Tag: Upholds

Pak high court upholds ousted PM Imran Khan’s arrest ‘Legal’

[ad_1]
Islamabad: The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday night upheld the arrest of Imran Khan, saying that all legal formalities were fulfilled by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) while carrying out the arrest of the former prime minister, dashing the hopes of his party.
The court issued its reserved ruling, upsetting the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which claimed the arrest was illegal and that the IHC would rule in favour of party chief Imran Khan.
The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday summoned top officials and police officers after paramilitary Rangers dramatically arrested former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan in a corruption case from the court premises but reserved its ruling.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq took notice of the arrest by paramilitary Rangers when the PTI party chief was present at the court to mark his biometric attendance before the start of the hearing of a corruption case.
Khan, 70, who travelled from Lahore to the federal capital Islamabad, was arrested after the Rangers broke open the glass window and arrested him after beating lawyers and Khan’s security staff.
The arrest of the cricketer-turned-politician comes a day after the powerful army accused him of levelling baseless allegations against a senior officer of the spy agency ISI.
The IHC summoned various officials and heard arguments on the merit of the arrest and if it was legal to arrest someone present inside the court.
After hearing the case, the chief justice reserved the judgment.

The chief justice initially ordered the interior secretary, Inspector General (IG) Police Islamabad and other officials to come and respond to the arrest within 15 minutes.
The chief justice added that he was showing “restraint” in the matter and warned to summon the prime minister if the Islamabad police chief failed to appear.
“Come to court and tell us why Imran has been arrested and in which case,” Justice Farooq said.
IG Akbar Nasir Khan duly appeared before the court and said that Khan had been arrested by the NAB in a case about him and his wife, Bushra Bibi, for alleged corruption.
Khan’s lawyer Faisal Chaudhry told the court that the PTI chief was illegally arrested when he was present inside the court to record his biometric attendance.
Barrister Gohar Khan, another lawyer of Khan, claimed that the cricketer-turned-politician was hit by an iron rod on his head and injured his leg during the arrest.
Khawaja Harris, Khan’s other lawyer, said that the court should take action against NAB as Khan was arrested from inside the court, a violation of the sanctity of the court.
After hearing the lawyers, the chief justice summoned NAB officials before taking a break. When the court reconvened, Director General NAB Rawalpindi Mirza Irfan Baig appeared with Deputy Prosecutor General NAB Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi.
Abbasi told the court that the anti-corruption watchdog was in its legal right to arrest Khan, who had failed to join the investigation in the case.
“An accused can be arrested from any place if resistance is shown,” he said.
Advocate Harris contended the NAB argument by saying that arrest was made in violation of the rules and the court should take action.
“The court should annul the arrest as it is illegal and order the NBA to set Imran Khan free immediately,” he said.
Supporters of the former prime minister stormed the Pakistan Army headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi and the Corps Commander’s residence in Lahore after Khan’s dramatic arrest.
Khan has been facing a slew of cases since his ouster through a no-trust vote in April last year. He has rejected all these cases as political victimisation by the ruling alliance.
Currently, Khan has said he is facing over 140 cases related to terrorism, blasphemy, murder, violence, and inciting violence.
[ad_2]
#Pak #high #court #upholds #ousted #Imran #Khans #arrest #Legal
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

May 10, 2023
Appeals court upholds Florida voting restrictions approved by GOP lawmakers

[ad_1]

