Tag: plea

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 assures Bilkis Bano of early hearing of her plea against remission to convicts

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday assured Bilkis Bano, who was gang-raped and seven members of her family killed during the 2002 Gujarat riots, that her plea against the remission of the sentence of 11 convicts will be heard soon after the constitution of a new bench.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala assured Bano, represented through her lawyer Shobha Gupta, that the new bench will be formed at the earliest.
Gupta mentioned the matter for urgent hearingand said that a new bench needs to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India as Justice Bela M Trivedi recused from hearing the plea.
CJI Chandrachud said, “I will do so at the earliest. The matter will be listed soon”.
Earlier, on January 24, the hearing on Bano’s plea challenging the remission of sentence of 11 convicts in the gang-rape case by the Gujarat government could not be held in the top court as the judges concerned were hearing a matter related to passive euthanasia as part of a five-judge Constitution bench.
On that day, the petition was listed for hearing before a bench of Justices Rastogi and CT Ravikumar.
Both Justices Rastogi and Ravikumar were then busy hearing, as part of a Constitution bench headed by Justice K M Joseph, the pleas seeking modification of guidelines on the execution of a “Living Will or Advance Medical Directive” for permitting passive euthanasia.
On January 4, Justice Trivedi had recused from hearing a batch of pleas challenging the remission of the sentence of 11 convicts in Bano’s case.
Bano had moved the apex court on November 30, 2022 challenging the “premature” release of 11 lifers by the state government, saying it has “shaken the conscience of society”.

Besides the plea challenging the release of the convicts, the gang-rape survivor had also filed a separate petition seeking a review of the apex court’s May 13, 2022 order on a plea by a convict.
In its May 13, 2022 order, the apex court had asked the state government to consider the plea of a convict for premature release in terms of its policy of July 9, 1992 which was applicable on the date of conviction and decide it within a period of two months.
All 11 convicts were granted remission by the Gujarat government and released on August 15, last year.
Bano’s review plea against the May 13, 2022 order, however, was dismissed by the top court in December last year.
The victim, in her pending writ petition, has said the state government passed a “mechanical order” completely ignoring the requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court.
“The en-masse premature release of the convicts in the much talked about case of Bilkis Bano has shaken the conscience of the society and resulted in a number of agitations across the country,” she has said in the plea.
Referring to past verdicts, the plea said en-masse remissions are not permissible and, moreover, such a relief cannot be sought or granted as a matter of right without examining the case of each convict individually based on their peculiar facts and role played by them in the crime.
“The present writ petition challenging the decision of the State/ Central Government granting remission to all the 11 convicts and releasing them prematurely in one of the most gruesome crimes of extreme inhuman violence and brutality,” it said.
The plea, which gave minute details of the crime, said Bilkis and her grown-up daughters were “shell-shocked with this sudden development”.
“When the nation was celebrating its 76th Independence Day, all the convicts were released prematurely and were garlanded and felicitated in full public glare and sweets were circulated,” it said.
The top court is already seized of PILs filed by CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, Revati Laul, an independent journalist, Roop Rekha Verma, who is a former vice chancellor of the Lucknow University, and TMC MP Mahua Moitra against the release of the convicts.
Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the riots that broke out after the Godhra train burning incident. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.
The investigation in the case was handed over to the CBI and the trial was transferred to a Maharashtra court by the Supreme Court.
A special CBI court in Mumbai had on January 21, 2008 sentenced the 11 to life imprisonment on charges of gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of seven members of her family.
Their conviction was later upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
The 11 men convicted in the case walked out of the Godhra sub-jail on August 15 after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. They had completed more than 15 years in jail.
[ad_2]
#assures #Bilkis #Bano #early #hearing #plea #remission #convicts
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 7, 2023
Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Former Police Driver In Fake Encounter Case

