London: Britain’s Indian-origin Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, on Tuesday announced a new Illegal Migration Bill that will mean migrants arriving in the UK illegally on small boats will be “removed swiftly”.
The minister, whose father is of Goan heritage and mother of Tamil heritage, referenced her own migrant roots during her statement in the House of Commons to lay out details of the new “robust approach” against illegal migration.
“They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally you will be detained and swiftly removed back to your country, if it is safe, or a safe third country such as Rwanda,” Braverman.
“And that is precisely what this bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats,” she said.
The Home Secretary said the new bill will mean last-minute judicial reviews “conducted late at night with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions” are no longer allowed.
“Now, the United Kingdom must always support the world’s most vulnerable. Since 2015, we have given sanctuary to nearly half a million people. These include 150,000 people from Hong Kong, 160,000 people from Ukraine, 25,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
“Indeed, my own parents decades ago found security and opportunity in this country, something for which my family is eternally grateful,” said Braverman.
“For a government not to respond to waves of illegal migrants breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people we were elected to serve,” she said.
Under the new law, it will be her duty as Home Secretary “to remove” those entering the UK via illegal routes. This will take legal precedence over someone’s right to claim asylum although there will be exemptions for under-18s, those with serious medical conditions, and some “at real risk of serious and irreversible harm”.
Any other asylum claims will be heard remotely after removal. The bill allows for the detention of illegal arrivals without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed.
Besides a crackdown on unsafe boats crossing over from the French sea border, Braverman also revealed plans for an annual Parliament-set cap on migrants granted asylum in the UK through safe routes.
The bill, the full details of which are yet to be published in Parliament, comes after British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak indicated plans for a tough new law over the weekend.
“Make no mistake, if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay,” Sunak told the Sunday Express’ newspaper.
Refugee charities and human rights groups have warned of the legal implications for vulnerable asylum seekers.
“Of course, the UK will always seek to uphold international law and I am confident that this bill is compatible with international obligations,” Braverman insisted in the Commons.
The Opposition Labour party has raised doubts about the legality and feasibility of the bill and the Liberal Democrats said ministers had drawn up “another half-baked plan”.
Hyderabad: The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) on Friday informed the Telangana High Court that they are in possession of 101 documents that manifest Telangana education minister P Sabitha Indra Reddy’s role in the illegal mining case.
The bench of Telangana HC headed by chief justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a criminal revision plea filed by Sabitha Reddy challenging the decision of the Hyderabad CBI court that refused to discharge her from the illegal mining case involving mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy and his Obulapuram Mining Company.
During the argument, CBI’s special public prosecutor N Nagendran refuted the charge laid on the bureau of holding Sabitha an accused without any substantive material, by presenting the documentary evidence to prove their claim.
CBI counsel said that her actions helped private parties gain undue advantage and money, which was enough to convict a public servant in a corruption case.
“We laid our hands on 104 documents. Of them, 101 turned out to be new ones and we relied on them in our supplementary chargesheet, making Sabitha an accused in the case,” he said.
“She was asked to wait. She did not wait and took a decision favouring OMC when she was a minister in the united AP government,” CBI counsel said.
Requesting the HC to dismiss her plea, the counsel of the bureau said, “Sabitha may have signed the file because she did not know the legal consequences. But, ignorance of the law is no excuse. She has to face trial.”
Sabith’s counsel, E Uma Maheswara Rao in return said that the then-state government issued two GOs granting mining leases to OMC in 2007.
“Those two were legally scrutinised and no courts scrapped the GOs. She did her job consciously and not with ignorance as was alleged by CBI,” he added.
However, the case was adjourned to March 17.
The minister, in January, had sought relief from the charges laid against her by filing a criminal revision petition in the state’s HC.
Sabitha, in undivided AP, was the mining minister while Krupanandam and Srilakshmi were working as secretaries in the industries and mines department respectively when they were charged with conspiring with Janardhan Reddy and his OMC.
The CBI charged her with assisting mining baron G Janardhan Reddy in illegally extracting iron ore on the AP-Karnataka border and exporting it.
