Desai: A lot of judgments being cited pertain to investigation in section 302 and not under Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence there was no question of approval under Section 17A.
Desai: If your lordships take a view that the constitutional court gave a direction to register a PE contrary to section 17A or to register FIR without 17A approval, then in that case, the court may consider one other principle.
Desai: My submission is that the Court has not directed contrary to the requirement under Section 17A.
But in the event, the Court has, in my humble submission, the Court had no jurisdiction to do so.
Desai: The enquiry was done by Section 17A provides for protection at both levels. While the enquiry has been completed, the continuing violation ought not be allowed.
Desai: The approach of the CBI in their affidavit, their case before your lordship says, is an intrinsic connection to the allegation and that under Section 157 CrPC when an intrinsically connected offence is found out, then that can be investigated.
Court (to ASG Aman Lekhi): In your FIR, you have mentioned unknown. This is seen in robbery and dacoity cases. In this case you have conducted preliminary enquiry. So who are the unknown?
Secondly, what is further investigation done by CBI so far?
Desai submits that the act of transfer and posting which is an official duty, if is linked to the allegation in the FIR, then the approval under Section 17A is required.
Court: After PE, it was the duty of CBI to ensure that the FIR is not only against the petitioner but against everyone who is part of the allegation. Even the unknown. That may include the committee responsible for the reinstatement of Waze. We are not on ABCD.
Court: The words used by Division Bench while directing PE was “Public confidence in the administration”. So it was not just limited to the petitioner, it was for anyone who had been accused..
Court: This is the stage wherein we don’t know what investigation has been carried out by the CBI. There has been some time since the CBI has registered FIR and the hearing. If in the interregnum, if CBI has collected something, are we supposed to consider that?
Desai: Maharashtra amendment to the CrPC and introduced a proviso under Section 156(3) that sanction under Section 197 is required.
That arose from Anil Kumar judgment (which is pending reconsideration before the Supreme court)
We are here to bid farewell to one of the most humanitarian judges who did not let go of any opportunity to extend help, one of the most humane judges, Advocate Abhijat says.
Karnataka High Court to hear plea by Twitter's Manish Maheshwari challenging notice issued to him by Uttar Pradesh Police under Section 41A CrPC over tweets on Ghaziabad assault video
#SupremeCourt hears plea seeking to consider goods and services at par.
Adv: raises a point which will benefit lakhs and lakhs of consumers
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: High Court can examine it in detail
Adv: HC does not have the power to issue directions under Article 142
Justice Hemant Gupta: how can the service provided by a doctor be equated with that of a good?
Advocate Hemant Gupta: The court has held it in a number of judgments. Legislature in 1986 services were given greater scope and goods were given lesser
Adv Gupta: The horizon of services was expanded by an amendment. There was a further amendment brought them at par
Justice Kaul: what are you challenging?
Adv Gupta: from 2003 goods and services are at par. but because of typographical error it is not at par
Delhi High Court to hear plea seeking directions to Twitter to appoint a Resident Grievance Officer as mandated under Rule 4 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
Court points out that only interim Grievance Officer was appointed by Twitter. It is not fair, Mr Poovayya. When a Senior Counsel makes a statement, I take it seriously: Justice Rekha Palli
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) shortly to hear a plea for quashing of FIR by UP police against Gareeb Nawaz Masjid Committee Secretary in relation to report by the @thewire_in on Masjid demolition.
Advocate Tripathi: This a case, where my clients gave an interview to a news portal, @thewire_in and FIR was registered against them. It is submitted that all the charges under 153A and other connected charges are unsustainable.