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: A local court on Monday rejected the bail plea of a former police driver for his involvement in a ‘fake encounter’ 16 years ago in northern Kashmir’s Bandipora district.
Principal Sessions Judge Bandipora Amit Sharma while rejecting the bail plea of accused police officer Faroooq Ahmad Padroo, said that bail cannot be granted to a person who has shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization.
The court observed that the accused persons involved in this FIR are none other than the police officers/officials and under the garb of the police uniform such type of “Fake encounter” was committed definitely shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization and the said crime committed by this accused person become more severe simply because of this reason.
Farooq Ahmad Padroo, a police driver is co-accused along with former SSP Ganderbal Hans Raj Parihar in an infamous fake encounter killing of a cloth merchant-Gh nabi Wani of Kokernag in 2006. Padroo is facing trial in cases FIR No.52/2006 police station Sumbal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (abduction), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 344 (wrongful confinement) RPC .
The accused petitioner through his counsel Advocate Parvaiz Nazir had appealed for bail on the grounds that the accused is facing trial for more than 15 years and there is no chance for the conclusion of the trial in the near future. Petitioner pleaded that the long detention of the accused under trial prisoner developed various ailments including psychiatric disorder, with the result that the accused is not in a position to communicate and behave properly.
The petitioner prayed that it is old and falls within the exception of bail while the court has also granted bail to two other accused in the same case thus sought the same treatment. Counsel for the petitioners pleaded that he has got right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, but in the instant case, the applicant has been deprived of the same, as none of his faults therefore indulgence of this court is imperative.
However the state on behalf of the victim’s family through Public Prosecutor Abdul Majid and Additional Public prosecutor Bilal Ahmad objected to the bail plea and prayed for rejection of the bail.
The Public Prosecutor pleaded that the entire evidence on record recorded during the proceedings of trial proves the involvement of the accused person in the offence of gruesome murder of an innocent individual of the soil. He pleaded that the offence is more heinous and more serious in nature because it has been committed by the persons who were supposed to uphold and implement the law of the land and were guidance and protectors of life and liberty of a common citizen.

Counsel for the victim family stated that the accused is involved in abduction of an innocent person and thereafter staging a drama of fake encounter and the accused persons thus turned to be beasts rather than protectors of life and liberty of those for whom they were appointed so as such, the above named accused is not entitled to the concession of bail.
“The offence is heinous and grave besides non-bailable in character, as such, the above named accused are not entitled to the concession of bail,” they pleaded.
The court rejected the plea of the accused petitioner and stated that the discussion and the evidence available on record of the file as well as taking into consideration the conduct of the accused and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
While rejecting the bail application of the accused, court stated that the accused persons involved in this FIR are none other than the police officers/officials and under the garb of the police uniform such type of “Fake encounter” was committed has shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization and the said crime committed by this accused person become more severe simply because of this reason.
The court highlighted the plea of the counsel for the victim family that “the deceased killed in this encounter was actually the resident of the village of the accused and the said deceased who used to sell Dastarkhan sheets (dining cloth) on the Biscoe School pavements. It is from this place when he had been lifted by the police team. Thereafter he was kept in the SOG Camp at Manasbal and during these in between period the learned PP submitted that, “the wife of the said deceased approached the petitioner for tracing out her husband who was missing then and not returned to his house as the wife of the deceased never ever being the poor lady was having only the approach of the petitioner who was working as a police official and from the village of the said deceased. But the petitioner never bothered about the tears and cries of the wife of the deceased and cleverly carried forward the nefarious design and mode of committing this horrendous crime of murder”.
The judge added ‘meaning thereby any concession of bail either on medical grounds or on other grounds at this stage of the trial definitely shaken the spine of the common man in the present setup of the criminal justice system. “Hence the bail application moved by the accused person under Section 439 Cr.P.C rejected,” the court observed.

