Tag: SC

  • Plea in SC seeks panel headed by retired judge to probe Odisha 3-train accident

    Plea in SC seeks panel headed by retired judge to probe Odisha 3-train accident

    New Delhi: A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to set up an expert commission, headed by a retired judge of the apex court, to probe the triple train accident in Odisha.

    The Balasore train accident, where two passenger trains and a goods carriage were involved, claimed 275 lives so far and left over 1,000 people injured.

    The PIL, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, sought a direction to immediately set up an expert commission headed by a retired judge of the apex court and also consisting of technical members to analyse and review the current risk and safety parameters in the railway system and the panel should submit its report to the court.

    Citing the Odisha train accident, the plea said: “It needs to be mentioned with greater concern and emphasis that India from the last few decades has seen a series of train collisions and derailments causing severe sufferance to people of our country in the form of deaths and injuries of permanent nature. Time and again, the respondent authorities have been slow to provide redress in developing a safety enforcement mechanism against such collisions and accidents.”

    The plea said, “The enforcement of safety mechanism of such train protection system is still not implemented on practical grounds throughout the country as it has been clearly proven that the KAVACH, which is an Automatic Train Protection System, was still not applied on these routes and such is still in the process of installing Kavach across the network.”

    The plea stressed that with thousands and lakhs of passengers traveling daily on trains, it becomes absolutely necessary on the part of the authorities to ensure the basic implementation of safety and redress mechanisms like the Kavach system, which would ensure safety for the people.

    Citing various accidents over the years claiming hundreds of lives, the plea argued that with unregulated and negligent actions, there needs to be a strict judicial intervention, as this matters the concern of public safety and life which stands at the highest pedestal on the functioning of any state machinery.

    The plea urged the apex court to issue a direction to the government to issue guidelines/directions for the implementation of Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system called KAVACH Protection System in Indian railways with immediate effect to ensure public safety.

  • SC Issues Notice To CBI Regarding Murder Case Of Ex-Andhra Minister

    SC Issues Notice To CBI Regarding Murder Case Of Ex-Andhra Minister

    A Telangana High Court order granting bail to an accused in the murder case of former Andhra Pradesh minister Y S Vivekananda Reddy on Thursday came under the scanner of the Supreme Court which issued notices to the CBI and the accused.

    “What is this order? The High Court cancels bail and then grants it saying he be released on July 1 as the Supreme Court had asked the CBI to conclude investigation by June 30,” a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said.

    The top court was hearing a plea filed by Suneetha Narreddy, daughter of the deceased, challenging the high court order granting conditional bail to accused T Gangi Reddy alias Yerra Gangi Reddy while allowing the plea for cancellation of the same.

    “Accused No.1 (T Gangi Reddy) is directed to surrender on or before may 05, 2023. On his surrender, he shall be remanded to judicial custody till June 30, 2023 which is the outer limit fixed by the Supreme Court for completion of investigation by CBI …,” the Telangana High Court said in its April 27 order.

    “In case, the accused … fails to surrender before the court concerned on or before the said date, CBI is at liberty to take him into custody as provided under law and produce him before the court of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad. The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on July 01, 2023, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs one lakh with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court,” the high court had further ordered.

    Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Suneetha, said a strange order was passed where the bail was cancelled and granted simultaneously.

    Irked and surprised over the order, the bench said, “Issue notice, returnable in the week commencing May 22, 2023. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, in addition. The first respondent shall be served through the Superintendent of Jail where he is presently lodged.” Earlier, the top court had transferred the pleas seeking cancellation of bail of Gangi Reddy from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana High Court for fresh adjudication.

    The CBI had initially moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking cancellation of bail and the high court had held there were no legal grounds to cancel it.

    The probe agency had then moved the top court which on January 16 transferred the matter to the Telangana High Court for considering its afresh on merits.

    The CBI is also probing the role of YSR Congress Party Lok Sabha member Y S Avinash Reddy in the case.

    Avinash Reddy is a nephew of Y S Vivekananda Reddy and Andhra Pradesh Chief minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy’s cousin.

    Earlier on April 21, the top court had also termed as “atrocious and unacceptable” the HC order and stayed the protection from arrest granted till April 25 to Avinash Reddy in the murder of Vivekananda Reddy.

