Adani News

Tag: Supreme Court

  • 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.

  • Supreme Court Asks Delhi Police To Respond To Brinda Karat’s Plea On Hate Speech

    Supreme Court Asks Delhi Police To Respond To Brinda Karat’s Plea On Hate Speech

    The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Delhi police to respond to the plea of CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat challenging the Delhi High Court’s order dismissing a petition against the trial court’s refusal to order registration of an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and his BJP MP Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches over anti-CAA protests.

    A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna issued the notice to the city police and sought its response within three weeks.

    During the hearing, the bench observed prima facie the magistrate’s stand that sanction was required for lodging FIRs against the two BJP leaders was not correct.

    On June 13 last year, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the petition filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and KM Tiwari against the two BJP MPs for their alleged hate speeches.

    The high court had refused to interfere with the trial court’s order, saying under the law sanction is required to be obtained from the competent authority for registration of FIR in the present facts.

    The petitioners had claimed in their complaint before the trial court that Thakur and Verma had sought to “incite people as a result of which three incidents of firing took place at two different protest sites in Delhi”.

    The petitioners alleged, at a rally in Rithala in the national capital on January 27, 2020, Thakur egged on the crowd to raise an incendiary slogan — “shoot the traitors”– after lashing out at anti-CAA protesters of Shaheen Bagh.

    They claimed Verma, too, made inflammatory speech against the Shaheen Bagh protesters on January 28, 2020.

    The trial court had on August 26, 2021 dismissed the petitioners’ complaint on the ground that it was not sustainable as the requisite sanction from the central government, which was the competent authority, had not been obtained.

    In their complaint, Karat and Tiwari had sought FIRs against the two BJP leaders under various sections, including 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the IPC.

    They had also sought action under other sections of the IPC, including 298 (uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation).

  • Plea in SC for independent committee probe into killings of Atiq, Ashraf

    Plea in SC for independent committee probe into killings of Atiq, Ashraf

    New Delhi: A day after gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad and his brother Ashraf were shot dead under police escort, a plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Sunday seeking the constitution of an independent expert committee headed by a former apex court judge to probe the killings.

    The plea, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, also sought an inquiry into the 183 encounters that have taken place in Uttar Pradesh since 2017.

    Ahmad (60) and Ashraf, who were in handcuffs, were shot dead by three men posing as journalists when they were answering reporters’ queries while being escorted by police personnel to a medical college in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj for a checkup on Saturday night.
    Just hours before the shooting, the last rites of Ahmad’s son Asad, who along with one of his associates was gunned down in a police encounter in Jhansi on April 13, were held.

    Uttar Pradesh Police had said on Friday that it has gunned down 183 alleged criminals in encounters in the six years of the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath-led government and this included Asad and his accomplice.

  • Supreme Court: CJI Chandrachud got angry on the lawyer and reprimanded, said – do not play with my rights

    Supreme Court: CJI Chandrachud got angry on the lawyer and reprimanded, said – do not play with my rights

    Expressing deep displeasure, CJI DY Chandrachud on Tuesday warned a lawyer not to play with his authority. Explain that the CJI lost his temper during a special mention by a lawyer for speedy hearing of a case. The CJI said, “Don’t play with my authority.”

    CJI warned the lawyer
    It may be known that Chief Justice Justice Chandrachud rarely lost his temper during judicial proceedings, but today he became very angry with the behavior of the lawyer and warned the lawyer.

    What is the whole matter?
    The fact is that when the lawyer first sought an early hearing of his case, he (the lawyer) was told that it would be listed for hearing on April 17. Despite this, the CJI was angered when the counsel sought liberty to mention the matter before another bench.

    The counsel said, “If permitted, may I mention this matter before another bench.” To this, Justice Chandrachud said, “Don’t play this game with me. You cannot mention it first here and then elsewhere for early hearing.

    the lawyer apologized
    Thereafter, sensing the mood of the hearing bench, the counsel expressed regret and said that he should be forgiven for his arguments. The CJI sternly said, “Yes, you are forgiven, but don’t play with my authority.” He then proceeded to consider other matters requesting urgent hearing.

  • Supreme Court lifts telecast ban on MediaOne, states using plea of ‘national security’ to deny rights of citizens

    Supreme Court lifts telecast ban on MediaOne, states using plea of ‘national security’ to deny rights of citizens

    The Court passed the judgment in a special leave petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (MBL) – the company running the channel- assailing the Kerala High Court’s judgment of upholding the decision of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the broadcast license of the channel for want of security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The channel’s editor Pramod Raman and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists had also filed separate petitions challenging the High Court’s judgment.

