- Elgar Case: DU Professor Hany Babu Gets Judicial Custody Till Aug 21
Babu, an associate professor at the Department of English, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on July 28.
A special court here on Friday remanded Delhi University (DU) associate professor Hany Babu, who was arrested in connection with the Elgar Parishad case, and is in judicial custody till August 21.
Hany Babu Musaliyarveettil Tharayil, 54, an associate professor at the Department of English, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on July 28 for his alleged involvement in the case.
He was sent to judicial custody by Special Court judge D. E. Kothalikar at the end of his NIA remand on Friday.
Earlier, the NIA had submitted before the court that the accused had links with the CPI (Maoists).
The Pune police filed a charge sheet and a supplementary charge sheet in the case on November 15, 2018 and February 21, 2019, respectively.
The NIA took up the investigation in the case on January 24 this year.
- Hyderabad Police Re-Registers Sedition Case Against 2 Muslim Women for Protesting Against Ayodhya Verdict
They were booked in November 2019 for organising a special congregation Qunoot-e-Nazilah against the Supreme Court's verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute case.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Central Crime Station (CCS) under the Hyderabad police on Thursday re-registered a sedition case against two women from Saidabad which was previously registered by the Saidabad police last year.
“We have re-registered a sedition case against the women. The case will be investigated by SIT of CCS,” Avinash Mohanty, joint commissioner of police (detective) told the Times of India.
These two women are Muslim cleric Maulana Abdul Islahi’s daughters, Shabista and Zille Huma. They were booked in November 2019 for organising a special congregation Qunoot-e-Nazilah against the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute case.
After going through videos of the congregation, sub-inspector Din Dayal Singh of the Saidabad police had lodged a complaint against the women, accusing them of promoting enmity on ground of religion and sedition, and registered a case last year.
They were also accused of attacking policemen at the Saidabad police station and a non-bailable warrant is pending against them.
The re-registration comes on the heels of Ayodhya being back in the headlines, after Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the Ram temple that is being built where the Babri Masjid once stood. In November 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu party in the Ayodhya title dispute case and paved the way for the Ram temple’s construction.
The sedition law, according to the Supreme Court, is only supposed to be applied when there has been a direct incitement to violence. However, police across the country continue to misuse it to suppress dissent.
- Heinousness of Crime Isn't the Test for Premature Release of Prisoners, Says SC
Merely stating that the release of a prisoner convicted for committing a heinous crime would send a negative message against the justice system is against the law, the bench held.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha, on August 5, in Shor v State of Uttar Pradesh, has deplored the practice of prison officials denying the premature release of prisoners in accordance with the law on the ground that the crime they committed was heinous, and therefore, their premature release would send a negative message against the justice system in society.
Interpreting Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (UP Act), the bench held that it enables the state government to release a prisoner prematurely, if it appears from his antecedents and conduct in prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life.
Under this provision, the state government may by licence permit the prisoner to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a government officer or of a person professing the same religion as the prisoner, or such secular institution or such society belonging to the same religion as the prisoner as may be recognised by the state government for this purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge of him.
In the instant case, the state government rejected the plea of the petitioner for premature release first in 2011 without stating any reason. This order was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2017, with a direction to consider it afresh and pass a reasoned order.
In a reasoned order passed on January 22, 2018, the state government took the stand that the petitioner, having undergone imprisonment of more than 37 years (with remission), was not eligible for premature release under the law, as he, along with 20 co-accused, committed the murder of 11 persons with deadly weapons and injured others. The state government’s order, therefore, stated that “premature release of this kind of prisoner would send a negative message against the justice system in the society”.
It was then also mentioned in that order that the senior superintendent of police and the district magistrate had both confirmed that the prisoner was not incapacitated from committing crime.
The bench held that the joint secretary, government of Uttar Pradesh, has failed to apply his mind to the conditions of Section 2 of the UP Act. “Merely repeating the fact that the crime is heinous and that release of such a person would send a negative message against the justice system in the society are factors de hors Section 2. Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released from prison,” the bench reasoned.
Given the long incarceration of 29 years (approximately) without remission, the bench said it did not wish to drive the petitioner to a further proceeding challenging the government’s order denying him premature release. The bench found that the order had been passed mechanically and without application of mind to Section 2 of the UP Act.
The bench set aside the order and set the petitioner free. “It will be open for the State Government to impose such conditions as are mentioned in Section 2 of the U.P. Act on the footing that the petitioners now stand released forthwith,” the bench concluded.