[ad_2]
#Court #Rejects #Bail #Plea #Police #Driver #Fake #Encounter #Case
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

February 6, 2023
Plea in SC seeks constitution of committee to probe Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre to constitute a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to enquire and investigate into the Hindenburg Research report which made a slew of allegations against the business conglomerate led by industrialist Gautam Adani.
The fresh public interest litigation (PIL), filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, has also sought directions to set up a special committee to oversee the sanction policy for loans of over Rs 500 crore given to big corporates.
Last week, another PIL was filed in the apex court seeking prosecution of short seller Nathan Anderson of US-based firm Hindenburg Research and his associates in India and the US for allegedly exploiting innocent investors and the “artificial crashing” of Adani Group’s stock value in the market.
The Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation against the business conglomerate led by Gautam Adani.
The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.
In his plea, Tiwari has said the petition depicts the “drastic condition and fate of people” when there arises a situation of share fall in the securities market due to various reasons.
“Lots of people who had the whole lifetime saving in such stocks get a maximum setback due to fall in such shares with a huge amount of money getting into drain,” the PIL said.
It said with the recent news of the publication of the Hindenburg report, it has led to the loss of huge amount for various investors who have invested their life-saving in such shares.

“In the aftermath of an unprecedented attack on billionaire Gautam Adani’s vast empire by Hindenburg, the market value of all 10 Adani stocks have halved with investors sitting with a colossal loss…,” the plea said.
It claimed that no concrete steps have been taken by authorities on the issue despite a “massive attack being perpetrated” on the country’s economy.
“It is ultimately the public money for which the respondents (Centre and others) are answerable and there needs to be strict concern for mitigating of such loans with a clear process and sanction policy for such high stake loan amount,” it said.
The plea has made the Centre and others, including the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India, as respondents.
[ad_2]
#Plea #seeks #constitution #committee #probe #Hindenburg #Research #report #Adani #Group
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 6, 2023
Delhi HC adjourns hearing on Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in UAPA case

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday adjourned, to Tuesday, the hearing of former Jawaharlal Nehru University student and activist Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea seeking bail in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case related to alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi Riots.
The violence had erupted while protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Due to Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar’s unavailability, the matter was adjourned.
A Delhi court, on January 4, discharged Imam with 10 other accused persons in a case related to the incidents of violence at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019.
The violence had erupted after a clash between the police and people protesting against the CAA in December 2019.
Additional Sessions Judge of Saket Court Complex, Arul Verma, had passed the order.
He had held that the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind the commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope in the 11 accused as “scapegoats”.

Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Delhi #adjourns #hearing #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #UAPA #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 6, 2023
HC Dismisses Plea Against Withdrawal Of Selection Of 12 ReKs In Kupwara’s Drugmulla Zone

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a petition, challenging withdrawal of provisional selection list regarding engagement of Rehbar-e-Khel for zone Drugmulla in Kupwara district of north Kashmir.
12 candidates had been selected, in pursuance to an advertisement notice issued by the Youth Services and Sports Department on 13 January 2018, as Rehbar-e-Khael in Drugmulla zone.
In all, 223 vacancies were filled up across 13 zones in Kupwara but authorities withdrew the provisional selection list of 12 candidates as regards zone Drugmulla in May 2019 amid complaints of nepotism and favoritism by a selection committee.
The authorities had also ordered a fresh process for engagement against these positions. The action had followed report by a committee constituted by the authorities that, among others, did not dispute the allegations that six out of the 12 selected candidates were close relatives of the officers and officials working the Youth Services and Sports Department Kupwara and that some of the selected candidates were awarded exceptionally high marks in the interview though they were figuring at the bottom of the list as per the points calculated on the basis of their academic qualification.
“A look at the document (placed on record by officials) would reveal that all these 06 candidates, who are stated to be relatives of the officials of the Department, have secured very high marks as compared to the other selected candidates and the candidates who have been rejected,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said as per the order, a copy of which lies with GNS, adding, “This clearly gives an impression that the interview committee has been influenced by the officers/officials of the Department as a result of which they have awarded higher marks to these six candidates in the interview. Thus, a genuine doubt is cast on the fairness of the selection process.”
Apart from it, the court said, the record shows that the interview of the candidates pertaining to Drugmulla Zone, was not conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee.
“It is an admitted case of the parties that the interview was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in place of the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara,” the court said.
As per Rehbar-e-Khel Scheme, the Selection Committee comprises District Development Commissioner concerned as its Chairman, District Youth Services & Sports Officer as its Member Secretary and District Employment & Counselling Officer and Zonal Physical Education Officer as its members.