U.S. prosecutors on Thursday revealed new details of how FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried allegedly made millions of dollars of illegal campaign contributions using stolen customer money, as they hit the one-time crypto exchange executive with new fraud charges.
Federal prosecutors in New York alleged that Bankman-Fried and two unnamed co-conspirators took out loans from Alameda Research — his hedge fund — and siphoned FTX customer funds to pump money into campaigns and super PACs that supported candidates from both parties in the 2022 midterms. The charges indicate the misuse of funds for political activity contributed to the collapse of the FTX exchange last year.
Bankman-Fried improperly funneled contributions through other individuals to support dozens of Republicans as well as left-of-center Democrats whom he didn’t want associated with his personal brand, according to the indictment. Bankman-Fried and his partners used an encrypted Signal messaging channel to coordinate their efforts, which ultimately resulted in more than 300 unlawful contributions.
Bankman-Fried, along with fellow FTX exchange executives Ryan Salame and Nishad Singh, were among the most prolific political donors during the 2022 cycle. Salame and Singh have reportedly cooperated with regulators.
Amid the scrutiny of FTX since its bankruptcy and Bankman-Fried’s arrest in December, some congressional campaigns and super PACs have already set aside funds equalto the FTX team’s contributions until they receive further instruction.
FTX’s new management, which is overseeing the platform’s bankruptcy restructuring, formally requested political contractors and organizations return the funds earlier this year.
Bankman-Fried is now charged with 12 criminal counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitter. Prosecutors initially charged Bankman-Fried in December on eight criminal counts. He pleaded not guilty.
A spokesperson for Bankman-Fried did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
Thursday’s indictment identifies a contribution of $107,000 to the New York State Democratic Party made shortly before the midterm elections as an example of how Bankman-Fried sought to hide the extent of his political activities. The funds, which were wired from Bankman-Fried’s bank account, were tagged as having come from an unnamed co-conspirator instead.
“As soon as I saw that, I asked that the funds be segregated,” New York State Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs said in an interview on Thursday afternoon. “We’re awaiting direction [from federal authorities] on who we return that money to.”
The new indictment provides fresh details on the efforts that Bankman-Fried allegedly undertook to evade scrutiny by regulators and investors as he built up FTX as one of the largest crypto firms in the world.
Prosecutors said Bankman-Fried required those who worked with him to use “encrypted and ephemeral messaging platforms” to prevent regulators and law enforcement from obtaining records of his actions. He directed Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, who is cooperating with prosecutors, to change certain Alameda entities’ names to make venture capital investments appear as if they came from FTX, according to the indictment.
In 2020, Bankman-Fried also set up another entity called North Dimension to become a front with an unidentified California bank, prosecutors said Thursday. The account was set up under North Dimension so that it could house FTX customer deposits without Bankman-Fried’s other businesses facing scrutiny from the bank, according to the indictment. The customer funds housed in the North Dimension account, as well as others, were then allegedly used by Alameda to finance its operations, make investments and fund campaign contributions, prosecutors said.
[ad_2]
#indictment #details #BankmanFried039s #illegal #campaign #contributions
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Bankman-Fried, along with fellow FTX exchange executives Ryan Salame and Nishad Singh, were among the most prolific political donors during the 2022 cycle. Salame and Singh have reportedly cooperated with regulators.
Amid the scrutiny of FTX since its bankruptcy and Bankman-Fried’s arrest in December, some congressional campaigns and super PACs have already set aside funds equal to the FTX team’s contributions until they receive further instruction.
FTX’s new management, which is overseeing the platform’s bankruptcy restructuring, formally requested political contractors and organizations return the funds earlier this year.
Bankman-Fried is now charged with 12 criminal counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitter. Prosecutors initially charged Bankman-Fried in December on eight criminal counts. He pleaded not guilty.
A spokesperson for Bankman-Fried did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
Thursday’s indictment identifies a contribution of $107,000 to the New York State Democratic Party made shortly before the midterm elections as an example of how Bankman-Fried sought to hide the extent of his political activities. The funds, which were wired from Bankman-Fried’s bank account, were tagged as having come from an unnamed co-conspirator instead.
