Tag: hear

Adani-Hindenburg row: SC agrees to hear fresh PIL of Congress leader on Feb 17

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on February 17 a fresh plea of a Congress leader seeking investigation under the supervision of a sitting apex court judge against the Adani Group of companies in light of the allegations made by the US-based Hindenburg Research.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha took note of the submissions of a lawyer, representing Congress leader Jaya Thakur, that the plea needed an urgent hearing.
The bench initially agreed to list the PIL for hearing on February 24 and later decided to hear on Friday after the lawyer pointed out that two other PILs are listed on February 17.
Thakur has also sought a direction for investigating the role of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and the State Bank of India (SBI) in investing huge amounts of public money in Adani Enterprises.
On Monday, the Centre had agreed to the apex court’s proposal to set up a panel of experts to look into strengthening the regulatory mechanisms for the stock market following the recent Adani group shares crash triggered by Hindenburg Research’s fraud allegations.
The top court seized two petitions alleging exploitation of innocent investors and “artificial crashing” of the Adani Group’s stock value.
Subscribe us on

[ad_2]
#AdaniHindenburg #row #agrees #hear #fresh #PIL #Congress #leader #Feb
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 15, 2023
SC to hear plea alleging delay in clearing names recommended by Collegium

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday two pleas on the issue of alleged delay by the Centre in clearing names recommended by the Collegium for appointment of judges to the apex court and the high courts.
While hearing the matter on February 3, a bench headed by Justice S K Kaul had expressed displeasure over the delay in clearing recommendations for the transfer of high court judges, calling it a “very serious issue”.
Attorney General R Venkataramani had on February 3 assured the top court that the Collegium’s recommendation of December last year for the elevation of five judges to the apex court will be cleared soon.
On February 6, five judges – Justices Pankaj Mithal, Sanjay Karol, P V Sanjay Kumar, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Manoj Misra – were administered the oath of office as apex court judges.
Two new top court judges – Justices Rajesh Bindal and Aravind Kumar – will be administered the oath of office by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on February 13.
Once these two judges will take oath, the top court will achieve its full strength of 34 judges, including the CJI, after a gap of nine months.
Meanwhile, four judges, including two who will retire later this month, were on Sunday appointed as chief justices of high courts.
The appointment of judges through the Collegium system has become a major flashpoint between the Supreme Court and the Centre with the mechanism drawing criticism from different quarters.

During the February 3 hearing in the apex court, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, had flagged the issue of names reiterated by the Collegium not being cleared by the government.
During the earlier hearing in the matter on January 6, the attorney general told the apex court that all efforts were being made to “conform” to the timelines laid down by it for processing the names recommended by the Collegium for appointment of judges to constitutional courts.
One of the pleas in the apex court has alleged “wilful disobedience” of the time frame laid down in its April 20, 2021 to facilitate the timely appointment of judges.
In the order, the court had said the Centre should appoint judges within three-four weeks if the Collegium reiterates its recommendations unanimously.
[ad_2]
#hear #plea #alleging #delay #clearing #names #recommended #Collegium
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 12, 2023
SC to hear in May pleas concerning removal of encroachments from railway land in Haldwani

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear in May the pleas on which it had last month stayed the Uttarakhand High Court’s order for removal of encroachments from 29 acres of land claimed by the railways in Haldwani.
The matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices SK Kaul and Manoj Misra, which listed it for hearing on May 2.
On January 5, the top court had stayed the high court order for removal of encroachments from the 29 acres of land claimed by the railways in Haldwani, terming it a “human issue” and saying 50,000 people cannot be uprooted overnight.
“We do believe that a workable arrangement is necessary to segregate people who may have no rights in the land and those who have…. Coupled with schemes of rehabilitation which may already exist while recognising the need of the railways,” it had said.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench was requested to grant eight weeks’ time to authorities to work out a solution as indicated by the court last month.
According to the railways, there are 4,365 encroachers on the land, while the occupants were earlier staging protests in Haldwani, asserting that they were the rightful owners of the land.
Nearly 50,000 people, a majority of them Muslims, belonging to more than 4,000 families reside on the disputed land.
Observing that many of the occupants have claimed that they have been residing there for more than 50 years, the apex court had last month observed that there was a “human angle” to the problem and the authorities concerned had to find a “practical way out”.