    Vivekananda Reddy, one of the brothers of the late Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, was found murdered at his residence in Pulivendula in Kadapa district on the night of March 15, 2019, weeks before the Assembly elections in the state.

    Avinash Reddy had filed the anticipatory bail petition in the high court ahead of appearing before the CBI.

    His father Y S Bhaskar Reddy, uncle of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, was arrested by the CBI on April 16 in connection with the murder of Vivekananda Reddy.

    The murder case was initially probed by a special investigation team (SIT) of the state CID but was handed over to the CBI in July 2020.

    The CBI filed a charge sheet in the murder case on October 26, 2021 and followed it up with a supplementary charge sheet on January 31, 2022.

  • Adani-Hindenburg row: SC grants 3-months extension to SEBI for probe

    Adani-Hindenburg row: SC grants 3-months extension to SEBI for probe

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted an extension of time for three months to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conduct a probe into the Hindenburg report against Adani Group.

    A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justices PS Narsimha and JB Pardiwala granted an extension of time for three months to SEBI.

    The court said that SEBI is granted time till 14th August 2023 to conduct the probe. The court also said that the matter will be listed in July and requested the expert committee to continue to assist the court. The court also said that the expert committee may hold further deliberations in the meantime. The court also said that copies of the report of the expert committee shall be made available to the parties and their counsels to assist the court.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has informed SC, SEBI is seeking an extension of time for conducting the probe and needs six months to reach any conclusion. In a rejoinder filed recently, The Securities and Exchange Board of India apprised the Supreme Court on Monday that the market regulator is already investigating Adani Group companies since 2016 is factually baseless.

    SEBI has filed a rejoinder affidavit in response to a petition relating to Hindenburg Research’s report on Adani Group. SEBI had sought an extension to conclude the investigation in the report by US short-seller Hindenburg Research by a period of six months.

    The top court on Friday orally remarked that they will extend the time for the probe to SEBI, but not for six months and they can extend the time for the probe by three months. SEBI told the SC that the investigation done earlier by SEBI pertains to the issuance of Global Depository Receipts (“GDRs”) by 51 Indian listed companies, in respect of which investigation was conducted.

    SEBI submitted before the Supreme Court that no listed company of Adani Group was part of those 51 companies it was investigating. “Pursuant to the completion of the investigation, appropriate enforcement actions were taken in this matter. Hence, the allegation that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) is investigating Adani since 2016 is factually baseless. I, therefore, say and submit that reliance sought to be placed on the investigation pertaining to GDRs is wholly misplaced,” SEBI said in a rejoinder affidavit.

    SEBI submitted before Supreme Court that in the context of the investigation into Minimum Public Shareholding (“MPS”) norms, SEBI has already approached eleven overseas Regulators under the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”). Various requests for information were made to these Regulators. The first request to overseas Regulators was made as early as on October 6, 2020, SEBI apprised the court.

    SEBI submitted before the Supreme Court that the application for extension of time filed by SEBI is meant to ensure carriage of justice keeping in mind the interest of investors and the securities market since any incorrect or premature conclusion of the case arrived at without full facts material on record would not serve the ends of justice and hence would be legally untenable.

    SEBI has informed Supreme Court that in respect of the investigation and examination relating to 12 transactions referred to in the Hindenburg Report, prima facie it is noted that these transactions are highly complex and have many sub-transactions across numerous jurisdictions and a rigorous investigation of these transactions would require collation of data/information from various sources including bank statements from multiple domestic as well as international banks, financial statements of onshore and offshore entities involved in the transactions and contracts and agreements, if any, entered between the entities along with other supporting documents.

    On March 2, the apex court directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the Adani Group in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group’s market value. Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group companies.

    The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months. The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors’ interests.

    The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate. The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as “an unethical short seller”, stating that the report by the New York-based entity was “nothing but a lie”. A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares.

  • Money laundering case: SC adjourns NCP leader Nawab’s plea for July

    Money laundering case: SC adjourns NCP leader Nawab’s plea for July

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned for July the hearing of a petition filed by former Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik, who is in jail since February 23, 2022, in a money laundering case.

    A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh stated that the High Court will be at liberty to take up the matter in the meantime.

    Malik approached the Supreme Court aggrieved with the Bombay High Court adjourning his bail application to June 6.