“As soon as I saw that, I asked that the funds be segregated,” New York State Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs said in an interview on Thursday afternoon. “We’re awaiting direction [from federal authorities] on who we return that money to.”
The new indictment provides fresh details on the efforts that Bankman-Fried allegedly undertook to evade scrutiny by regulators and investors as he built up FTX as one of the largest crypto firms in the world.
Prosecutors said Bankman-Fried required those who worked with him to use “encrypted and ephemeral messaging platforms” to prevent regulators and law enforcement from obtaining records of his actions. He directed Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, who is cooperating with prosecutors, to change certain Alameda entities’ names to make venture capital investments appear as if they came from FTX, according to the indictment.
In 2020, Bankman-Fried also set up another entity called North Dimension to become a front with an unidentified California bank, prosecutors said Thursday. The account was set up under North Dimension so that it could house FTX customer deposits without Bankman-Fried’s other businesses facing scrutiny from the bank, according to the indictment. The customer funds housed in the North Dimension account, as well as others, were then allegedly used by Alameda to finance its operations, make investments and fund campaign contributions, prosecutors said.
[ad_2]
#indictment #details #BankmanFrieds #illegal #campaign #contributions
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed actor Mohanlal’s plea against a trial court order rejecting the state government’s move to withdraw prosecution proceedings against him in a case related to illegal possession of ivory tusks.
Justice A Badharudeen was of the view that an accused in a case “have no right to challenge an order refusing withdrawal of prosecution” since the said procedure is the prerogative of the prosecution.
The court, however, also set aside the trial court order and directed it to consider afresh the state government’s plea to withdraw prosecution in the case.
“…the prayer for withdrawal of prosecution of the present case sought for by the government requires reconsideration by the trial court,” the high court said.
It directed the parties to appear before the trial court on March 3.
“There shall be a direction to the trial court to hear and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of copy of this order, at any rate within a period of six months,” the high court said.
The state government had sought withdrawal of the prosecution contending that it would be a futile exercise and wastage of the court’s time.
The magisterial court, in its June 2022 order, indicated that it was not inclined to grant the prayer as the withdrawal petition was filed in a hasty manner without addressing the challenges raised before the High Court regarding legality of the ownership certificate issued to Mohanlal.
The state government had on February 7, 2020 extended consent for withdrawal from prosecution in this case.
The trial court, in its order, had noted that there was no gazette notification in this case and hence the alleged certificate of ownership of the tusks has no legal sanctity and was void ab initio.
Four elephant tusks were seized from the actor’s house in a raid conducted by the Income Tax authorities in June 2012, following which a case was registered against him.
The complainant had alleged that the top actor had used his clout to bury the case without any further investigation.
Digboi: Opposition party Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP) on Sunday alleged that the northeastern state is losing nearly Rs 2,000 crore in revenue every month due to rampant illegal rat-hole coal mining in several places, particularly in Tinsukia district.
The party sent a memorandum to the President, Prime Minister, Supreme Court Chief Justice, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, NHRC Chairman and National Green Tribunal Chairman highlighting the issue.
“We have been highlighting rampant illegal coal mining, particularly rat-hole mining, in various parts of Assam. It has a direct impact on the environment, public health and the state exchequer,” AJP president Lurinjyoti Gogoi told PTI here.
He claimed that the government is aware that illegal coal mining, which has continued unabated for decades in Assam, has caused large-scale destruction to Dehing Patkai National Park — the largest rainforest in the Northeast.
The AJP, in its memorandum, pointed out that the NGT had in 2014 banned rat-hole coal mining, while alleging that it is still going on and the Assam government is aware of the illegal activities in the Digboi Forest Division.
“Inquiries in this regard have been ordered frequently at different levels. Commissions have been appointed to probe the illegal activity. These commissions have also submitted voluminous reports only to be shelved with no visible action,” the memorandum alleged.
Highlighting various directives of the Gauhati High Court, it alleged that even PSU firm Coal India carried out illegal mining inside the forest for 16 years from 2003 to 2019, which was admitted by the company in 2020.
“Seizure of trucks laden with coal dug out from the forests around Ledo-Margherita region has become a regular phenomenon despite there being a ban on rat-hole mining, without the kingpins ever being nabbed.