    The Supreme Court heavily criticised the High Court’s approaching in upholding the Centre’s decision solely on the basis of the sealed cover documents submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

    “The High Court did not disclose the reasons for the denial of security clearance. There is no explanation of what weighed in the mind of the High Court, leading it to hold that the denial of clearance was justified despite observing that the nature and gravity of the issue is not discernible from the files. The seal cover procedure, followed by the single judge and the division belch, have necessarily rendered the appellant’s right to remedies, which has been described as the heart and soul of the Constitution and a basic feature of the Constitution, a dry parchment. The nondisclosure of reasons for the denial of security clearance, which is the sole ground for denying the permission to renew the license, and the disclosure of relevant material only to the court in a seal cover, has rendered the appellant’s procedural guarantees under the Constitution otiose. The appellants right to reach remedies have been denied through a formalistic order by the High Court”, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said.

    Merely raising national security plea will not preclude the duty of the State to act fairly

    The judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud emphatically stated that the State cannot deny the rights of the citizens by merely raising the plea of national security.

    “The mere involvement of issues concerning national security would not preclude the state’s duty to act fairly. If the state discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the Court and the facts of the case. Firstly, the state must satisfy the court that national security concerns are involved”, the bench observed.

    The judgment observed that absolute immunity from disclosure cannot be granted to the reports of investigative agencies such as the CBI and the IB.

    The judgment also specifically commented about “the cavalier manner in which the Union of India has raised the claim of national security”.

    “Other than merely claiming that national security is involved, both in the affidavit that was filed before the High Court and in the submissions before us, the Union of India made no attempt to explain how non-disclosure would be in the interest of national security. The Union of India has adopted this approach in spite of reiterations by this court. That judicial review would not be excluded in a mere mention of the phrase national security. The state is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law”

    Significantly, the Ministry of Home Affairs had relied on reports of the channel on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), criticism of judiciary, State etc. to state that it is an anti-establishment. However, the Top Court said these are not justifiable grounds to refuse renewal of its broadcast license.

    “An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a Democratic Republic. Its role in the democratic society is crucial, for it shines a light on the functioning of the State. The press has a duty to speak truth and present citizens with hard facts, enabling them to make choices that prepare democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenized view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy” it said.

    Channel can’t be termed “anti-establishment” merely because it criticised govt policies

    “The critical views of the channel media, one on policies of the government cannot be termed anti establishment. The use of such a terminology in itself represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting by denying your security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views with the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a c

  • SC refuses pleas seeking Centre to enact gender, religion-neutral laws

    SC refuses pleas seeking Centre to enact gender, religion-neutral laws

    NEW DELHI: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday thwarted an attempt to get a direction to the Centre to frame uniform religion and gender-neutral laws governing subjects such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and alimony by refusing to entertain a batch of petitions, saying it cannot direct Parliament to legislate.

    “Uniform civil code is desirable but this is a legislative aspect. It cannot be decided on a writ petition,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench also comprising Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.

    “Entertaining this would mean directing enactment of law and mandamus cannot be issued to Parliament to enact a law. We see no reason to also ask it to be considered by law commission as it would aid in legislation,” said a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.

    Disposing of a total of 16 petitions, including those filed by BJP leader Shazia Ilmi and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, the top court said, “After taking a considered view of the pleadings and submissions, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions under Article 32. The grant of relief in these proceedings necessitates a direction for the enactment of laws — gender-neutral and religion-neutral legislation as the petitioner has described it.”

    Union Law Ministry last year while questioning the maintainability and seeking dismissal of the PIL’s had submitted before the Supreme Court that the court cannot direct Parliament to frame or enact any law.

    “It is a settled position of law as has been held in the catena of judgments by this court under our constitutional scheme, Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. It is respectfully submitted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact particular legislation,” the affidavit states.

    It has further been added in the affidavit that this is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of the people to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the Court. It is for the legislature to enact or not to enact a piece of legislation.

    The ministry also added that since the 21st Law Commission’s term ended, the 22nd Law Commission was constituted and that the subject matter will be placed before the 22nd Law Commission for consideration when the Chairman and members of the commission will be appointed.

    The bench, however, allowed Upadhayay, the lead petitioner, to take the recourse available to him to seek the framing of such laws.