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Malik, urged the bench to specify that the matter be heard by the High Court next week, however, the apex court didn’t specify any date for the hearing in the High Court.

    Sibal had earlier told the bench that Malik is suffering from kidney failure. Malik approached the High Court after the trial court refused to grant him bail on November 30, 2022.

    The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) arrested Malik in February 2022 alleging that he usurped a property in Kurla with the help of Dawood Ibrahim’s late sister Haseena Parkar between 1999-2006.

    ED alleged that since Parkar handled Dawood’s illegal businesses, the money was ultimately used for terror funding.

  • SC is not Supreme Court of Tilak Marg, it is apex court of India, by India, for India: CJI

    SC is not Supreme Court of Tilak Marg, it is apex court of India, by India, for India: CJI

    Amid a demand to set up benches of Orissa High Court in southern and western parts of the state, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Saturday said technology has obliterated the need for benches of the High Court because there is a bench in each district that has a virtual court.

    With several high courts having started livestreaming proceedings, the CJI said this has a flip side, too. “We judges need to be trained ourselves, because we are now working in the age of social media,” he said. “Every word we say in the court is up in the public realm.”

    CJI Chandrachud, who was speaking at the National Conference on Digitization, Paperless Courts and e-Initiatives at the Odisha Judicial Academy in Cuttack, said: “Every word which we judges say in court is up in the public realm in the age of social media. This places new demands on us as judges.”

    He hailed Orissa HC’s efforts to set up virtual courts in 20 of the state’s 30 districts, where lawyers can address the HC from their districts. Setting up virtual courts across districts has enabled Orissa HC to be “truly the representative of the entire state” and ensure that there is access to justice for citizens across the state who want access to the high court, he said.

    The CJI said: “The Supreme Court of India is not the Supreme Court of Tilak Marg but it’s the Supreme Court for India… of India… by India. Likewise, each high court is not really a high court for the metropolitan capital of the state.”

    CJI Chandrachud said the vision of the e-court project is to provide an affordable, accessible, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, transparent and accountable justice delivery system. He said each of these phrases “signifies the core of our mission of reaching out to the citizens, of replacing what was the earlier colonial model of administration of justice, under which citizens had to reach out to the court. We seek to now replace it with a model…to reach out to the citizens.”

    On cybersecurity, the CJI said he has constituted a committee to ensure data security and data privacy. He said they are in the process of evolving a national model for data security and privacy which would be a major step.

  • SC Allows Scribe To Candidate Suffering From Writer’s Cramp

    SC Allows Scribe To Candidate Suffering From Writer’s Cramp

    The Supreme Court has allowed a judicial services aspirant suffering from writer’s cramp to get a scribe to write his preliminary examination for civil judges in Uttarakhand on Sunday. Dhananjay Kumar, the candidate, approached the top court, saying his request to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for a scribe was rejected on April 20, just days ahead of the scheduled test. He urged the court to allow him a scribe as he suffers from writer’s cramp and submitted a certificate from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, dated September 25, 2017, about his condition.

    Writer’s cramp is a task-specific movement disorder that manifests itself as abnormal postures and unwanted muscle spasms that interfere with motor performance while writing. The court noted the submission by advocate Namit Saxena, appearing Kumar. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud then issued a notice to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and the state government seeking a response on why Kumar’s request for a scribe was rejected. It directed them to file a response by May 12.

    “We issue an ad interim direction to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, which is in-charge of conducting the examination, to ensure that a scribe is provided to the petitioner for the ensuing examination. This shall be without prejudice to the rights and conditions of the parties and subject to such further orders as may be passed by this court,” the bench, comprising Justice PS Narasimha, said.

  • SC says probe agency cannot file chargesheet without completing probe to deny default bail to accused

    SC says probe agency cannot file chargesheet without completing probe to deny default bail to accused

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that an investigating agency should not file charge sheet in court without completing probe to deprive default bail to an accused. According to section 167 of the CrPC, an accused will be entitled to default bail if the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within 60 days from the date of remand. For certain category of offences, the stipulated period can be extended till 90 days.

    “If an investigating agency files a charge sheet without completing investigation, the same would not extinguish the right of the accused to get default bail,” a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar said. The top court’s judgement came while granting bail to an accused in a criminal case.