“It has created an impression that the government often displays a total inability, even reluctance, to check the illegal mining of coal in the eastern tip of Assam bordering Arunachal Pradesh,” the memorandum alleged.
The party claimed that there is no effective mechanism to keep a tab on the forested region and only the forest department and the police sometimes conduct drives to check illegal coal mining, but without any result.
“Tikak and Tirap are the two main coal producing collieries in Ledo-Margherita. They lie in close proximity to some villages, which facilitate the illegal miners/traders to hire local residents for digging coal. Locals, including women and children, use sharp tools to extract coal through the rat-hole method,” AJP alleged.
Further, transportation of the illegally mined coal is a bigger issue in terms of money transaction and tax evasion, which goes up to thousands of crores, it claimed.
“It is astonishing to know that daily 500-600 truckloads of coal are being transported, alone in Ledo- Margherita area, and the amount of commission ranges from Rs 70,000 to Rs 75,000 per truck,” the memorandum alleged.
The commission for other areas such as Jagun, Tipong Jisubai and Koylajan is even more and ranges from Rs 1.25 lakh to Rs 1.35 lakh per truck, it added.
“These commissions are taken in lieu of the tax challan that otherwise is required for transportation. Thus, the government is losing several crores. The estimated total monthly illegal transaction on account of illegal mining and transportation of coal in the state amounts to nearly Rs 2,000 crore per month,” the AJP claimed.
The opposition party claimed that illegal rat-hole coal mining has resulted in large-scale money laundering, misuse of money for criminalising politics and society, irreplaceable degradation of environment and forest, and huge loss of government revenue.
“We demand that illegal mining be stopped immediately and stern action be initiated against the persons (irrespective of government official and/or politician) involved in patronising illegal mining and transportation of coal,” AJP said in the document.
When contacted, state Mines and Minerals Minister Nandita Gorlosa declined to comment and said her secretary would get back to PTI. But no reaction was received from any government official despite several attempts.
Every morning, Paola Arbolera loads a few crates of smoked shark and stingray on to her wooden canoe and drags it to the river. Before the sun rises, she rows in darkness to the market in Guapi, a small fishing town on Colombia’s Pacific coast, to sell her goods.
She leaves her canoe under the rafters of the dock’s large loading bay, wedged between rubbish and other canoes, while fellow vendors unload bananas and plantain.
At about 5am, Arbolera, a 35-year-old single mother of seven, sets up shop on a street corner, displaying her home-smoked fish. The sunrise brings a flurry of activity, and the market comes to life. A swarm of straw hats and elderly shoppers bustle around Arbolera’s simple stand, where she sells her produce until about midday to provide a meagre livelihood for her children.
But doing this now makes Arbolera a criminal.
In November 2020, the government of former president Iván Duque issued a decree banning shark fishing and its commercialisation in the hope of tackling shark-fin exports and protecting marine life.
Arbolera relies solely on sales at the market for her income. She is illiterate, which drastically limits her few opportunities in the small town in Cauca, one of Colombia’s poorest provinces.
“What else can I do?” Arbolera says. “It’s our destiny to keep working. If we can’t do this, how will we feed our children?”
Both industrial and small-scale shark fishing have been banned in Colombia since 2017, but the new decree introduced a blanket ban that criminalises artisanal fishing as well, which local people such as Arbolera depend on.
“The decision marks a milestone in environmental public policy,” says Estefanía Rodríguez, a political advocacy adviser at MarViva, a marine conservation group. “The ban contributes positively to the health of marine ecosystems, the sustainability of shark populations and to the livelihood of coastal communities.”
Although the decree was celebrated by environmentalists, it has put the livelihoods of many fishing communities on the line.
As governments across the globe have scrambled to demonstrate their environmental credentials, Duque’s was no exception. His decree represents a clash between the preservation of Colombia’s marine ecosystems and the defence of its marginalised communities and their traditions.
The decree, introduced in March 2021, has jeopardised the wider supply chain and livelihoods of those who depend on it – from artisanal fishers and vendors, to cooks and families whose nutrition revolves around sharks.
