Desai: Milords should note the social media, activism on social media. Political activism, this and that.. bank frauds led to slowing of the economy. There are allegations.. Unless procedures are not complied with there are issues..
Court: Mr. Desai, the very argument was advanced by Dr Singhvi before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner was required to be heard before passing the order in High Court.
Court: We have two fold questions - one there is a preliminary enquiry initiated by the Court to look into the issue and then come to a conclusion.
And second - when the argument has been considered by SC, we do not want to delve on that.
Court to ASG Aman Lekhi for CBI: The Supreme Court order mentioned two personas, one the former minister and one a former commissioner who may have strong connections with each other.
We believe this needs to be looked into.
ASG: Let me assure you milords, the investigation is proceeding in the same manner. We have considered two aspects from the High Court: 1 - credibility of the machinery and 2 - public confidence in them.
Desai: they have realised what the final outcome is, and they have registered an FIR accordingly. There is no allegation of extortion in the FIR.
This is in the teeth of the order of High Court.
Desai: There need to be facts, not reproduction of the section.
There is not a single sentence in the FIR which suggests that an offence has been committed. Transfer and posting is not offence, it is part of law, and part of function.
Desai: Reinstatement done by whom, what is wrong, nothing mentioned. Are your lordships expected to read newspapers to come to a conclusion for the offences! Was this the intention of the agency when FIR was registered?
Desai: His reputation and image is at stake.. On this he lost his post, he is target of investigating agencies..
And this is an outcome of the preliminary enquiry which has been ordered by a reasoned detailed order..
Desai: this matter of sealed envelope.. that has to be dealt with caution.
This has left me helpless, my reputation is lost..
All that is there is an FIR and an affidavit..
Desai: If they believe that there is material and steps need to be taken then do it properly! If you want - Add the facts, add the reasons, add the section, add the co-conspirators - do it in accordance with law. Not in this manner.
Desai: I am not asking for a certificate of honesty. I am merely seeking for protection of my rights.
These are questions of facts and not just CBI’s belief of facts..
Desai: There is not an iota of evidence. There is not one sentence in their affidavit - he tried to commit the offence.
I will come to the tried part in a few minutes.
There is no material on where he tried, with whom he tried, against whom he tried, etc..
Desai: Dr Gunjiyal’s contention was that there is illegal gains, corruption..
There is nothing in the FIR.
A reputed CBI officer was involved in the enquiry and he could not find one co-conspirator!
Desai: There are two parts, one is law, one is conscience. One is to quash FIR. There has to be some fact, which gives some consideration to be looked into. Then milords will say, let us see the further points.
Desai: An FIR may be registered, and the Court might say that yes an allegation is there and does there need to be a further investigation
But the larger jurisdiction of 482 and 226, your lordships have to look if even the allegations have to be looked into.
Court: Since you have mentioned about documents which can be looked into.. There is a judgment of Justice Sinha which talks about which type of documents can be looked into.
Desai: There are judgments which looks to find out evidence of sterling quality.
Lekhi: The judgment which milords are saying deals with the an issue of quashing FIR where the FIR was compared with civil pleading.
But that may not be relevant here.
Desai: While we construe Bhajan lal principle, when there is an enquiry, there is an FIR, and there are checks and balances, then those have to be looked into.
Desai: Some of the sentences in the FIR were just picked up from her complaint.
She has not said anything on her own that offence has been committed. She has relied on Singh’s letter.
Desai gives the series of event leading to the letter of Singh to point out that there seemed to be no probability for the conversation happening as mentioned in Singh’s letters.
Desai: The sequence of dates have to be kept in mind by the Court.
Desai: Whether there is prima facie offence? Which is section 7 which is alleged. Even if one takes the complaint of Singh, there is nothing in it which makes it an offence. The preliminary enquiry has also concluded as attempt.
Desai: There is information for enquiry, but that is in the affidavit. It is not in the FIR. And then there is nothing else in the FIR. This FIR is registered with ulterior purposes with no material to support it.
Lekhi: Governance cannot be organised crime and ministers cannot form crime syndicate and sanction of law there has to be investigation.
The sections invoked are satisfied.
Lekhi: The effect is to undermine rule of law, undermine accountability and void any investigation which will point out against the criminality and the governance and this ought not be permitted.
Lekhi: We will rely on the fact that the complaint of Patil which relied on Singh’s letter was not looked into by the State.
The HC order not having been over turned, the consequence of the enquiry will stay.
Lekhi: This is a case where the action of the petitioner showed a fanciful claim and the police was being used a medium of extortion undermining the police institution.
Lekhi: Mr Desai is disregarding the forum and the stage. This is not the appeal. Truth or falsehood is not the scope of enquiry at the stage. We have to accept facts as they are and for what they stand.
Lekhi: While reading this complaint, the submissions were for comments over content. The purpose of investigation is to probe the contents.
So all that we have to show is cause to investigate and probability of an offence.
Lekhi: The difference between preparation and intent can be found through investigation. At this stage we only need allegations. The agency’s reluctance to state anything conclusively shows their fairness and openness.
Court: At the cost of repetition, the committee which reinstated an officer after 15 years will have to be looked into.
Also the higher machinery in the state.
If you want to give full meaning to the order of the Court.
Court: Whoever is the head of the executive and the administrative cannot be free with innocence, that officer told me so I was helpless. It was equal duty of the officer to stop at the relevant time.
We expect from CBI a broad base investigation.
[Covid 19] Allahabad High Court to hear the suo moto COVID 19 matter shortly.
Earlier, the court had directed the government to inform the court about the steps being taken to upgrade the primary and secondary health care centers.
Manish Goyal, AAG: We were directed to file the status report about future planning and steps to tackle the pandemic. We have filed an affidavit in this regard.
Delhi High Court to hear plea seeking direction to Twitter India to appoint Resident Grievance Officer under IT Rules, 2021. On last date of hearing, Court had asked the social media platform when it would appoint such an officer
#BombayHighCourt is hearing two petitions assailing the Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Hearing before Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni.
Sr Adv Darius Khambatta for one of the petitioners, which is a digital news portal, states there are amendments which are required to be carried out in that petition.
Supreme Court to shortly hear a plea challenging the provisions dealing with restitution of conjugal rights since "court-mandated restitution of conjugal rights amounts to a "coercive act" on part of the state." #supremecourt#conjugalrights
The plea states that such a direction for restitution of conjugal rights is an infringement of one's sexual & decisional autonomy, right to privacy & dignity, and thus a violation of the right to life under Article 21 #supremecourt
Plea seeks Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act to be struck down. Additionally, the enforcement of restitution of conjugal rights as provided for under Order XXI Rule 32 and 33 of the CPC is also sought to be struck down
Ghaziabad Video: Karnataka HC to shortly begin hearing a plea filed by Manish Maheshwari, an employee of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd challenging notice issued under Section 41A of CrPC.