“Thus, the interview of the candidates has not been conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee because it was not headed by the Deputy Commissioner,” the court said and rejected the contention by the counsel for the petitioners that Additional Deputy Commissioner Kupwara had the approval of the Deputy Commissioner to act on his behalf and that selection committee cannot be stated to be incompetent one.
“Without presence of the Deputy Commissioner, the Committee of the selection members is rendered defective. The authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner that has been relied upon by the petitioners, would not clothe the Committee with the power to make the selection,” the court said, “Even if it is assumed that the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, had issued any such authorization, still then it would not make any difference, as it was not within his competence to delegate his powers to any other officer.”
The court also held that the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek a direction upon authorities concerned to take forward the selection process on the basis of provisional select list.
“It is a settled law that mere selection of a candidate does not entitle him to seek appointment to a particular post nor is a candidate, who finds his name in the select list entitled to seek a direction upon an authority to conclude the selection process so that the appointment orders are issued in his favour,” the court
“In the instant case, even the selection of the petitioners was yet to be finalized as their selection was provisional in nature subject to the objections. Once the official respondents considered the objections, they withdrew the provisional select list. The same was well within their competence and jurisdiction particularly in view of the fact that the selection was made by an incompetent Selection Committee and there were a large number of misdemeanors observed in the selection process,” the court said and dismissed the petition.

[ad_2]
#Dismisses #Plea #Withdrawal #Selection #ReKs #Kupwaras #Drugmulla #Zone
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

February 3, 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 rejects plea seeking to bar candidates from contesting polls from more than one seat

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking to bar persons from contesting elections from more than one seat, saying it is ultimately the Parliament’s will as to whether the political democracy in the country is furthered by granting a choice.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observed that candidates may contest polls from more than one constituency due to a variety of reasons.
The bench, also comprising justices PS Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, was dealing with a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who had sought to declare as invalid and ultra vires to the Constitution section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows a person to contest a general election or a group of bypolls or biennial elections from two constituencies.
“Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat…is a matter of legislative policy since it is ultimately the Parliament’s will as to whether the political democracy in the country is furthered by granting such a choice,” it said.
The top court observed that in the absence of any manifest arbitrariness in section 33(7) of the 1951 Act, it would not be possible for it to strike down the provision.
During the arguments, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared on behalf of Upadhyay, submitted that if a candidate contests an election from two seats and gets elected from both, he or she has to vacate one seat, which will lead to a by-poll that will be an additional financial burden on the exchequer.
He said prior to a 1996 amendment, there was no bar on the number of seats a candidate could contest in an election. The amendment restricted that number to two.
The bench observed that it is for Parliament to decide whether a candidate can contest an election from more than one seat.

“When you contest from two seats, you do not know from where you will get elected. What is wrong about it? This is part of electoral democracy,” it said.
The bench said Parliament can certainly step in, as it did in 1996, and say it is limiting it to one constituency.
“At the relevant time, if Parliament thinks necessary, it can do it. There is no question of inaction.
“There is another way of looking at it. Some political leader might say I want to establish my pan-India image by contesting an election…like from the north-east and north or south,” the bench said, adding there have been instances in the country’s political history which depict that there have been leaders of that stature.
The top court noted that one of the basis of the petition is that in July 2004, the then chief election commissioner had urged the then prime minister to amend section 33(7) of the 1951 Act in so far as it permits a person to contest an election from more than one seat.
It said the petitioner has also referred to the 255th report of the Law Commission, which had agreed with the Election Commission (EC) that the 1951 Act should be amended to provide that a person be not allowed to contest an election from more than one seat.
In his plea, Upadhyay had sought a direction to the Centre and the EC to take appropriate steps to restrict people from contesting an election for the same office from more than one constituency simultaneously.
“One person-one vote and one candidate-one constituency is the dictum of democracy. However, as per the law, as it stands today, a person can contest the election for the same office from two constituencies simultaneously.”
[ad_2]
#rejects #plea #seeking #bar #candidates #contesting #polls #seat
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 2, 2023
Plea in Kerala HC claims Vizhinjam sea port construction causing noise pollution