  • SC transfers all FIRs against comedian Munawar Faruqui to Indore

    SC transfers all FIRs against comedian Munawar Faruqui to Indore

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday transferred, to Indore, all FIRs against comedian Munawar Faruqui for allegedly making remarks on Hindu deities during a show and hurting religious sentiments.

    A bench headed by Justice BR Gavai also extended Faruqui’s interim protection for three weeks in connection with a production warrant in Delhi.

    The bench, also comprising justice Sanjay Karol, made it clear that the court has not gone into the merits of the plea for quashing the case.

    As Faruqui’s counsel contended that FIRs should not be transferred to Indore as there is threat to his client’s safety over there, the bench orally observed: “Indore is a safe city. It is also close to Mumbai. What is the issue with transferring the FIRs to Indore?”

    The counsel urged the bench to club the FIRs and transfer them either to Mumbai or Delhi and not Indore or Prayagraj. He said there was a huge mob and there were threats to his client’s safety in these cities.

    After hearing arguments, the bench said: “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, and the previous order of this court, we are inclined to transfer all the complaints to a police station in Indore.”

    The bench said it has not considered the merits of the matter insofar as the prayer for quashing and the petitioner is at liberty to initiate such proceedings as permitted under the law.

    In February, the top court had released Faruqui on an interim bail by staying the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, declining to grant him bail. The son of a BJP MLA had filed a complaint against Faruqui and others.

    According to the FIR, the remarks were made at a comedy show held at a cafe in Indore in January 2021. It was alleged that in the show jokes were made regarding Hindu gods and goddesses and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

    –IANS

  • SC pulls up Mumbai Metro for bid to fell additional trees in Aarey

    SC pulls up Mumbai Metro for bid to fell additional trees in Aarey

    The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) for its attempt at felling more than the ordered limit of 84 trees for the Mumbai Metro Rail project in Aarey

    A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala found it necessary to penalise MMRCL for its conduct and directed it to deposit ₹10 lakh with the Chief Conservator of Forests.

    “MMRCL shall deposit 10 lakhs to the Chief Conservator of Forests and the conservator should ensure all afforestation as directed is completed. The conservator shall ensure that planting of trees direction is followed,” the court ordered.

    The order was passed after MMRCL sought permission to fell 185 tress instead of 84, as previously allowed by the bench.

    The bench was miffed at the fact that superintendent of gardens and trees officer had granted permission to fell 177 trees in violation of the top court’s order.

    “You people think you can Supreme Court for a ride. You cannot overreach the court. Officer of MMRCL should also be sent to jail. Ask CEO of MMRCL to be present in court,” the CJI siad.

    The Court further remarked that both the MMRCL and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) were in contempt of the court.

    During the hearing Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta stated that while there was lacuna on the authorities’ part, it was bona fide and there was no intention to override the court.

    On the court’s suggestion of a monetary penalty, the SG urged the court to reconsider.

    “We should have come before this court and there is lacuna but there was no attempt to overreach this court. I urge this finding not to be recorded.. instead of monetary penalty… reforestation of 3,000 trees can be directed.. this can serve a larger cause”, he said.

    Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, however, said that complete fraud had been played on the court.

    “I am appearing for Van Shakti.. what is happening here is incremental.. it is based on complete falsehood.. they said earlier no survey so they did not know how many trees”, Senior Advocate CU Singh added.

    The Court was hearing a suo motu plea against construction of a metro car shed under the Mumbai Metro Rail project, at the Aarey area, which is one of Mumbai’s major green lungs.

    On October 7, 2019, the Court had ordered the State of Maharashtra not to cut any further trees at Aarey, and to maintain the status quo.

    Nonetheless, in November 2022, the court had allowed the MMRCL to pursue its February 2019 application seeking permission to fell 84 trees reasoning that this was required for a shunting site/ramp, without which the overall metro project would have no consequence.

    The MMRCL, however, applied to fell 185 trees.

    After the superintendent of gardens and trees officer granted permission to fell 177 trees and transplant 53 trees subject to the condition that 1,533 trees will be re-planted, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was filed in the Bombay High Court.

    The High Court took note of the top court’s order regarding on 84 trees and ordered that no tree shall be felled until a clarification was sought from the court.

    The matter then reached apex court by way of the present application.

