#SupremeCourt hears Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's plea seeking quashing of trial in "Cash for Votes" case.
Bench: Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
An interlocutory application has been filed by erstwhile Ministers seeking impleadment in the case and opposing Reddy's quashing plea.
Counsel: We are not strangers to this case. We just want to be heard.
J Maheshwari: Let us understand the case.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi: This is between me and the state. They have no locus.
Rohatgi takes the court through the case.
Rohatgi: A trap was set up before an FIR is registered. The trap is completely illegal because no investigation can commence before registration of FIR under CrPC. No general diary entry and no FIR.
J Maheshwari: No general diary entry? That point is relevant.
Rohatgi: The trap was laid, three people were caught giving bribe. I am being prosecuted under section 12 of the PC Act as its stood 2015. It is abetment of section 7 and 11. But in 2010 bribe giver was not under section 7 and 11, only bribe taker. I am an alleged bribe giver
Rohatgi: in 2018 amendment was made to bring bribe giver in the net under section 8. So 12 read with 7 and 11 did not include bribe giver as it stood in 2015.
Rohatgi: assuming I am covered by section 7, 11 and 12, it refers to official acts of an MLA. If in the discharge of official acts if he does this bribe then he may be in the net. Casting of a vote or abstaining from vote of MLC is by an MLA is not an official act as there is no compulsion to cast a vote. That is an alternate argument.
Rohatgi takes the court through section 12 of Prevention of Correction Act as it stood in 2015.
Rohatgi: whoever abets an offence under sections 7 and 11 whether that is committed or not, so attempt is included, will be punishable with...
Rohatgi takes the Court through sections 7 and 11.
J Maheshwari: So earlier it was abetment of section 7 and 11 and now...
Rohatgi: Now it is abetment of any offence in the whole Act. Which is logical
Matter to continue at 2:15 PM.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#SupremeCourt hears PIL seeking directions for mandatory access to counsel to any individual being interrogated/ questioned by the Police
Sr Adv Guruswamy refers to decision in Nandini Sathpathy
CJI: why are you before this court ?
Guruswamy: if today if its police, if an accuse or a person is called to be questioned, I have no ability to ask for a counsel , I am only asking for my ability for the presence of a counsel to prevent anything
#SupremeCourt hears the plea by Sony Entertainment seeking the transfer of the copyright dispute against 'Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd' (IMMA) to Bombay HC
Sr Adv AM Singhvi: my suit is regarding my purchase with respect to his rights
Singhvi mentions that the SC earlier had dismissed the transfer plea by IMMA
Delhi High Court to hear singer Kumar Sanu’s suit seeking protection of his personality rights.
Matter before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
#KumarSanu #Personalityrights #delhihighcourt
Hearing commences.
Advocate Sana Raees Khan appears for Sanu.
Court: Counsel for defendant 7 states that plaintiff has raised grievance regarding four profiles on Facebook and Instagram. He states list of 34 urls was provided. He says urls have become unavailable .
#SupremeCourt hearing TMC MP Mahua Moitra's fresh plea seeking directions to SEBI to mandate full public disclosure of Ultimate Beneficial Owners, Last Natural Persons and Portfolios of Alternative Investment Funds, Foreign Portfolio Investors and their intermediaries in India.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan: though 1 lakh crore is being invested, the public doesn't know and even the SEBI doesn't know who is behind these investments.
Bhushan: A whole time member of SEBI was saying that several financial regulations are circumvented through these alternate investment funds. For example it will say "global opportunities fund". Who is behind it, it will say some other company. Then who is behind that other company? It will be some other company. So through these shell companies ultimately who is the beneficial owner will not be known
#SupremeCourt hears the petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC challenging Madras High Court's rejection of its plea against searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters
Sibal appears for TASMAC: how can a gvt. company be raided under PCA? everything is controlled by the govt. they raided the managing director that had nothing to do with it
Sibal: the seller who sells the liquor, if sold beyond a price will be prosecuted, this is what we are investigating