But on Thursday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Walker’s 288-page order was based on legal errors and “clearly erroneous” findings of fact. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for review.
It also reversed the requirement that Florida needs prior clearance to change parts of voting law. It affirmed Walker’s ruling that a restriction on soliciting voters within 150 feet of a ballot drop box was unconstitutionally vague.
Jeremy Redfern, deputy press secretary to DeSantis, hailed the ruling as a “great win for Florida’s voters.” Jasmine Burney-Clark, founder of Equal Ground, which was a plaintiff in the case, said she was disappointed and maintained that the election law diminished the power of Black voters.
The case began in 2021, when the Florida Legislature approved voting restrictions that placed new limits on the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, blocked solicitation of voters within 150 of those drop-off points and placed restrictions on collecting and delivering voter registration applications. At the time, Democrats and civil rights organizations criticized the legislation and subsequent law, saying it disenfranchised Black voters and lead to voter suppression.
The Legislature approved the measure in the wake of the 2020 election, when former President Donald Trump was publicly railing against — without evidence — election results.
After the law was challenged in federal court, Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, framed the law as another in a long line of changes that were aimed at Democrats and placed illegal burden on minorities.
“At some point, when the Florida Legislature passes law after law disproportionately burdening Black voters, this court can no longer accept that the effect is incidental,” Walker wrote, adding, “Florida has a horrendous history of racial discrimination in voting.”
The 11th Circuit, however, said Walker erred from the start in establishing a pattern of discrimination in Florida’s voting laws.

“We have rejected the argument that ‘a racist past is evidence of current intent,’” the appeals court said in citing another of its rulings in a 2021 Alabama voting case.
Justice Jill Pryor of the appeals court dissented from the opinion, stating that the district court “in its thorough and well-reasoned order” had committed “no reversible error.”
There was no immediate response from the House and Senate’s Republican leaders. But the Republican National Committee called the ruling “a landmark victory for election integrity and Florida voters and a major blow to Democrats’ election integrity misinformation campaign.”
Blake Summerlin, statewide communications manager for the League of Women Voters of Florida, said while the group was disappointed by the reversal of the district court’s “well-reasoned, factually supported opinion, our fight is not over.”
[ad_2]
#Appeals #court #upholds #Florida #voting #restrictions #approved #GOP #lawmakers
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 28, 2023
Delhi HC upholds ban on gutka, pan masala for public health reasons

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld a ban on the manufacture, storage, and sale of gutka, pan masala, flavoured tobacco, and similar products in the city, citing their direct and harmful impact on public health.
The ban was initially imposed by the food safety commissioner, but was later quashed by the high court in September 2022.
The Centre and Delhi governments appealed against the decision and a bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has now set aside the earlier decision and upheld the ban.

The court rejected objections raised by entities in the tobacco business against the ban, stating that there was no justification for the quashing of the notifications.
The court has declared that there was no justification for the previous decision to quash the notifications, and has rejected objections from tobacco business entities against the ban that was in place from 2015 until 2021.
“We find ourselves unable to sustain the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Judge. These appeals shall consequently stand allowed. We find no merit in the challenge raised (against the ban). It shall, in consequence, stand dismissed,” said the bench, also comprising Justice Yashwant Varma.
“It becomes necessary to observe that the writ petitioners (manufacturers of tobacco related products, etc) did not dispute that both cigarettes as well as smokeless tobacco have a direct and pernicious impact on public health. Once it was found and conceded that both categories of tobacco constituted substances which had a direct impact on public health, the impugned notifications clearly did not warrant being quashed,” observed the court.
In its 176-page judgment, the court noted that the Supreme Court has already urged governments to ban the manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala, and the previous single judge’s decision could not have deemed this not applicable in the current case.

Regarding the objection raised by tobacco businesses that the ban was discriminatory because it only applied to smokeless tobacco and not cigarettes, the court rejected this and stated that the ban was implemented because of the “larger number of users of smokeless tobacco” and that food safety authorities were authorised to impose such prohibitions.
The court also mentioned that Article 14 could not be used to argue that since a specific type of tobacco had not been banned, there should be no prohibition on other similarly harmful products. It noted that there were 163.7 million smokeless tobacco users in the country compared to 68.9 million smokers.
The court also mentioned that products such as pan masala, chewing tobacco, and gutka were not exempted from the definition of “food” under Section 3(1)(j) of the FSSA.
The court noted that the petitioners had operated under the mistaken belief that the notifications aimed to ban or prohibit tobacco, when in reality, they sought to prohibit the addition of tobacco or tobacco products to food products.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #upholds #ban #gutka #pan #masala #public #health #reasons
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 11, 2023
Calcutta HC upholds husband’s right to seek divorce on ground of mental cruelty

[ad_1]
Kolkata: A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has upheld the right of a husband to seek divorce from his wife on ground of mental cruelty if the wife constantly abuses the husband by describing him as “coward” and “unemployed” and at the same time force him to get separated from his parents.
Hearing a matter related to a woman challenging a lower court order dissolving her marriage on the ground of mental cruelty against her husband, the division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar noted that as per Indian culture, the husband stays with his parents and there need to be some justifiable reason for the son to live separately.
In this particular case, a family court in West Midnapore district had dissolved the marriage in July 2001 after accepting the husband’s contention accusing his wife of mental cruelty. The woman had challenged that order at the Calcutta High Court in May 2009.