It had also issued notices to the railways and the Uttarakhand government, seeking their responses to a batch of pleas challenging the high court order for removal of encroachments.
In its December 20 last year order, the high court had said, “The railway authorities, in coordination with the district administration, and if need be, with any other paramilitary forces, shall immediately, after giving a week’s notice to the occupants over the railway land, ask them to vacate the land within the aforesaid period.”
The apex court had, however, said since the people sought to be removed from the land have been staying there for several years, some rehabilitation has to be found for them.
Staying the high court’s directions, the apex court had said there had to be complete restraint on any further occupation of land and construction whether by the existing occupants or anyone else.
The high court had ordered demolition of constructions on the alleged encroached railway land at Banbhoolpura in Haldwani.
It had directed that a week’s notice be given to the encroachers, after which the encroachments should be demolished.
The residents have submitted in their plea that the high court has gravely erred in passing the impugned order, despite being aware of the fact that proceedings with regard to the title of the residents, including the petitioners, are pending before the district magistrate.
The petitioners have claimed that they possess documents that clearly establish their title and valid occupation.
[ad_2]
#hear #pleas #removal #encroachments #railway #land #Haldwani
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 7, 2023
Delhi HC to hear Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in UAPA case on March 15

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday posted the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case related to an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here to March 15.
A bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul deferred the hearing on the plea, which assails an April 2022 trial court order that rejected Imam’s prayer for bail after a request for accommodation was made by his counsel.
“List on March 15 at the specific request of the counsel for the appellant,” the court recorded.
The bench, also comprising Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, in the meantime, began hearing submissions on the bail plea of the Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (RJD) youth wing leader and Jamia Millia Islamia student Meeran Haider in the same case.
Imam, Haider and several others, including Umar Khalid, have been booked under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Haider’s lawyer argued that although his client was managing eight protest sites and had “spoken” at several such sites, it was incorrect to presume that he was part of any conspiracy or strategy to incite violence.
He asserted that the accused’s specific role has to be ascertained to sustain a case under the UAPA and in the present case, his “pattern of involvement does not match” the prosecution’s version.

“What part of the chargesheet is attributable to Meeran Haider for the offence under section 15, UAPA? It is not sufficient to say you cannot differentiate between different accused,” the counsel argued.
It was also claimed that the speeches given by Haider were “political”, where he expressed his “discontent with the government” and “chose to express his anguish” but did not incite violence or rioting.
He was not calling for violence but was talking about the right to protest, the lawyer told the court, which listed the matter for further hearing on February 8.
Haider was arrested in April 2020 and the trial court had dismissed his bail plea in April last year.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #hear #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #UAPA #case #March
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 7, 2023
SC to hear plea against ban on BBC documentary on Gujarat riots on Friday

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court would hear a plea challenging the Centre’s decision to ban a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots on Friday.
According to the cause list uploaded on the apex court website, a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh will take up a petition filed by senior journalist N. Ram, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, and advocate Prashant Bhushan, and also another petition moved by advocate M.L. Sharma.
The documentary series, titled ‘India: The Modi Question’, has been dismissed as a biased “propaganda piece” by the government.
The plea filed by Sharma contended that the BBC documentary on Gujarat riots was released for public view. However, due to “fear of truth”, the documentary has been banned from viewership in India by any means under rule 16 of the IT Act 2021.
Sharma’s plea sought a direction for quashing of the January 21 order under the IT Act being illegal, malafide and arbitrary, unconstitutional and void ab-initio and ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
The documentary has been banned on social media and online channels, but some students have screened it on campuses of various universities across the country.
Sharma’s plea contended that the BBC documentary has reflected the true facts with original recordings of the victims of the 2002 riots as well as other concerned persons involved in the scenario of the riots, and it can be used for judicial justice.
A separate petition has been filed by journalist N. Ram, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and advocate Prashant Bhushan against taking down their tweets with links to the documentary.

