Justice Joseph : Before hearing, we would like to know what is the gamut of issues. So that we know the framework within which we have to consider a moment.
Vrinda Grover : Substantive sentence is on 14 counts of murder and 3 counts of gang-rape. Fine of total 34,000 rupees and in default 34 years. It is undisputed that fine is not paid. So default sentence will come, that has not been served.
Grover : Court did not say you have to grant remission. Only to consider.
Malhotra : My broad objections, the first 6 matters they have to go on the ground of locus standi. They are PILs. Art 32 at the behest of third parties in criminal matters not maintainable.
Malhotra cites a precedent - PILs on criminal matters not maintainable.
Justice Joseph : Forget about all of them. What about the petition filed by the victim herself?
Justice Joseph : We are just asking. Remember what happened in Antulay's case. If it is a case where palpably there is no jurisdiction, can a direction given by the Court clothe the authority with jurisdiction?
Malhotra : 15 & a half years they have spent. 14 years is the requirement for the policy. No one raised a hue and cry when they were in jail. And they served the entire sentence. Emotional plea is not a legal plea.
Justice Joseph : We are not going to be overwhelmed by emotions.
Justice Joseph : We have to put in a balance.
Malhotra : This is a trial where everything happened in A State. Only for special purpose trial was transferred to B state. Once this Court say it is for Gujarat to decide...
Justice Joseph asks ASG SV Raju : Who are you for?
ASG : MHA
Justice Joseph : Were you consulted before remission as per 435?
Senior Adv AM Singhvi : The learned judge who convicted said no remission should be given. No weightage given. And post-release conduct- death threats issued.
Sibal : The objection on the basis of public interest...this is not a criminal prosecution..we are against the remission granted without application of mind...against the law..what are the contours of discretion..PIL will lie.
Sibal : Order granting remission violates each of the parameters of discretion. Kindly see the irony. The matter was shifted from Gujarat to Maharashtra. Why was the matter shifted? Because they had no faith in Gujarat police and the same police grants remission.
Justice Joseph during the hearing : We have before us many murder cases where convicts are languishing in jails for remission without years. Is this a case where standards have been applied uniformly as in other cases too?
ASG says there might a technical difficulty as a lawyer appearing for a party in one case cannot be asked to take note for that party in another case without authorization.
Justice Joseph : We did not compel anyone to take notice. We asked everyone if they are taking notice.
Shobha Gupta requests that the victim's case be made the lead case.
Supreme Court to hear a petition filed by gangster and Samajwadi Party leader Atiq Ahmed raising apprehensions of danger to life on being shifted to Uttar Pradesh jail in connection with the Umesh Pal murder case.
Adv: The threat to my life, direct and open threat. Your Lordships have to protect me.
SC: This is not a matter for this court. Go to the High Court.
Adv: In the meanwhile, some protection be given...Let there be an interrogation, investigation. Anything.
SC: You are in custody at the moment?
Adv: Yes
SC: The State machinery will take care of you.
Adv: If your Lordships are not protecting me....I'm in judicial custody right now. I'm not avoiding interrogation.
The Kerala High Court is set to continue its hearing on 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
During the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta had appeared on behalf of Sivasankar, and had taken the Court through the facts of the case. He made his pleadings on behalf of the petitioner. #KeralaHC#MoneyLaundering#LIFEMissionCase
#SupremeCourt to hear plea filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to adduce additional evidence in the criminal appeal filed by him in the Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in a 1990 custodial death case
Matter taken.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat for Bhatt tells the bench that the State has not filed it counter affidavit despite seeking adjournment on several occassions.
#SupremeCourt to hear today the petition filed by #AtiqAhmed raising apprehensions of danger to life on being shifted to Uttar Pradesh jail in connection with the #UmeshPalCase.
Delhi High Court to pronounce today judgment in Delhi police’s plea against discharge of Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the 2019 Jamia violence case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will pronounce the verdict at 10:30 AM. Order was reserved on March 23 last week after a detailed hearing of more than two hours.
Any Attempt To Restrain Lawyers From Appearing Before Court Will Lead To Prosecution For Wrongful Restraint: Madhya Pradesh High Court Initiates Contempt Case Against State Bar Council #Strikelivelaw.in/news-updates/m…
Any attempt by any person in restraining a counsel to appear before the Court shall also render them liable to be tried for an offence under Section 341 of IPC: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The strike called by the Chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council is in brazen defiance of the order passed by the Division Bench hich inter alia required lawyers to resume their work: High Court #MadhyaPradesh