  • Supreme Court allows UP government to notify urban local body elections

    Supreme Court allows UP government to notify urban local body elections

    New Delhi (IANS) | The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to issue notification for conducting urban local body elections after noting that a dedicated commission set up to look into the issue of OBC reservation has submitted its final report. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that the Uttar Pradesh government has issued a notification for the UP Backward Classes Commission based on the previous order of the court.

    Justice P.S. A bench of Narasimha and JB Padirwala said that the tenure of the commission was six months, it was to complete its work by March 31, 2023, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the report is to be submitted on March 9.

    The bench said that the notification for the local body elections will be issued in two days.

    The top court while disposing of the matter made it clear that the directions of its order are not to be used as precedents.

    The top court had in January this year stayed the Allahabad High Court’s direction to the Uttar Pradesh Election Commission to go ahead with the urban local body elections without providing reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

    The Uttar Pradesh government had then argued before the court that it had already constituted a dedicated commission to collect data for representation of OBCs.

    In December last year, the high court had passed an order on petitions challenging the drafting of the OBC reservation without following the triple test formula laid down by the Supreme Court.

    The apex court in May last year ‘K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.’ (2010) referred to a Constitution Bench judgment which held that the ‘triple test conditions’ must first be met for OBC reservation.

    Earlier in March this year, Justice (retd) Ram Avtar Singh, who headed the commission, and four other members — retired IAS officers Chob Singh Verma, Mahender Kumar and former additional legal advisors Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma and Brajesh Kumar Soni — had met. The Chief Minister visited Urban Development Minister A.K. Sharma and submitted the report in the presence of officials of the Urban Development Department.

    –IANS

  • BJP opposes Supreme Court status for Dalit Christians

    BJP opposes Supreme Court status for Dalit Christians

    BJP State chief Somu Veerraju lambasted the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government for adopting a resolution in the State Assembly urging the Centre to amend the Constitution to provide Schedule Caste status to SCs, who converted into Christianity.

    Stating that it was nothing but encouraging religious conversions in a secular country, Veerraju demanded that the YSRC government withdraw the resolution. The State BJP chief said he will submit a memorandum to the Governor on March 27 in this regard.

    Speaking to mediapersons in Visakhapatnam, BJP MP GVL Narasimha Rao said the party would oppose the resolution adopted by the YSRC government for the inclusion of Dalit Christians in the SC list. He recalled that they opposed when such a move was made during the TDP rule. “We will chalk out an action plan against the decision soon,” he added.

    GVL asserted that such inclusion would affect the interests of the real Dalits as they stand to lose part of the reservation. “It will be a great injustice to Dalits. Hence, the YSRC government should withdraw the resolution. It is all part of vote bank politics of the ruling YSRC,” he said.

    The MP also said the court verdict in the Rahul Gandhi case was being misinterpreted. The Congress, which suppressed democracy during the Emergency, was now talking about democracy, he alleged.

  • ‘Misuse of ED, CBI against opposition’, Supreme Court to hear petition of 14 parties on April 5

    ‘Misuse of ED, CBI against opposition’, Supreme Court to hear petition of 14 parties on April 5

    New Delhi: Fourteen political parties, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress, AAP, NCP, Shiv Sena (UBT), on Friday moved the Supreme Court against the alleged misuse of investigative agencies in arresting opposition leaders and sought guidelines on arrest.

    The parties sought guidelines to fulfil and realise the guarantee of personal liberty entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution, for all citizens, including those targeted for exercising their right to political dissent and for performing their duties as the political opposition.

    The political parties forming the petitioners are: Congress, DMK, RJD, BRS, Trinamool Congress, AAP, NCP, Shiv Sena (UBT), JMM, JD(U), CPI(M), CPI, Samajwadi Party, J&K National Conference, together representing 45.19 per cent of the votes cast in the last Assembly polls, and 42.5 per cent of the votes cast in the 2019 general elections, and holding power in 11 states/union territories.

    Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud for early hearing.

    The top court agreed to hear the matter on April 5.

    The counsel clarified that they are not attempting to affect the ongoing investigations.

    The plea said that 14 opposition political parties have filed a petition, in light of the alarming rise in the use of coercive criminal processes against their leaders and other citizens exercising their fundamental right to dissent and disagree with the central government.

    The plea submitted that investigating agencies such as CBI and ED are being increasingly deployed in a selective and targeted manner with a view to completely crush political dissent and upend the fundamental premises of a representative democracy.

    The petition has been drawn and filed by advocate Shadan Farasat and settled by Singhvi.

