Gujarat High Court pulls up State government for "slow peddling" against the illegal meat shops in various cities, especially Ahmedabad and Surat.
Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri expressed displeasure over State's "action taken" report.
Bench is not satisfied with the manner in which action is taken in Ahmedabad. It notes that of 29 shops running without licences, only 15 have been sealed.
CJ: What about the rest? Are you not serious about this issue? Do you know the consequences?
CJ: We are concerned even if a single shop is running without licence. Food poisoning would take place at any shops. Do you know the consequences of this? Large number of people can fall ill. Who shall be made responsible?
Asst. Govt. Pleader tells the court that soon action would be taken.
Bench notes that in Surat of over 293 shops only 60 have been acted upon.
CJ: What is this Mr Counsel? Your civic chief has failed to perform his Constitutional duty by not taking action against all shops.
CJ: How can you let such shops continue which aren't selling stamped meat. You know even if a 1kg meat is injected with water its weight increases by 300 grams. Consuming such meat would cause mainly diarrhoea. People with low immunity can even die due to this.
CJ: Does the administration wants people to die? Obviously not. But then you need to take action against each and every such shop. Courts cannot correct all your errors. You need to take such action that can result in deterrence even for others.
Validity of electoral bonds scheme : Supreme Court hear the case on the question whether petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme need to be referred to Constitution Bench
Supreme Court is hearing plea by the father of a girl who was murdered in Bihar, filed against the Commissioner of Police, Delhi alleging delay in action by the authorities
Counsel: they say unknown body was found.. where in a day and age where even the thumb impression is fine to figure out who it is... #supremecourt
CJI DY Chandrachud: we can ask the Delhi police to inform if there was any wrongdoing or delay in working of the police.. tell me.. what did Delhi police do?
Counsel for Delhi police: our counter affidavit will explain in detail what steps were taken
PM Cares Fund is not created under the Constitution of India or by any law made by the Parliament or by any State Legislature, Centre government tells Delhi High Court. #DelhiHighCourt#PMCaresFund
In a detailed affidavit, the Centre has said that there is "no control of either the Central Government or any State Government/s, either direct or indirect, in functioning of the Trust in any manner whatsoever." #DelhiHighCourt#PMCaresFund
The response states that the composition of the Board of Trustees consisting of holders of Public Office ex Officio is merely for administrative convenience and for smooth succession to the Trusteeship. #DelhiHighCourt#PMCaresFund
#SupremeCourt to hear Rana Ayyub's plea challenging the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court which commenced summons proceedings against her in a PMLA case
Ayyub contends that jurisdiction is of Mumbai, if at all @RanaAyyub
Adv Vrinda Grover: I have been probed and a complaint has been filed against me by ED regarding PMLA. I had raised funds by an online crowdfunding platform. Funds was transferred to Navi mumbai branch of HDFC bank @ketto@RanaAyyub
Grover: FIR in Ghaziabad was the trigger which was lodged at Indirapuram. This FIR has been annexed and weas lodged on September 7, 2021. It was lodged by Vikas S who is founding member of the Hindu IT Cell
#SupremeCourt to hear CBI’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court order allowing Mainak Mehta, the brother-in-law of fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, who is an accused in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case, to visit Hong Kong.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Pass over. Let ASG SV Raju appear #SupremeCourt
ASG: We apprehend that huge money has gone into his accounts. He is not cooperating with access. The letter rogatory has not been responded to.
CJI: Why are you not cooperating? We will record your statement that you are willing to give a letter of authority...
BREAKING: Centre files plea seeking review of the SC judgment declaring Sections 3(2) and 5 introduced through the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act of 2016 as unconstitutional
The 2016 law amended the original Benami Act of 1988, expanding it to 72 Sections from a mere nine #SupremeCourt
SG Tushar Mehta: This is an unusual request. We seek an open court hearing of the review. Due to this judgment a lot of orders are being passed even though some of the provisions of the benami act was not even under challenge. Like retrospectivity could not have been looked into