On the issue of describing the husband as “coward” and “unemployed”, the court noted that it was because of a false complaint by the wife that the husband had lost his government job.
The court also took note of some contents of the diary of the petitioner where she time and again described her husband as “coward” and “unemployed”.
In the diary, she had also made it clear a number of times that she was forced to marry him because of pressure from her parents. As per the court’s observation, the petitioner had also made it clear in the diary that she was more keen to get married elsewhere.
In such cases, the marriage just remains a legal tie and hence tantamount to nothing but fiction, the court noted.
After hearing the arguments, the division bench upheld the verdict of the family court dissolving the marriage in 2001.

[ad_2]
#Calcutta #upholds #husbands #seek #divorce #ground #mental #cruelty
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 8, 2023
JK HC Quashes Seven PSAs, Upholds One

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: The High Court has invalidated seven detention orders that were issued under the Public Safety Act and has directed the authorities to release the detainees who were held in preventive custody. The seven individuals are Suhail Ahmad Bhat from Srinagar, Altaf Ahmad Bhat from Kupwara, Farooq Ahmad Khan from Bandipora, Shamim Ahmad Wani from Anantnag, Mohammad Khumani Dar from Pulwama, Tanveer Ahmad Malik from Anantnag, and Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar from Kulgam. The orders to detain them were issued on different dates, namely 21.1.2023, 4.12.2021, 25.6.2022, 7.4.2022, 18.10.2021, 13.08.2021, and 29.03.2022.
The detention order issued against Suhail Ahmad Bhat in January 2023 has not been executed yet, and the petitioner is currently receiving specialized medical treatment in Delhi with a valid permission from the court of Special Judge Designated Under NIA Act, Srinagar.
In Bhat’s case, the court stated that the respondents are aware that he is not absconding or avoiding arrest but is instead in Delhi for medical treatment. The court further added that the detention order cannot remain in effect indefinitely and in violation of the provisions of the PSA, especially when it has not been executed due to the respondents’ failure without any reasonable explanation. Therefore, the court invalidated the order.
The court addressed the cases of three other detainees and stated that they cannot exercise their constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India unless they are given access to the material on which their detention is based.
The court also noted that the grounds for detention provided to these detainees were merely a copy of the dossier provided to the detaining authority, which indicates that the detaining authority did not apply its own judgment and passed the detention order in a mechanical and routine manner. The court emphasized that the detaining authority must use its own independent judgment when formulating grounds for detention and cannot simply reiterate what is written in the dossier, as this would render the detention order invalid.
The detention record produced by the respondents showed that the detaining authority passed the order of detention based on activities of the detenu that were considered prejudicial to public order, while the grounds of detention referred to activities prejudicial to the security of the State. This indicates that the detaining authority did not apply proper thought while arriving at its subjective satisfaction. The court, taking into account the aforementioned facts and the law, allowed the petitions and annulled the detention orders issued by the District Magistrates. The respondents were instructed to immediately release the detenues, provided they were not detained in any other case.
Regarding the case of detenue-Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar, the court stated that the regular law should have been sufficient to prevent the detenu from engaging in activities deemed prejudicial to the security of the State by the detaining authority.
In the case of detenue Tanvir Ahmad Malik, the Division Bench found that the grounds of detention did not provide sufficient compelling reasons to justify his continued detention, especially since there was no evidence to suggest that he would engage in such activities if released on bail.

On the other hand, the court upheld the PSA of detenue-Muntazir Ahmad Mir, who was detained by the District Magistrate Pulwama. The court found that the grounds of detention against Mir were specific and included the names of alleged terrorists with whom he had close association, showing his involvement in subversive activities. Therefore, the court deemed the grounds of detention against Mir to be clear and specific, and not vague.

