha case. Entire UAPA act is turned on its head along with the Constitution
Justice Hemant Gupta: since the issue is important and can have a pan India ramification we will issue notice and hear the parties
SG: please stay the order. findings call for acquittal of the accused. others are moving for bail based on this.
SG: With profound respect this incident was caused when president of US was visiting and these people wanted to create a sir during that time
ASG Aman Lekhi: stay is imperative as it imports ambiguity in section 15 of UAPA act and substitute it with a test laid by HC
SC: The way the UAPA act has been interpreted needs to be examine by SC hence notice we are issuing
SG: More than 700 people were injured and more than 40 police officers were a victim. But this means if I put a bomb somewhere and bomb disposal squad diffuses it then it absolves the accused of their crime
Justice Hemant Gupta: in a bail application, a 100 page judgment discussing all laws is very surprising, what we can say is, bail has been granted and they will not be affected but will stay the effect of the HC order #supremecourt#uapa
Sr Adv Siddharth Aggarwal: all the arguments made in this case was pertaining to the bail order
SG: court has made wide ranging discussions on UAPA. I agree that the delhi high court order be not stayed so that bail to three is cancelled but let it not be a precedent
SG: from when does right to protest include right to hurl bombs and terrorist activity? let them remain out. #supremecourt
SG Mehta: If i put a bomb and diffuse it then ..
Senior Adv Kapil Sibal: who put these bombs, not these people?
SG: HC says that the intention of parliament in invoking UAPA was to deal with matters of defence of India. nothing more nothing less. It says it only deals with entry 1 list 1. so except under this circumstance if its used then its unconstitutional ?
SG: so if i kill someone in murderous attempt, then UAPA would not apply since I am not a terrorist? The High court has read it down
SC: we agree since many questions arise since legality of UAPA act did not arise
SG: please stay the order while letting them remain out
Sibal: staying this would mean the order is prima facie stayed. We too also have a lot to say. Let us not do this in kind of fashion. in the meantime let us not treat the hc order as a precedent.
Justice Hemant Gupta: Issue notice. Let the counter be filed in four weeks. list in a non-miscalleneous week starting from July 19. meantime this order will not be treated as a precedent by any party before any court.
#SupremeCourt: Release of the three on bail is not interfered with at this stage
SG: till the matter is decided
Justice Gupta: this is enough. at this stage takes care of it
Justice Gupta: Something that is obvious does not need to be said. In many matters, bails have been canceled. This is not an exceptional case you see.
Supreme Court hears an urgent plea by the father of a 38 year old boy who was allegedly killed in a "staged fake encounter" and was subject to grievous torture in custody. Father seeks permission for autopsy #supremecourt
Adv Ishma Randhawa: Petitioner was asked not to open the body packing saying it was chemically treated. when it was opened back home there were multiple injuries. when a second post mortem was sought it was dismissed and hc dismissed it on basis of jurisdiction
Justice Shah: Cannot you approach Calcutta HC
Adv Randhawa: In this case, there is a conspiracy.
Supreme Court hears a plea filed seeking directions for waiving the final examination of final year Post-graduate Medical Residents & constitution of a Joint Expert Committee for examining and recommending on their prayers #supremecourt
Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde: Prayers 2,3,4 are still pending. this is not adverse litigation. These students are on front line of covid.
Justice Shah: See second prayer which survives. How can they be promoted without exams?
Justice Banerjee: How can we pass a direction like this? You can’t be promoted without exams in this case
Hegde: But i can be considered notionally and service benefits be given
Justice Banerjee: we need not pass orders. universities are not even a party to this case
One of the lawyers for petitioners says they went to NHRC which then forwarded complaint to top police official who the sends it to the local police station.
The local police then says you have to face consequences. It is a vicious cycle.
BJP candidate for 2021 elections Kashinath Biswas alleges ransacking and destruction of his residence.
Shows photos.
"Is this your house," Bench asks.
"Yes," his lawyer says.
Bench asks him to follow the procedure in terms of the order dated June 4 to lodge complaint.
CBI had raised preliminary objection to the petition in the previous hearing. However hearing was adjourned to permit intervenors to file appropriate proceedings and other parties to file their responses.
#SupremeCourt to hear appeals by West Bengal government and State Law Minister Moloy Ghatak challenging a June 9 order of #CalcuttaHC refusing to take their reply affidavits on record in the transfer plea filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the #NaradaCase
The plea states that the rights of the State government and the Law Minister shouldn’t be closed "especially when CBI has been allowed to file additional affidavits at different stages." @MamataOfficial@AITCofficial#supremecourt
The Calcutta High Court in its June 9 order had noted that, "they (CM, law minister and state) have waited for the arguments in the case to be substantially completed before seeking to place on record their pleadings in response." #calcuttahighcourt#supremecourt#naradacase