In debates on reconsideration of the death penalty imposed by lower courts, the Supreme Court is frequently confronted with the question whether to take into account the heinous nature of the crime, or the potential for reform of the criminal, while deciding whether a sentence of death can be commuted.
Wednesday’s order, therefore, is expected to come to the assistance of those arguing for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that the prisoner has a potential for reform, notwithstanding the heinous nature of the crime committed by him.
Wanted to Stay Updated & gain knowledge, join our What'sApp Group here
- In Prashant Bhushan's Contempt Case, an Issue of Procedural Fairness Comes to the Fore
Prashant Bhushan has filed a fresh application seeking his right to lead evidence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
With the Supreme Court reserving its order in the suo motu contempt case against Prashant Bhushan on Wednesday after a detailed hearing, one would have thought nothing much remained in the case, except for the order.
But Bhushan’s fresh application filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday points to a procedural lacuna in the case, which was not discussed adequately during Wednesday’s hearing. Therefore, it requires the bench’s indulgence in order to ensure procedural as well as substantive justice.
In his fresh application, Bhushan first draws a distinction between his first and second tweet.
The first tweet regarding the Chief Justice of India S. A. Bobde on a bike was posted on June 29, and was the subject of Mehak Maheshwari’s petition, which got converted into the suo motu contempt case.
Bhushan’s second tweet, regarding ‘destruction of democracy’ which was dated June 27, was mysteriously published in the Times of India on the morning of July 22, based on which the Supreme Court-issued notice to Bhushan. Bhushan claims that the second tweet constitutes a separate cause of action and that the court having taken cognisance of the second tweet is required to initiate it as a separate proceeding. Bhushan’s senior counsel, Dushyant Dave made this point orally during the hearing on Wednesday.
In his application filed on Thursday, Bhushan makes the point that the proceedings regarding the second tweet are required to be placed before the CJI who is the master of the roster for allocation of benches.
Bhushan, to support his contention, has cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Kurle. In this case, after taking cognisance and issuing notice to Kurle and others in a pending contempt matter against advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, another bench of the court placed the matter before the CJI for allocation of the bench.
In Paragraph 39 of Vijay Kurle, the court held:
“If an article, letter or any writing or even something visual circulating in electronic, print or social media or in any other forum is brought to the notice of any Judge of this Court which prima facie shows that the allegation is contemptuous or scandalises the court then that Judge can definitely issue notice and thereafter place it before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for listing it before an appropriate Bench.”
Maheshwari’s petition was placed before Justice N.V. Ramana, as the CJI, as master of the roster, could not have dealt with it administratively, because it concerned a tweet about him. As second in seniority, Justice Ramana assigned the case to a Justice Arun Mishra-led bench.
Similarly, the second tweet too must have been placed before Justice Ramana, for bench assignment, as it referred to the role of the last four CJIs, including the present.
Secondly, Bhushan has complained about having been denied a copy of Maheshwari’s petition on the basis of which the notice was issued to him. This was in violation of Rule 6(2) of Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 framed under Article 145 of the constitution which provides:
“When action is instituted on petition, a copy of the petition along with the annexure and affidavits shall be served upon the person charged”. (emphasis supplied by Bhushan)
According to Bhushan, the word “action” here includes the conversion of Maheshwari’s petition to suo motu petition when it came to the first tweet. The words “shall be”, according to him, vests an undiluteable right in him. This right vests in him even under suo motu proceedings under Article 129, because Rules have been framed under Article 145.
To support his contention, Bhushan has again relied on Vijay Kurle, where the alleged contemner complained that he was not supplied with the copies of the complaint on the basis of which suo motu action was initiated against him in his preliminary affidavit. The Supreme Court, therefore, directed that the complaint with all annexures be supplied to the alleged contemner. The court, in that case, also allowed the alleged contemners to file a fresh affidavit, after going through the contempt petition and its annexures, within three weeks thereafter.
Bhushan, therefore, contends now that if his preliminary reply submitted earlier explaining why the notice was not sustainable is not acceptable to the court, then he would invoke his right to lead evidence under Section 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Relying on case law, Bhushan also contends that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Standard proof applicable is, therefore, that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, he has underlined.
The two setbacks so far
Wednesday’s proceedings in the Supreme Court must be viewed against the backdrop of two legal setbacks which Bhushan has already suffered.
First, the bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, dismissed his writ petition (W.P.[c] 792 of 2020) seeking recall of the contempt notice issued to him by the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. The bench dismissed the petition without any reasoning, and therefore, its action is least convincing.