[ad_2]
#Quashes #PSAs #Upholds
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

April 2, 2023
UAPA Tribunal upholds Centre’s decision to ban PFI and its affiliates

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal on Tuesday upheld the Centre’s decision to ban Popular Front of India (PFI) and its affiliates.
According to the sources, the Tribunal has dismissed the allegations levelled by the organisation that one particular community is being targeted by the government.
The judgement was passed by UPA tribunal headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma.
Lawyers associated with the case said that the Tribunal noted that the members of PFI and its affiliates are indulging in secessionist activities which were against the social fabric of the country.
To justify the ban on the terror outfit, the Central government had examined and presented 100 witnesses and had also shown two videos on the activities of the organisation and its members, the lawyers said.
The tribunal judgement was later sent to the Home Ministry.
The Union Home Ministry had in September last year declared Popular Front of India (PFI) and its affiliates an ‘Unlawful Association’
It had said that PFI and its associates or affiliates or fronts have been found to be involved in serious offences, including terrorism and its financing, targeted gruesome killings, disregarding the constitutional set-up of the country, disturbing public order etc. which are prejudicial to the integrity, security and sovereignty of the country.

The Home Ministry said it found it necessary to curb the nefarious activities of the organization. It declared the Popular Front of India (PFI) along with its associates or affiliates or fronts including Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, Kerala as “unlawful association” under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
[ad_2]
#UAPA #Tribunal #upholds #Centres #decision #ban #PFI #affiliates
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 21, 2023
SC upholds life imprisonment to woman for killing her 5-year-old child

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the life term sentence handed down to a woman from Tamil Nadu for murdering her five-year-old female child, as she was forced to live with her mother-in-law at the matrimonial home for better education and upbringing of the kid.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi said: “In an overall comprehension of the material on record and the findings recorded by the trial court and the high court, in our view, no case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact is made out.”
The bench noted that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and even though the prosecution story presented a somewhat difficult proposition, it cannot be ruled out.
In a 43-page judgment, the bench said: “In the facts of the present case, when the prosecution evidence categorically established the fact that the victim child was last seen alive with the appellant only; she was required to explain the circumstances leading to the demise of the child.”
“Upon her failure to do so and failure to give the explanation with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place, burden of Section 106 of the Evidence Act operates heavily against the appellant.”
The woman was convicted for the murder of her five-year-old child in the house of her mother-in-law at Perambalur in the morning of June 21, 2007. According to the prosecution case, the appellant’s husband was living abroad for earning livelihood and the appellant was mostly living with her father at Kolakkudi. However, on being forced to live with her mother-in-law for the purpose of upbringing and education of the child, she found the child to be an obstacle in her desire to live separately and hence, strangulated the child to death when her mother-in-law had gone out of the house.
The woman’s counsel argued that the case does not fall under Section 302 IPC, but could only be of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as there was a quarrel between the accused and mother-in-law on the date of the incident because she wanted to go to her father’s place.
To this, the bench said: “Even if it be taken that there was a quarrel of the appellant with her mother-in-law in the morning of the date of incident because the appellant wanted to go the place of her father, it cannot be said that such a quarrel would make it a case of grave and sudden provocation.”

It noted that the circumstances as proved on record, and the manner of commission of crime, make it clear that the present case cannot be brought under any of the exceptions of Section 300 IPC; and conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be faulted.
Vahitha was convicted of the offence of murder of her five-year-old child and according to the prosecution case, her husband was living abroad for earning livelihood and the appellant was mostly living with her father, Jamal Mohammed at Kolakkudi.
The trial court had relied upon the last seen evidence and convicted her, disregarding her plea for alibi that she was at her father’s place at Kolakkudi.
Vahitha moved the apex court challenging Madras High Court judgment, which dismissed her appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on October 15, 2009.
[ad_2]
#upholds #life #imprisonment #woman #killing #5yearold #child
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 23, 2023
Judge rules DeSantis’ ouster of prosecutor was unconstitutional but upholds suspension

