#SupremeCourt to hear a plea involving interpretation of section 43D of #UAPA. Court is considering whether the extension of time can only be granted by special or session court or does a Chief Judicial magistrate also has any competence (default bail under UAPA)
Petitioner states expression “Court” appearing in Section 43D of UAPA is to be seen in the light of definition of “Court” as in Section 2(1)(d) of #UAPA Act and as such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dealt with the instant matter was not competent to grant extension of time
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju has been requested by the court to assist. Matter to be taken up shortly #supremecourt #UAPA
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave submits that ASG SV Raju was not keeping well

Justice Lalit: we have received a convenience compilation. So we assume he is here
Justice Lalit: there are two things on which we need your assistance. These persons were arrested and produced before magistrate. Maximum detention period under 167(2) is over. Now extension was granted by CJM and not as envisaged under UAPA Act
Justice Lalit: now the period originally completed under 167(2) can be extended when passed by a "court". Do you mean to say it can be a CJM who is considering issues of remand? They rely on Bikramjit Singh judgment to say CJM has no power.
Justice Lalit: Now does it mean they have to be produced before a court and not CJM.
Justice Lalit: It will boil down to a fact that rather than CJM taking burden of remand, the person will be produced before special court and thereby burdening itself with mundane issues. Is this what is contemplated by law?
ASG Raju: prima facie the answer to this lies under 167 as modified by 43D of UAPA.

Justice Lalit: we will go ahead if you are ready. some compilation is not given to other side
Justice Lalit: we will list this matter on July 16, 2021
ASG Raju: 167 has been modified by 43D. This modification does not touch two things that is committing magistrate competent to try the case. Judgments have held even special judges are magistrates. Word "court" used doesnt refer to UAPA act and it is court as defined under crpc
Justice Lalit: then you are submitting contrary to Bikramjit Singh. if we accept your submission then this matter can be referred to a larger bench. Bikramjit was decided by 3 judges

ASG Raju: that judgment can be distinguished...
Justice Lalit: List this matter on next Thursday.

#supremecourt #uapa

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bar & Bench

Bar & Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

8 Jul
[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.

#COVID19 #UttarPradesh
A bench of Chief Justice MN Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agarwal will be hearing the matter shortly.

#COVID19 #UttarPradesh
Court: What's the status, Mr. Goyal?

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.

Read 16 tweets
8 Jul
#BombayHighCourt to continue hearing the default bail application filed by Bhima Koregaon accused, advocate Sudha Bharadwaj.

Hearing before Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar in physical set up.

Adv Yug Mohit Chaudhry asks if the Court had the records which the Court had enquired in the previous hearing.

Court says that the record matches with what is submitted in the petition.

#ElgarParishad #BombayHighCourt
Court asks what the Supreme Court said in the issue pending before it.

#ElgarParishad #BombayHighCourt
Read 45 tweets
8 Jul
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

#ITRules #Twitter #DelhiHighCourt @TwitterIndia
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appears for Twitter India. Explains filing before Court.

Twitter Inc doesn't have an incorporated office in India.

#ITRules #Twitter #DelhiHighCourt
Chief Compliance Officer has been appointed as of July 6. We are in the process of setting up a permanent liaison office in India: Poovayya

#ITRules #Twitter #DelhiHighCourt
Read 23 tweets
8 Jul
#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.

Court: There is an original petition filed in the Supreme Court. There are multiple petitions also filed in other courts.

Khambata: There is only a transfer petition pending as per my knowledge.

Read 4 tweets
8 Jul
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
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
Read 4 tweets
8 Jul
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.


@manishm @TwitterIndia
Justice G Narendar will be bearing the plea.


Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!