Critics of the former president claim the decree was a way to secure an easy environmental win to improve his deeply unpopular image in the country. They say it has added an unnecessary layer of difficulty to an already challenging way of life among coastal communities.
“They made some of Colombia’s poorest communities suffer. They became illegal from one day to the next on a government’s whim,” says Diego Andrés Triana, a lawyer and adviser to the Association of Colombian Fishermen.
“The Black communities that live along the Pacific are the poorest of the poor. They are the nobodies of the fishing sector,” Triana says.
For towns such as Guapi, artisanal shark fishing is a longstanding traditional practice. Tollo – as the shark is known – provides regular sustenance for many families and holds significant cultural value among African-Colombian communities.
Maria Perlaza (top) prepares the traditional fish dish ceviche de tollo, served with rice and fried plantain,together with María Grueso (bottom right)
The small shark is found extensively along Colombia’s Pacific coast and typically grows to about 1.5 metres (5ft) long. It is often the cheapest form of protein many coastal communities have access to and the culinary staple is enjoyed either smoked, stewed, fried or in a traditional ceviche.
“Not having tollo in Guapi is like not having water in a desert. It’s important because it’s something cultural,” says Willingtong Obregón, who has been fishing for decades.
Artisanal fishers spend a few days at sea plying their trade before returning with their catch. They predominantly fish from small boats or canoes, lowering thin nets into the water to catch anything they find.
“[The ban] really affects us economically as it’s work through which we could easily provide for our families. It has a serious impact on the family subsistence of us Guapireños,” says Obregón, as he stands in the town market, flanked by women chopping up freshly caught fish.
Organisations and local people in Guapi claim the fishing community was not properly consulted about the decree or involved in discussions before its implementation.
Melba Angulo has been selling fish at Guapi market since the age of 10. “I’m aware that it affects the ecosystem, but to ban it they should have consulted us, who sell and fish it, to see what alternatives they could propose [for us] to sustain ourselves, because banning it ignores the families who live from this,” he says.
Melba Angulo, who has her own fish stall in Guapi market square, has been selling fish since she was a child
Colombia’s new vice-minister for the environment, Sandra Vilardy, admits: “We recognise the decree was not adequately consulted.”
Local fishers along the Pacific coast do not target tollo but capture it largely by accident. Toss a large net along the coast and chances are you will catch tollo whether you want to or not.
“Tollo fishing is incidental, how can one avoid that?” says Otto Polanco Rengifo, a marine biologist and former director of the government’s National Authority of Aquaculture and Fishing. “The decree forces you to do the unavoidable. You cannot prohibit such a socioeconomically vulnerable population from doing what for decades and centuries has kept them alive.”
Last year, as artisanal fisher Francisco “Pancho” Mina was returning to Guapi from several days at sea, he was stopped by the Colombian navy, which searched his boat for any illegal catch. Among the usual catfish and groupers, the authorities found 58 tollo sharks. They were confiscated by the authorities, who warned of more serious consequences if it happened again.
Like Obregón and Arbolera, Mina claims to have little choice but to continue with his work, regardless of what the decree may say. During the high season, Mina says he can catch up to 150 tollo sharks.
“It’s pure necessity because we don’t have anything else to do. [The authorities] shouldn’t persecute a working peasant if we’re just trying to feed our families,” he says.
Vilardy points out that the decree is meant to allow for incidental subsistence fishing, which raises questions about what happened to Mina.
“There is a possibility for that incidental fishing to be used in a local context because we recognise that it has a traditional use, which is very local and closely linked to traditional consumption and culture,” Vilardy told the Guardian.
Last month, the navy intercepted 904kg of illegally caught sharks onboard an industrial fishing boat off the coast of Bahía Solano, along the northern Pacific coast. They found 114 sharks – among them tollo – and 89 shark fins; 85% of the sharks were juveniles and below the minimum age to be caught.
Artisanal fishers also have to compete with industrial-scale fishing boats to protect their income. Uber Vasesilla, a 71-year-old captain of an industrial vessel, roams the coasts for days on end, sweeping the ocean for all kinds of fish.