“The content of the BBC documentary and the tweets by Petitioner No. 2 (Bhushan) and 3 (Moitra) are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The content of the documentary series do not fall under any of the restrictions specified under Article 19(2) or restrictions imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000,” said the plea filed by Ram and others.
The government has blocked sharing of any clips from the documentary on social media, prompting students’ organisations and opposition parties to organise its public screenings.
The plea by Ram and others argued that the apex court has categorically laid down that criticism of the government or its policies or even the judgment of the Supreme Court does not tantamount to violating the sovereignty and integrity of India.
“Censoring freedom of speech and expression of the petitioners by the executive through opaque orders and proceedings is manifestly arbitrary as it frustrates the fundamental right of the petitioners to effectively seek judicial review of administrative actions under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India,” added the plea.
[ad_2]
#hear #plea #ban #BBC #documentary #Gujarat #riots #Friday
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 3, 2023
SC to hear pleas challenging laws regulating conversions due to interfaith marriages

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear on February 3 a batch of pleas challenging controversial state laws regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala noted that a transfer plea was mentioned in the morning.
“We can list it, issue notice and hear it together. The transfer petition will also be numbered by then. The attorney general can also examine. We will hear all on Friday,” the bench said.
During the brief hearing, senior advocate CU Singh, appearing in the court on behalf of NGO “Citizens for Justice and Peace” of activist Teesta Setalwad, submitted that people cannot get married due to these state laws and the situation is very grave.
Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that these are state legislations that have been challenged before the apex court and the high courts concerned should hear the cases.
The top court had earlier asked the parties challenging the anti-conversion laws of several states to file a common petition seeking a transfer of the cases on the issue from various high courts to the apex court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had challenged the locus standi of “Citizens for Justice and Peace”, which is one of the petitioners. Mehta had not elaborated on the reasons for questioning the NGO’s locus.
The bench had noted that there were at least five such pleas “before the Allahabad High Court, seven before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, two each before the Gujarat and Jharkhand high courts, three before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and one each before the Karnataka and Uttarakhand high courts”, and said a common petition for their transfer can be filed.

Besides, two separate petitions have been filed by Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, challenging the interim orders of the respective high courts that stayed certain provisions of the state laws on conversion.
Earlier, a bench headed by Justice M R Shah had said religious conversion is a serious issue that should not be given a political colour.
It had sought the attorney general’s assistance on the plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Another bench headed by the CJI had, on January 2, sought to know the status of the cases pending before different high courts challenging controversial state laws regulating religious conversion due to interfaith marriages and said if the cases are similar in nature, it may transfer those to itself.
It had asked “Citizens for Justice and Peace” and the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh to apprise it of the status of the cases challenging the state laws on conversion through marriage.
The apex court had, on January 6, 2021, agreed to examine certain new and controversial laws of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
The Uttar Pradesh law relates to not only interfaith marriages but all religious conversions and lays down elaborate procedures for anyone who wishes to convert to another religion.
The Uttarakhand law entails a two-year jail term for those found guilty of religious conversion through “force or allurement”. The allurement can be in the form of cash, employment or material benefits.
The plea filed by the NGO has alleged that the legislations violate articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as those empower the State to suppress an individual’s personal liberty and freedom to practise the religion of his choice.
Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has also moved the Supreme Court, challenging the anti-conversion laws of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. It has contended that these laws have been enacted to “harass” interfaith couples and implicate them in criminal cases.
The Muslim body, in its PIL filed through advocate Ejaz Maqbool, has said the provisions of all such laws of the five states force people to disclose their faith and consequently, invade their privacy.
[ad_2]
#hear #pleas #challenging #laws #regulating #conversions #due #interfaith #marriages
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 30, 2023
Saddened to hear about crash involving two IAF fighter jets: Mallikarjun Kharge

[ad_1]
New Delhi: Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday said he was saddened to hear about the unfortunate crash involving two fighter jets of the Indian Air Force (IAF) and wished the injured pilots a speedy recovery.
A Sukhoi 30MKI and a Mirage-2000 aircraft of the IAF crashed in Morena district of Madhya Pradesh during a routine training mission on Saturday, resulting in the death of a wing commander while two other pilots ejected safely.
“Dismayed to hear about the unfortunate aircraft crash involving two fighter jets of Indian Air Force.
“Salutations to the pilot who made the supreme sacrifice. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and loved ones. Wishing speedy recovery to the injured pilots,” Kharge said on Twitter.
The Congress also said the news of crash involving the two IAF fighter jets is very sad.
“We pray to the god to grant place in his feet to the pilot killed in the crash and strength to his family. We also pray for the speedy recovery of the pilots injured in the crash,” the party said in a tweet in Hindi.
Officials said the two pilots of the Sukhoi-30MKI aircraft ejected safely while the pilot of the Mirage-2000 lost his life.
“Two fighter aircraft of IAF were involved in an accident near Gwalior today morning,” the Indian Air Force said in a statement.

