#SupremeCourt hearing an application by Enforcement Directorate in Kerala Gold Smuggling Case, to transfer the petition outside the State
#Keralagoldsmugglingcase
#Keralagoldsmugglingcase
SG Mehta puts forth that there is a reasonable apprehension that it would impede a free and fair inquiry.
And that there have been instances of riots in the State pertaining to the same case.
Court then asked if there is any further grievance even after the Magistrate’s order.
And that there have been instances of riots in the State pertaining to the same case.
Court then asked if there is any further grievance even after the Magistrate’s order.
Hearing to resume at 2 pm.
SG Tushar Mehta refers to first FIR filed by local police that was quashed by High Court.
SG Mehta: Refers to a second FIR by an Advocate, a PIL kind of an FIR, which was also a subject matter of quashing.
Complaint filed by local Police. (to show it was concocted)
-Unconnected lawyer and Police officials
Complaint filed by local Police. (to show it was concocted)
-Unconnected lawyer and Police officials
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal intervenes to explain
SG Mehta objects to it and asks to either appear or don’t.
Kapil Sibal: It is for the Court to decide, not you.
SG Mehta objects to it and asks to either appear or don’t.
Kapil Sibal: It is for the Court to decide, not you.
SG Mehta further reads to draw to Court’s attention, A commision of inquiry is appointed by the State Government and terms of references to inquire into.
State is making effort after effort
State is making effort after effort
Supreme Court lists the matter further for October, 20.
Court: Since the State of Kerala appeared, and going by the nature of relief claimed no need for notice to be issue to respondents.
Court: Since the State of Kerala appeared, and going by the nature of relief claimed no need for notice to be issue to respondents.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