After hours of trawling, his catch contains all sorts of marine life including eels, red snapper, stingrays, parrot fish, various crabs and puffer fish, but there is no sign of the popular shark.
Fishers cut up fresh fish and prepare it for refrigeration while seabirds wheel in the air, waiting for the leftovers thrown into the sea (bottom right). Wilfrido Hurtado, 65, and Harold Bermúdez, 27, watch football on TV while they wait for the fishing nets to come up
“There’s not much tollo out there these days,” Vasesilla says, as he calmly steers his rusty ship with his foot. Either way, he and his ageing crew of six return any unwanted tollo and stingrays to the sea, as required by the decree.
So far this year, the Colombian navy has seized 7.4 tonnes of banned species.
On assuming power this year, the new leftwing government promised a broad slate of environmental policies and vowed to protect the interests and cultural traditions of marginalised African-Colombian communities.
The administration is now tasked with implementing its green agenda as well as finding a way to manage the decree while supporting the livelihoods of rural African-Colombians affected by it.
Vilardy says the ministry is reviewing the decree. “The plan is to work with the communities and assess possible improvements to the decree … for us to make adjustments based on a good mechanism of participation. It is very valuable for us to be able to keep cultures alive,” she says.
In the meantime, the fishers and vendors of Guapi have no option but to defy the decree and continue working on the fringes of legality to safeguard their livelihoods.
For Mina, the choice is simple: “If we live off this, then we’ll have to continue fishing.”
[ad_2]
#illegal #overnight #Colombias #shark #fishing #ban #turns #locals #criminals
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
SRINAGAR: Irrigation and Flood Control division in central Kashmir’s Ganderbal district has asked residents to remove illegal encroachments along river banks and other water bodies within 7 days, failing which strict action would be taken against the encroachers.
According to a notice, a copy of which lies with the news agency KNO people who have encroached over the Irrigation and Flood control (I&FC) land in the district have been asked to remove encroachments within seven days.
“If any person fails to remove the encroachment, the department would swung into action and people have to pay the charges of the same,” it reads.
It reads strict action under the law would be taken against the people who fail to remove illegal encroachments.
New Delhi: The Delhi Police has contended before the high court that a trial court’s order discharging 11 people, including student activists Sharjeel Imam and Asif Iqbal Tanha, in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case, is patently illegal and perverse.
In a petition, the police has said the trial court’s order is in the teeth of well-settled principles of law, suffers from grave infirmities that go to the root of the matter and is perverse in the eyes of law.
The plea is scheduled to come up for hearing on Monday.
The petition has sought to set aside the trial court’s February 4 order that discharged the 11 accused in the case, holding that they were made “scapegoats” by the Delhi Police and that dissent has to be encouraged and not stifled.
The trial court, however, ordered framing of charges against one of the accused, Mohammad Ilyas.
An FIR was lodged in connection with the violence that erupted after clashes between the police and people protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in the Jamia Nagar area here in December 2019.
The police said the trial court not only discharged the accused, but was also swayed by emotional and sentimental feelings, casting aspersions on the prosecuting agency and passing gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against it and the investigation.
“The trial court, while not considering and weighing the evidence on record, has proceeded to discharge the respondents (accused) at the stage of framing of charges. The trial court erred in not only holding a mini-trial at this stage, but also recorded perverse findings which are contrary to the record to arrive at the finding that a case of discharge was made out against the respondents,” the petition said.
It added that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
“At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction,” it said.
The police said the trial court’s order would show that it has proceeded to make observations on the merits of the matter.
“While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, the trial court ought not to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities, which is done at the stage of trial.
“The impugned order is null and void, non-est and in the teeth of well-settled principles of law,” the plea said, adding that the trial court’s order “ex-facie is patently illegal”.
It said the trial court had erred in observing that the respondents were mere onlookers or bystanders and therefore, only the presence of a person at the protest site was insufficient to sustain an allegation qua the person being a member of such an assembly.
Imam was accused of instigating the riots by delivering a provocative speech at the Jamia Millia University on December 13, 2019. He continues to remain in jail as he is an accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The trial court had said there were admittedly scores of protesters at the site and some anti-social elements within the crowd could have created an environment of disruption and havoc.
