#DelhiHighCourt to shortly hear #DelhiPolice’s plea against discharge of #SharjeelImam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019 Jamia violence case.
Hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The matter will be heard at 2:15 PM.
While issuing notice in the petition, Justice Sharma had said that the trial court’s observations against the investigating agency will neither affect further investigation nor the trial of any accused person.
Jain: What i propose to do is, on each preposition, I place the law before the court.
Court: on last date you extensively argued. Now you've given me all arguments and questions which you've raised from impugned order. So there will be one question I'll ask you.
Court:What they said when i was going through their written submissions, they say this person was merely standing there. The trial court judge has basically said you couldn't bring anything on record for court to belive that these persons were part of crowd who committed offence.
Court: They also raised question that when there were so many people, why you only picked up a few?
I'll also ask you about third chargesheet, but first answer on these two points.
Jain: Without prejudice yo the basic contention that trial court observations on whether respondents were mere bystanders or participated in activity is subject matter of chargesheet...there were 10 clips available with prosecution.
Jain: 7 are those which have been identified from 2 clips.
Court: Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the court to video clips which were also submitted to trial court and states that they would reveal that the six respondents herein can be seen indulging in actions as mentioned in chargesheet.
Court: It is also stated that the same were filed along with second supplementary chargesheet which was part of the trial court.
John: The person they claim is me which I contest is in clip 9. At the very outset, they have to cross the threshold as far as identification is concerned. Because person seen in clip 9 has a face cover, assuming it's a she. #DelhiPolice#DelhiHighCourt#JamiaViolence
John: How can they assume it's me? They are not giving me any feedback as to why they have come to that conclusion.
Till the time my identity isn't confirmed, my role has to be disconnected.
John: They have a three fold argument. One it is stated in chargesheet that my CDR location was in and around the university. Not withstanding the fact that I was a MPil student at that time, and my home was nearby, is of no consequence.
John: As far as the FIR and subsequent chargesheets are concerned, there is an inconsistency inherent.
I am not named (in first chargesheet) in this. Nor has any role been attributed in this. Nor they are saying any supplementary chargesheet will be filed.
Court: But they are saying that they are investigating the role of various students.
John: "Ladko ko". This "ladko ko" keeps coming throughout the chargesheet.
This was a man (who videographs the incident) the police used for recording the incident and it's on the basis of what he recorded that they claim these 10 videos have been placed before this court.
John refers to first supplementary chargesheet.
John: nothing turns on this. They get sanction and they only place that on record. Other than that there is nothing exceptional in this chargesheet.
John: They have not stated on what basis they were able to identify a person whose face was covered with cloth. It's my argument that somewhere you've to say how did you identify this person. You can't make out who that person is.
John: Now the famous third supplementary chargesheet filed on February 02, 2023, while arguments on charge were going on and they had taken a substantial amount of time convincing the court that charges were made out.
John: These are two police officers standing outside gate 1 and 5. Incident took place outside gate 1. I am not identified by either two of the police officers.
John: As far as statements of co accused are concerned....what was shown to them is clip 1 and 3. Some of them say i am either in 1 or in 3. I am neither in 1 nor in 3.
John: It could be anybody. Therefore, the first principle of criminal law is that when your case is that i was present at spot, you've to prove my presence. Aap photos ke basis par identity karwa rahe hai from persons who weren't there on spot.
John: We should know what is that process which gave him the supernatural powers which made him to go behind his veil and say this is Safoora Zargar and not someone else.
John: This is not a case of grave suspicion. It's a case where two views are possible. It could be me or someone else. I can understand their grievance wrt to some observations which were made but the issue of my role has been considered by trial court.
John: You have no other independent evidence to support...my presence or any aspect of criminality on my part.
Shamshad: They might be raising slogans, might not be. Or maybe like me, simple bystanders. Clip 3 and 6 has to be segregated because that accused who has been charged can be related to clip 9. And time gap may be 2-3 hours. This is the background of the case.
Shamshad: Riot is happening. Because they'll say this is unlawful assembly, common group etc. That's why I have to decipher the fact that I am present and riot is happening. Then they have to establish that I have some overt action.
Shamshad: This much is atleast required for trial court to make out a case of strong suspicion.
Shamshad: I am not shying away from additional chargesheets. It's a matter of investigation....i can't say illegal because there is no bar. But ultimately accused position has to be seen.
Shamshad: Ultimately we are students who are protesting. For this you'll go to this extent?? That's my case.
I want this court to see that the material they've produced here, the trial court has examined. I want your ladyship to see how trial court committed error.
Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran appears for respondent no 10.
Jain: So far as clarity regarding third supplementary chargesheet for same photos as were in second supplementary chargesheet, third one is primarily containing statements of injured persons who identified accused persons.
Court reserves judgment in Delhi police's plea against discharge of Sharjeel Imam and other persons in 2019 Jamia violence case.
Complainant, Ankit’s father, had lodged a missing report when his son wasn’t found during the riots.
It was his case that his son was killed by Tahir Hussain and his associates, who gathered in his office and threw Ankit’s body in the drain after killing him.
#SupremeCourt to hear a batch of petitions seeking Scheduled Caste status for Dalit converts
Adv. Prashant Bhushan for one of the petitioners:This matter involved constitutional validity of the Schedule caste order by which it was provided persons belonging to religion other than Hinduism will not be considered as Scheduled Caste.
Bhushan: Later Buddhist religion and Sikh religion was added.
Delhi High Court restrains Income Tax authorities from acting on the Show Cause notice issued to Rajya Sabha MP and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal on March 11, 2023 in relation to assessment proceedings.
The court said the concerned officer will first dispose of objections preferred by Sibal. "In this context, the concerned officer will issue a notice to the petitioner which would indicate the date, venue and time of the hearing," said the court.
The concerned officer will pass a speaking order qua the objections preferred by the petitioner and a copy of the same will be furnished to the petitioner, a division bench of the court said in the order.
Justice Gita Gopi: Here, the lawyers don't even call litigants to their chambers. Now, Foreign lawyers are going to come to India, and you all (referring to advocates present in courts) are going to get tough competition.
"Let's see how do treat litigants after that...The foreign lawyers will at least serve tea, and coffee to the litigants, and at least corporate culture will be there...I want to see what you do then (laughs)": Justice Gita Gopi
"Remember, one who is a farmer, his clothes look dirty. The cloth of the garage worker looks stained with oil...Never judge a person by the clothes he wears": Justice Gita Gopi
The Kerala High Court is set to hear the bail application moved by the CM's former Principal Secretary, M. Sivasankar, who had been arrested by ED in connection with money laundering related to the LIFE Mission case. #KeralaHC#MoneyLaundering#LIFEMissionCase
A Special PMLA Court at Kochi had rejected Sivasankar's bail application on March 2 and extended his custody till March 21. Sivasankar had moved the plea seeking bail on medical grounds. He had alleged the arrest as a 'political stunt'. #KeralaHC#LIFEMissionCase#MoneyLaundering
It seeks relaxation of"Two attempts in Two consecutive years" criteria so that students who didn’t appear twice or even once in 2021 and 2022 be allowed to appear in 2023 as a special provision.
The matter will be heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.
The plea has been moved by 67 students who are class 12th pass outs of 2021 who could not use their opportunity of JEE (Advanced) Examination because of the pandemic.
The petition seeks relaxation for candidates who appeared in 12th exam in 2021 for the first time to appear for JEE (Advanced), 2023 provided they should have appeared only once for the exam, either in 2021 or 2022 or have not at all appeared in any paper in both years.