    According to the plea, only 23 convictions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) have been secured as of now, even as the number of cases registered by the ED under the PMLA have risen exponentially (from 209 in 2013-14 F.Y. to 981 in 2020-21, and 1,180 in 2021-22).

    “Between 2004-14, of the 72 political leaders investigated by the CBI, 43 (under 60 per cent) were from the Opposition of the time. Now, this same figure has risen to over 95 per cent. The same pattern is reflected in ED’s investigations as well, with the proportion of Opposition leaders from the total number of politicians investigated rising from 54 per cent (before 2014) to 95 per cent (after 2014),” it further added.

    The petitioners have sought from the apex court certain prospectively applicable guidelines governing the arrest, remand, and bail of persons in offences (which may or may not be punishable with imprisonment for above seven years) not involving serious bodily harm (thereby obviously excluding homicide, rape, terrorism etc.).

    “As for arrest and remand, the petitioners seek that the triple test (whether a person is a flight risk, or whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the tampering of evidence or of the influencing/intimidation of witnesses) be used by police officers/ED officials and courts alike for arrest of persons in any cognizable offences except those involving serious bodily violence. Where these conditions are not satisfied, alternatives like interrogation at fixed hours or at most house arrest be used to meet the demands of investigation.

    “As for bail, the petitioners seek that the principle of ‘bail as rule, jail as exception’ be followed by all courts throughout, especially in cases where non-violent offences are alleged, and that bail be denied only where the aforementioned triple-test is met,” the plea added.

  • NGO angry with Supreme Court’s decision, demands compensation from the government for the victims

    NGO angry with Supreme Court’s decision, demands compensation from the government for the victims

    By PTI
    BHOPAL: Voluntary organisations fighting for the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy have expressed displeasure over the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Centre’s curative plea seeking an additional Rs 7,844 crore from the Union Carbide Corporation’s (UCC) successor firms and demanded that the government compensate them adequately.

    The apex court last week dismissed the Centre’s curative plea seeking an additional Rs 7,844 crore from the UCC’s successor firms to extend higher compensation to the victims of the gas tragedy that killed more than 3,000 people, maimed thousands of others, and caused environmental damage.

    The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representing the victims are also mulling filing claims of the second generation of survivors in competent courts.

    “We strongly condemn the March 14 decision on the curative petition on several counts and we will now demand from the government to compensate the victims with additional relief, which it had sought in the Supreme Court,” Bhopal Group for Information and Action’s Rachna Dhingra told PTI.

    The organisation was also mulling over filing claims on behalf of the second generation of survivors in competent courts to seek justice for them, she said.

    The judges have displayed “ignorance” about the basic fact that contamination of groundwater in Bhopal by the UCC’s hazardous waste predates the 1984 gas disaster and is unrelated to it, she claimed.

    “They chose to ignore that the ongoing contamination is due to unsafe dumping of poisonous waste before and after the disaster by the UCC. Also ignored by them was the condition of returning the land in its original state, under which the company had taken the land on lease,” Dhingra alleged.

    Rashida Bee, president, Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmchari Sangh, said the Supreme Court ignored arguments that the UCC had used fraudulent means to settle the case on the disaster in February 1989.

    “Our lawyer had in fact presented documentary evidence of the UCC’s representative misleading Indian government officials into believing that a majority of the survivors suffered only temporary injuries. There is not a word in the decision about this,” Bee said.

    The court’s claim that Bhopal survivors received six times more compensation than that provided under the Motor Vehicles Act is “overwhelmingly false”, said Balkrishna Namdeo of the Bhopal Gas Peedit Nirashrit Pensionbhogi Sangarsh Morcha.

    While delivering the March 14 judgement, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that there was no rationale by the Centre to rake up the issue two decades after the settlement.

    The Centre had wanted another Rs 7,844 crore from the UCC’s successor firms over and above the USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore) it got from the American company as part of the settlement in 1989.

    Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangarsh Morcha’s president Nawab Khan said, “Nowhere in the 34-page decision is there any indication that the judges are even remotely familiar with the scientific facts on medical consequences of the exposure to leaked gas.”

    There was nothing in the ruling to show the judges had any understanding of the chronic nature of exposure-induced diseases among the Bhopal survivors, he claimed.

    Nousheen Khan of the Children against Dow Carbide said the SC was not sympathetic to the survivors despite claiming to be so in the judgement and criticised its attitude towards organisations representing them.

    The UCC, now owned by Dow Chemicals, gave a compensation of Rs USD 470 million in 1989 after the toxic methyl isocyanate gas leak from the Union Carbide factory on the intervening night of December 2 and 3, 1984.