“However, the moot question remains — whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem? The answer is an unequivocal no,” it had added.
Noting that the accused were merely present at the protest site and there was no incriminating evidence against them, the trial court had said dissent is an extension of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions.
It had said investigative agencies need to discern the difference between dissent, which has to be given space, and insurrection that should be quelled.
It had also faulted the police for failing to produce any WhatsApp chat, text message or other proof of the accused interacting with each other and criticised it for “arbitrarily” choosing to array some people from the crowd as accused and police witnesses, saying this “cherry-picking” by the police is detrimental to the precept of fairness.
The Jamia Nagar police station had filed the chargesheet against Imam, Tanha, Safoora Zargar, Mohammad Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Mohammad Abuzar, Mohammad Shoaib, Umair Ahmad, Bilal Nadeem, Chanda Yadav and Mohammad Ilyas.
The chargesheet was filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The chargesheet also included provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
New Delhi: Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Saturday termed the removal of the AAP government-appointed members from discom boards by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena “unconstitutional and illegal”.
The lieutenant governor has started a new trend of reversing decisions taken by the elected government of Delhi, Sisodia said at a press conference here.
The deputy chief minister also rubbished the charges that the members appointed by the Arvind Kejriwal government provided benefits to the tune of Rs 8,000 crore to the private discoms.
The LG can get the alleged “scam” investigated by any central agency, he added.
“A new trend has been started by the LG as he reversed the Delhi Cabinet’s four-year-old decision and removed the members appointed to the boards of the discoms. This way, he could now overturn the government’s decisions taken even four-ten years back,” Sisodia said.
The deputy chief minister, who also holds the charge of the power department, said Saxena’s decision was “unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to the established procedures”.
Sisodia also objected to the LG’s decision to remove the members citing “difference of opinion”.
“The ‘difference of opinion’ provision cannot be used like this. There is a procedure to do so and it cannot be cited to frequently reverse the decisions taken by the government,” he said.
Sisodia also alleged that the LG was not following the Constitution and the Supreme Court order which states that his power of taking independent decision was limited to three subjects — police, land and public order.
Following directions of the LG, the Power department through an order on Friday replaced the AAP government’s nominees to the boards of power discoms in the national capital with senior officials.
Those removed from the boards were Jasmine Shah, a spokesperson of the AAP, Naveen Gupta, the son of AAP MP N D Gupta, and other private persons appointed as government nominees “illegally”, LG office sources said.
The finance secretary, power secretary and the MD of Delhi Transco will now represent the city government on the boards of BYPL, BRPL and TPDDL, according to the Power department order.
Sisodia said the “difference of opinion” power given to the LG is meant to be used in the rarest of rare cases. This power can be used in matters related to national security or any such relevant matters, he said.
“LG cannot use this power on a daily basis for every other matter and overturn the decisions of the elected government,” he said.
The transaction of business rules for stating “difference of opinion” has been well defined for this, but the LG is not ready to follow any of those, he charged.
“This ‘difference of opinion’ being mentioned by the LG on every file is unlawful,” he claimed.
Defining the procedure for application of “difference of opinion”, Sisodia said, “It is written in the laws that if LG has a different opinion on any matter decided by the concerned minister, then he must call the minister and discuss the matter and ask him to discuss the same within the Cabinet.”
Then if the Cabinet is also not ready to change its decision, the LG can write to the Centre that there is a “difference of opinion” between the government and him, Sisodia said.
He does not have the power to mention a “difference of opinion” in any case before following the consultation process, Sisodia said.
“LG has no right to overturn the decisions of the CM and the cabinet of the elected government. He can use the ‘difference of opinion’ power only in special circumstances, but keeping all rules and regulations aside, LG is using it to overturn every decision of the government,” sisodia charged.
The LG should understand that he is a citizen of India and has been appointed as per the Constitution so he will have to obey it as well as the orders of the Supreme Court, he said.
The LG only has powers over the matters of police, land and public order. He has no right to take any other decisions except on these three matters. He can only give opinions on the matters decided by the chief minister or the government, he said.
The power of making decisions lies only with the chief minister, ministers and the government, he asserted.