[ad_1]
Kochi: A plea in the Kerala High Court has claimed that the Vizhinjam sea port construction work was causing noise pollution in the area.
Refuting the allegation in the plea, moved by a Thiruvananthapuram-based resort, the Vizhinjam International Sea Port Ltd and Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd claimed the sound generated by the construction activity, during day and night, was below the noise standards contained in the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) guidelines.
In view of the claim by the two companies, the High Court on Tuesday directed them to produce the EHS guidelines on noise standards.
The court also directed them to place before it the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order appointing a monitoring body to oversee the construction activities, including the issue of noise pollution.
The direction was issued as the two companies contended that the NGT has issued an order appointing a monitoring agency to keep watch over all the sea port construction-related activities, including the issue of noise pollution.
The court also recorded the submission of the two companies that they were adhering to the sound limit fixed as per the schedule attached to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, during the sea port construction.
The court’s order came on a plea by Bethsaida Hermitage complaining that the sea port construction activity was causing noise pollution in the area.
It has also urged the court to direct the two companies to desist from undertaking noisy construction work during the night hours at the project site till the pendency of the plea.

[ad_2]
#Plea #Kerala #claims #Vizhinjam #sea #port #construction #causing #noise #pollution
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023
Plea In SC Against Removal Of Encroachments On Roshni Land In JK Withdrawn

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea against a Jammu and Kashmir government circular directing all Deputy Commissioners to remove encroachments on Union Territory land, including Roshni land and Kachharie land, by January 31, reported BarAndBench.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was unconvinced with the argument of the petitioners that despite the Jammu & Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 (popularly known as the Roshni Act) being repealed, their ownership rights persisted.
“You tell us what right you have.. not under Roshni Act – it has been struck down! …. The Act has been repealed. Once the Act has been repealed, where is the question of savings clause?,” the Court remarked.
The bench also orally observed that if the Court were to grant relief to those continuing to occupy the land, it could have larger repercussions.
“If we protect your possession, it will affect the entire J&K encroachment! At the most we can grant you reasonable time to relocate,” the Court said.
The petitioner eventually sought to withdraw the petition and was allowed to do so by the Court.
During the previous hearing, the bench had advised the petitioners to restrict their prayers to status quo rather than a blanket stay on the circular.
“If stay (of order) granted then it will benefit land grabbers also,” Justice Shah had remarked.

In 2001, the Jammu & Kashmir government had enacted a law called the the Roshni Act for granting ownership of state land to unauthorised occupants in order to raise funds for power projects in the erstwhile State.
In October 2020, a Division Bench of Justices Gita Mittal and Rajesh Bindal of the High Court had declared the Act unconstitutional. All acts done under it as well as amendments under the Act were subsequently declared void ab initio.
The Court had also ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the Roshni land scam case, stated to be the biggest ever in the history of the ertswhile State.
The Jammu & Kashmir government had then moved the High Court to review the said ruling. At the same time, appeals were also filed against the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court.
Even as several review petitions challenging the High Court judgment were pending, the Union Territory, on January 9 this year, had directed all deputy commissioners to remove encroachment on such land by January 31, 2023.
Residents were told to either demolish the structures on their own or bear the expenses for the demolition.
The Supreme Court had, earlier this week, agreed to list the urgent application seeking a stay on the circular. Justice Sanjiv Khanna had earlier recused from hearing the matter.

[ad_2]
#Plea #Removal #Encroachments #Roshni #Land #Withdrawn
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

January 31, 2023