[ad_1]

Hinkle rejected DeSantis’ argument.
“Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suspended elected State Attorney Andrew H. Warren, ostensibly on the ground that Mr. Warren had blanket policies not to prosecute certain kinds of cases,” read the order. “The allegation was false.”
Hinkle said Warren’s office had a policy of using “prosecutorial discretion” in all cases, including those involving abortion.
“Any reasonable investigation would have confirmed this,” Hinkle wrote.
The judge conceded, though, that he didn’t have the authority to reinstate Warren to his position.
DeSantis’ office hailed the ruling was a victory, focusing primarily on Hinkle upholding Warren’s suspension.
“Today, Judge Hinkle upheld @GovRonDeSantis’ decision to suspend Andrew Warren from office for neglect of duty and incompetence,” DeSantis’ Communications Director Taryn Fenske said.
DeSantis replaced Warren with Susan Lopez, who previously served as a judge in the Tampa area.

During a brief press conference Friday after the ruling, Warren declined to say what his next move would be but told reporters “this is not over.”
He said the governor should now rescind his suspension and let him return to office.
“Let’s see if the governor actually believes in the rule of law. … let’s see what kind of man the governor actually is,” Warren said.
DeSantis began eyeing Warren after the governor in late 2021 asked his public safety czar, Larry Keefe, to see whether Florida had any “reform prosecutors,” a term generally associated with progressive prosecutors who pursue criminal justice reforms. When he ran for Hillsborough state attorney, Warren vowed to reduce recidivism, among other things.
“Mr. Keefe made some calls to acquaintances and quickly identified Mr. Warren as the Florida prosecutor who had taken the mantle of a reform prosecutor,” read Hinkle’s opinion.
In his ruling, Hinkle also highlighted testimony from Fenske centered on how the communications office handled the announcement that DeSantis was suspending Warren. The night before DeSantis held the Aug. 4 high-profile press conference to suspend Warren through executive order, former administration press secretary Christina Pushaw tweeted: “Get some rest tonight” and “[p]repare for the liberal media meltdown of the year.”
During trial, Fenske testified that Pushaw was admonished for the tweets, but Hinkle says he “does not credit” the testimony because Pushaw was tweeting about the suspension again the next day.
“Ms. Pushaw tweeted an equally partisan, unprofessional message about this the next night, after purportedly being admonished,” he wrote. “And in any event, any admonishment was about tone, not substance.”
As justification for the suspension, DeSantis’ legal team also brought up former GOP Gov. Rick Scott’s 2017 decision to reassign death penalty-eligible cases from Aramis Ayala, the former state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties, after she said she would never pursue the death penalty even in cases that “absolutely deserve the death penalty.”
In his ruling, Hinkle noted no one ever suggested removing Ayala from office, and that Warren never made similar statements.
“Quite the contrary,” Hinkle wrote. “[Warren] said repeatedly that discretion would be exercised at every state of the case.”
The issue now could go before the Florida Senate, which is responsible for removing from office officials who have been suspended by the governor.
The issue is currently on hold in the Senate until the legal proceedings are resolved, including any potential appeals.
Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) sent a memo to her members Friday morning after the Hinkle ruling telling them the issue isn’t completed.
“As such, the matter of Mr. Warren’s reinstatement or removal from office by the Florida Senate appellate remedies have been exhausted,” she wrote.
Gary Fineout contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Judge #rules #DeSantis #ouster #prosecutor #unconstitutional #upholds #suspension
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 21, 2023
Supreme Court Upholds EWS 10% Quota In 3:2 Verdict

[ad_1]
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides 10% reservation for members of economically weaker sections (EWS) in admissions and government posts, has been upheld by the Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2.
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice JB Pardiwala of the five-judge panel that delivered the verdict found in favour of the quota, claiming that the provision on reservation for EWS did not contradict the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, on the other side, voiced his disagreement and overturned the EWS quota amendment. UU Lalit, CJI, agreed with him.

(We don’t allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
To support our Independent Journalism

[ad_2]
#Supreme #Court #Upholds #EWS #Quota #Verdict

November 7, 2022