  • Thackeray faction asks SC to set aside governor’s order for floor test in 2022

    Thackeray faction asks SC to set aside governor’s order for floor test in 2022

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena made an impassioned plea before the Supreme Court on Thursday for setting aside then Maharashtra Governor B S Koshyari’s June 2022 order to Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to take a floor test, asserting democracy will be in danger if it is not overturned.

    Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the Thackeray bloc, urged a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud to rescind the order, a day after the apex court questioned Koshyari’s conduct in calling for a trust vote merely on the ground of differences between Shiv Sena MLAs.

    It had said on Wednesday such action by the governor can topple an elected government and that the governor of a state cannot lend his office to effectuate a particular result.

    Concluding his rejoinder arguments, Sibal told the bench, also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, it’s a moment in the history of this court when the future of democracy will be determined.

    “I am absolutely certain that without the intervention of this court our democracy will be in danger because no elected government will be allowed to survive. It is with this hope I make this plea to this court to allow this petition and set aside the order (of floor test) of the governor,” Sibal said.

    The apex court is hearing arguments on the events that unfolded during the June 2022 political crisis triggered by a revolt in the then undivided Shiv Sena by MLAs loyal to Eknath Shinde.

    Sibal said if the Sena MLAs had lost their faith in the government, they could have voted against it in the House when a money bill was moved and reduced it to a minority.


    His argument was in line with the views expressed by the bench on Wednesday when it recalled the Monsoon session of the assembly was about to commence at the relevant time.

    The surest way to test its majority would have been when the government placed the supplementary demands before the House. If it had failed to get the money bill passed, it would have been out, it had said.

    “It is not that the government cannot run in the minority. Former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao ran a minority government. There is no scope for the governor to recognise those (rebel) MLAs and call for the floor test. Here, what they want is to topple the government and become chief minister and deputy CMs and use the position of governor for that. I don’t want to say more, everything is in the public domain,” Sibal said.

    “I have my political experience and lordships have their judicial experience, which is enough to understand this. I can say we have reduced ourselves to a level that we are mocked. People don’t believe us anymore,” Sibal said, making a fervent pitch for setting aside the governor’s order for a floor test.

    Governors can only deal with alliances and political parties and not individuals, otherwise it will “create havoc”, the senior lawyer asserted.

    “The governor based his decision on the claim made by the legislative majority of Shiv Sena. On what constitutional basis can the governor recognise a faction, whether minority or majority, to hold a floor test?” he said.

    He said there is no space for factions when the governor has to appoint a chief minister.

    “Now, if all of Shiv Sena had gone to the BJP, would the governor still have called for floor test. That’s the ‘Aaya Ram-Gaya Ram’ principle which we gave up long ago. It’s disastrous for democracy — the legislator has no identity other than being a representative of the political party,” Sibal, who was assisted by lawyer Amit Anant Tiwari, said.

    “When we enter this court we are in a different aura, we come with hope, expectations. If you look at the history of civilizations, all injustices are based on power. You (top court) are the hope of 1.4 billion people and you cannot let democracy be destabilised in this callous, uncouth fashion,” he said.


    During the hearing, Sibal also referred to Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. “There have been occasions like the ADM Jabalpur (1976 verdict) which is in dissonance with what this court has done over years. This is an equally significant case for our democracy to survive,” Sibal said.

    The controversial 1976 judgment delivered by P N Bhagwati decreed during the emergency from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, held that a person’s right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e.habeas corpus) can be suspended in the interest of the State.

    A political crisis had erupted in Maharashtra after an open revolt in the Shiv Sena, and on June 29, 2022, the apex court refused to stay the Maharashtra governor’s direction to the 31-month-old MVA government to take a floor test in the assembly to prove its majority.

    Sensing impending defeat, Uddhav Thackeray had resigned, paving the way for Eknath Shinde to become the chief minister.

    In another blow to the Thackeray bloc, the Election Commission declared the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena on February 17 and allotted to it the original bow and arrow election symbol of the party founded by Balasaheb Thackeray.

    On August 23, 2022, a three-judge bench of the top court headed by then chief justice N V Ramana had formulated several questions of law and referred to the five-judge bench petitions filed by the two Sena factions which raised several constitutional questions related to defection, merger and disqualification.