It said the aircraft were on a routine operational flying training mission. “One of the three pilots involved sustained fatal injuries. An inquiry has been ordered to determine the cause of the accident,” the IAF said.
Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Saddened #hear #crash #involving #IAF #fighter #jets #Mallikarjun #Kharge
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 28, 2023
SC to hear plea of journalist Rana Ayyub against summons in money laundering case

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday the petition of journalist Rana Ayyub challenging the summons issued to her by a special PMLA court in Ghaziabad in a money laundering case lodged against her by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
According to the list of business uploaded on the apex court website, Ayyub’s petition is listed before a bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala.
Earlier on January 17, a CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench had agreed to consider listing the plea of the journalist for urgent hearing after taking note of the submissions of advocate Vrinda Grover who appeared for Ayyub.
Grover had said a summons was issued by the special court in Ghaziabad against Ayyub for January 27 and therefore the matter be listed urgently.
In her writ petition, Ayyub has sought quashing of the proceedings initiated by the ED in Ghaziabad citing lack of jurisdiction as the alleged offence of money laundering occurred in Mumbai.
On November 29 last year, the special PMLA court in Ghaziabad had taken cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate and summoned Ayyub.
It had noted that the prosecution complaint (ED version of charge sheet) under section 45 read with section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the commission of offences of money laundering has been filed by Sanjeet Kumar Sahu, Assistant Director of Enforcement, Delhi.
“I have perused the above mentioned prosecution complaint and have also gone through the prosecution papers as well as documents including statements. From the perusal of the entire record there is sufficient evidence as to a prima facie case for taking cognizance against Ms. Rana Ayyub with regard to commission of offence “, the special court judge said.

The special court has noted the alleged offence pertains to obtaining illegally money from the general public in the name of charity via ‘Ketto’ platform (an online crowdfunding platform) in three campaigns without any kind of approval, raising huge amounts in the bank account of her sister and father and later transferring the same to her own bank account which was not used for the intended purpose.
She is accused of acquiring proceeds of crime and creating assets for herself.
On October 12 last year, the ED had filed a charge sheet against Ayyub, accusing her of cheating the public and utilising charity funds worth Rs 2.69 crore for creating her personal assets, and also violating the foreign contribution law.
“Rana Ayyub launched three fundraiser charity campaigns on the ‘Ketto platform’ starting from April 2020 and collected funds totalling Rs 2,69,44,680,” the ED had said in a statement.
The campaigns, it had said, were meant to raise funds for slum dwellers and farmers, relief work for Assam, Bihar and Maharashtra, and help Ayyub and her team to help those impacted by COVID-19 in India.
The probe found that the funds raised on the online platforms were received in the accounts of Ayyub’s father and sister and subsequently transferred to her personal accounts, the ED alleged.
“Ayyub utilised these funds to create a fixed deposit of Rs 50 lakh for herself and also transferred Rs 50 lakh to a new bank account. Investigations found that only about Rs 29 lakh was used for relief work,” it had claimed.
“In order to claim more expenses towards relief work, fake bills were submitted by Ayyub and subsequently, bank balances in the accounts of Ayyub amounting to Rs 1,77,27,704 (including FD of Rs 50 Lakh) were attached under the PMLA vide a provisional attachment order dated February 4, 2022,” it had said.
The ED had initiated money laundering investigation on the basis of an FIR registered on September 7, 2021 by the Indirapuram Police Station of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh under various sections of the IPC, Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 and Black Money Act against Ayyub.
It was also alleged that Ayyub received foreign contributions without registration under FCRA.
On August 17 last year, the Delhi High Court had restrained the ED from proceeding further with the provisional attachment of funds in connection with the alleged money laundering probe against her.
On April 4 last year, the Delhi High Court had allowed Ayyub to travel abroad while questioning the ED over a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her barring her from travelling abroad.
Ayyub was stopped by the ED from taking a flight to London from the Mumbai airport in March as the agency had then opened a ‘Look out Circular’ against her.
[ad_2]
#hear #plea #journalist #Rana #Ayyub #summons #money #laundering #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 22, 2023