Second, it has now emerged that the Supreme Court’s registry’s rejection of the impleadment application filed by 16 civil society activists in the case on Tuesday may perhaps be flawed. The application filed on behalf of civil society activist, Aruna Roy and 15 others with varying backgrounds in their respective fields of work was rejected by the court’s registry, although they claimed violation of their rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution, insofar as it causes a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to free expression.
The court’s registry, to support its rejection of the impleadment application, relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in C.S.Karnan, as follows:
“5. Since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor, anyone who enters appearance and disrupts the proceedings of this case in future, should understand that he/she can be proceeded against, in consonance with law. All that we need to say is, that no one should appear in this matter, without due consent and authorization”.
The registry, after citing the above paragraph, said as follows:
“In view of the observations of this Hon’ble Court as quoted hereinabove, there appears to be no reasonable cause to receive the instant application for registration. I accordingly lodge the same under the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.”
Order XV Rule 5 states as follows:
“The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter but the petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.”
The passage from C.S. Karnan, which the registry relied on, clearly says it applies only for that case. And then the second line also says “this matter,” meaning the ruling is relevant only for that matter. Therefore, this can hardly be construed as a practice direction, let alone a binding law.
As the extracted Order XV Rule 5 states, the applicants have an option to appeal against the registry’s refusal to receive the application. But given that judgment has been reserved in the case, the 16 civil society activists have been effectively deprived of the remedy provided under the rules. If the remedy has to be effective, the bench ought not to have reserved its order on Wednesday, but waited for 15 days to lapse from Tuesday.
In another contempt case in another era, the Delhi high court permitted six media personalities to be impleaded as parties to the contempt proceedings against Wah India, a magazine accused of committing contempt through its survey grading the court’s Judges, in 2001. The interveners were aggrieved by the court’s direction barring the press from reporting the contempt proceedings.
They were the vice-chairperson of the Hindustan Times, Shobhna Bhartiya, the executive managing editor of Times of India, the late Dilip Padgaonkar, the editor-in-chief of Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta, the editor of Outlook, the late Vinod Mehta, the resident editor of Punjab Kesri, Ashwani Chopra and columnist and Rajya Sabha member, the late Kuldip Nayar.
The editors’ intervention resulted in the court’s modifying its order by allowing media coverage of the proceedings.
The six editors clarified that they did not wish to defend the article published in Wah India or contest the contempt petition. Ultimately, the editor-in-chief of Wah India, Madhu Trehan tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology and expressed deep regret for the article found contemptuous by the court.
The factual matrix of the Wah India case is of course different from that of the current case in the Supreme Court involving Prashant Bhushan.
But the Delhi high court in Wah India case had no difficulty in accepting the impleadment application of the six editors in the contempt proceedings, and in conceding their plea.
Similarly, the plea of the 16 civil society activists that the proceedings against Prashant Bhushan have a chilling effect on their right to exercise freedom of expression could not have been dismissed by the registry by an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court’s ruling in C.S. Karnan.
- Sushant Singh Death: BMC advises IPS Vinay Tiwari to use digital platforms for probe
The BMC authorities in their reply to Bihar Police’s letter seeking exemption for COVID-19 induced home quarantine for Bihar cadre Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Vinay Tiwari said that the latter has been advised to use digital platforms while proceeding with the investigation regarding the actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s alleged suicide case.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation officials said that the use of digital platforms would ensure that the IPS officer, if asymptomatic, would not transmit the contagion to others, nor would he himself get infected by SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease.
They cited the spike in the viral outbreak cases in Bihar & urged Tiwari to take the preventive measures in line with the Maharashtra Govt’s rules & regulations.
Earlier, Bihar Police authorities had claimed that Tiwari was forcibly quarantined by the BMC on Sunday night upon reaching Mumbai, even though they were intimated in advance about his arrival to pursue the further investigation in the Rajput death case.
On Monday morning, the BMC authorities issued a clarification & said Tiwari was quarantined as per the rules of the Maharashtra government, but the IPS officer was allowed to apply for an exemption from home quarantine.
The BMC clarification had led Bihar Police to write to the civic body amid a slanging match between the 2 states – Maharashtra & Bihar – over the Rajput death probe.
BMC has also drawn the Bihar Police’s attention that Tiwari has been urged to follow all rules & regulations enforced by Maharashtra government as far as the prevention of the viral outbreak in the state is concerned, according to P Velrasu, additional municipal commissioner, BMC.
Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead in his Bandra apartment on June 14 following which the Maharashtra Govt handed over the probe to the Mumbai Police.
- Sushant’s suicide: ED grills Rhea’s associate Samuel for second day
The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday questioned actress Rhea Chakraborty’s associate Samuel Miranda for the second consecutive day in connection with a money laundering case relating to film star Sushant Singh Rajput’s death.
The ED questioned Miranda about the finances of Rajput, sources said.
ED had lodged a money laundering case against Rhea Chakraborty and her family members after Rajput’s father had filed a complaint before Patna police and accused the deceased actor’s girlfriend of swindling his funds to the tune of Rs 15 crore.
Earlier, the ED had registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after taking cognisance of the Bihar police FIR.
Miranda’s questioning comes a day ahead of Chakraborty’s grilling as she has been summoned by the agency to appear before it on Friday in Mumbai.
Earlier, the agency had grilled Rajput’s Chartered Accountant Sandeep Sridhar who had in his statement before the Mumnai police claimed that no major transactions were made to Rhea Chakraborty from the late actor’s account.
Miranda’s statement was recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Miranda has been named as an accused in the case.
Miranda was reportedly named by Rajput’s brother-in-law and IPS officer OP Singh in his WhatsApp message to Mumbai Police DCP Paramjeet Dahiya. OP Singh wanted the Mumbai police to informally interrogate Samuel Miranda, according to Dahiya.
According to OP Singh, if Miranda was kept in custody informally for a day, then he would have spilled the beans about Chakraborty who was allegedly controlling Rajput’s life, reports said.
Miranda, according to allegations, was recruited by Chakraborty as Sushant’s house manager and was looking after the employees and house expenses.
- Students move SC, seek postponement of JEE (Main), NEET-UG exams
Referring to the coronavirus pandemic and floods’ havoc in several parts of the country, a group of students on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking postponement of JEE (Main) April 2020 and NEET-Undergraduate examinations, which are scheduled to be conducted in September.
The plea has sought quashing of July 3 notices issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA), by which it was decided to conduct Joint Entrance Examination (Main) April 2020 and National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-Undergraduate exams in September.
The plea, filed by 11 students belonging to 11 States, said that the authorities be directed to conduct these exams only after the normalcy is restored. As per the public notices issued by the NTA, JEE (Main) April 2020 is scheduled from September 1-6, while NEET UG 2020 exam is scheduled for September 13.
The plea, filed through advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, has also sought direction to the authorities to increase the number of examination centres for these exams. “Conducting the aforesaid examination across India at such perilous time, is nothing else but putting lives of lakhs of young students (including petitioners herein) at utmost risk and danger of disease and death.
The best recourse at this stage can be to wait for some more time, let COVID-19 crisis subside and then only conduct these exams, in order to save the lives of the students and their parents,” the plea said.
It claimed that NTA, which conducts entrance exams for admission in higher educational institutions in India, has decided to conduct JEE (Main) April-2020 through online mode and NEET UG-2020 exams through offline mode at 161 centres across India.
It alleged that NTA has indefinitely postponed the National Council of Hotel Management Joint Entrance Examination-2020, which was scheduled to be conducted on June 22, in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Special Court to pronounce verdict on Swapna’s bail plea
Both the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the petitioner (Swapna Suresh, the kingpin in the gold smuggling racket through diplomatic channel at Thiruvananthapuram) completed their arguments before the Special Court in Kochi on the bail application moved by the latter. The judge has reserved the orders for August 10.
While the lawyer representing Swapna told the court that though the gold was smuggled into the country, the team probing the vase has failed to prove that it had any links with terrorism related activities.
“It is an offence which could be resolved by remitting the fine prescribed by the rule books,” said the lawyer. He also disclosed that each and every gram of gold seized from Swapna’s locker had been accounted for and there was no illegalities in her owning that gold.
But the NIA told in its reply that the accused was well aware of the implications of her action and she had confessed to the agency that she was not bothered about the possibility of the profitability from smuggling being diverted to anti-national activities and terrorism.
The revelations by the NIA to the court that the accused Swapna Suresh has close links with higher officials in the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) was a serious issue.
“She had approached her contacts in the CMO to get the gold released from the Customs. She was getting sufficient help from the
police department of the State,” said the assistant solicitor general Vijayakumar who represented the NIA.
The lawyer for Swapna is opposing the slapping of the UAPA in this case which would make it impossible for the accused to come out on bail foe the next one year.
0 Comments