Thorat & Associate's

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear the petition filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to adduce additional evidence in the criminal appeal filed by him in the Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in the 1990 custodial death case. The Bench headed by Justice M.R. Shah was apprised that a letter has been circulated seeking adjournment of the hearing in the matter. After this, the court listed the matter for hearing on February 27.  The former IPS officer has moved the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court conducting regular hearing on his appeal challenging his conviction in a custodial death case, without awaiting the order of another petition filed by him in the Apex Court, seeking to adduce additional evidence in the case. The case dates back to June 20, 2019, when the Sessions Court at Jamnagar in Gujarat had sentenced Bhatt to life imprisonment after finding him guilty for the custodial death of one Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani in 1990. Bha

The Supreme Court has expressed its disappointment towards Delhi Police for seeking adjournment in the Delhi riots  case due to the unavailability of the Solicitor General of India. The bench comprising of Justice Kishan Kaul and Justice AS Oka told the Central Government counsel that of the Solicitor General is unavailable, alternative arrangements should be made. The bench was going through the appeals filed by the Delhi Police against the order by the Delhi High Court order which granted bail to student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha. Some accused in the case Impleadment applications has also been filed by some co-accused on the Supreme Court direction that the Delhi High Court’s judgment should not be used as a precedent in other cases. Earlier in the day, when the matter was called out for the first time, no one appeared for the Delhi Police, which reports to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The matter was then  decided to be put for th

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order in journalist Rana Ayyub’s plea challenging the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court which commenced proceedings against her in a Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) case. A bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice JB Pardiwala reserved the order after arguments were concluded today. A money laundering case has been initiated by the ED on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) registered in September 2021 by the Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Amendment Act and Black Money Act against Ayyub. As per the FIR it was alleged that Rana had illegally acquired funds from the general public in the name of charity by launching fundraiser campaigns on online crowd funding platform  Ketto . It added that the journalist also recieved foreign contributions without registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). Investigation by ED revealed

The Supreme Court has refused for entertaining the plea against the circular by the Jammu and Kashmir government directing all Deputy Commissioners to remove encroachments on Union Territory land, including Roshni land and Kachharie land, by January 31. A bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna were not convinced with the argument of the petitioners that despite the Jammu & Kashmir State Land (popularly known as the Roshni Act) being repealed, their ownership rights persisted. The Court said that the Act has been repealed and once the Act has been repealed, where is the question of savings clause? The bench orally said that if the Court granting relief to those continuing to occupy the land, can have larger repercussions. The Court said that incase it protects their possession, it will affect the entire J&K encroachment,however the court can certainly grant reasonable time to relocate. The petitioner eventually sought to withdraw the petition and was

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the petition filed by the Central government, seeking review of its August, 2022 verdict that struck down certain provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 1988 on the grounds of being manifestly arbitrary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter before the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha, seeking an open court hearing in the case. The Bench agreed to hear the matter. The ASG contended that the Apex Court, by way of its August 23, 2020 judgment, had struck down certain provisions of the Benami Act, which were not even under challenge. He contended that a lot of orders were being passed after this Supreme Court verdict.  On August 23 last year, a three-judge bench of the Apex Court, comprising the then CJI N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli had ruled that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 could not be applied re

The Supreme Court has acquitted two people, who were convicted in a 38-year-old murder case, after observing that both the trial court and the High Court failed to consider vital factors, which possibly hinted at false implication of the accused. The order was recently passed by the Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, which noted lapses in the police investigation and said that it was not giving weightage to the perfunctory police investigation alone in concluding that the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. Stating that mere defects in the investigative process did not constitute grounds for acquittal, the Apex Court examined the evidence on record in detail, in order to ascertain if the prosecution’s allegations against the accused would stand. It said there was a ‘fair’ degree of ‘uncertainty’ in the prosecution story and that the courts below appeared to have been ‘influenced’ primarily by the oral testimony of two witnesses, without co

The Allahabad High Court has issued notices to two advocates seeking explanation as to why they have filed two orders of the same date in the same case. A single-judge bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail application filed by Sandeep Kumar Vishnoi and 3 Others. The applicants had filed their second anticipatory bail application in case under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 39-D Adhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and 66-C of I.T Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. The Court noted, on 17.1.2023, AGA pointed out that there is some different order in his records of the same date passed in the first anticipatory bail application of the applicants. On January 20, the case was listed along with the true certified copy of first anticipatory bail application of the applicants, wherein the order d

The Delhi Police on Monday apprised the Supreme Court that it would soon file its final report in the hate speech case regarding a Hindu Yuva Vahini event organised under the leadership of Sudarshan News TV editor Suresh Chavhanke in Delhi in December last year.   Appearing for Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj told the Apex Court that the investigation has been substantially completed. The final report, which was almost ready, had been sent for vetting and would be filed in the shortest time, he added. The Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala was hearing a contempt petition filed by activist Tushar Gandhi, alleging that Delhi Police had violated the directions issued in the Tehseen Poonawalla case regarding investigation of mob violence cases. After taking note of the ASG’s submissions and recording the same, the Apex Court adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Representing the petitioner, Advoc

The Delhi High Court has transferred more than half a dozen petitions that seek recognition of same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court . A Bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad have passed the order when they were informed that the Supreme Court had sought transfer of pleas on the issue filed before all High Courts to itself. Earlier this month, an order to this effect was passed by the top court that as several batches of petitions are pending before Delhi, Kerala and Gujarat High Courts involving the same question, the Apex Court is of the view that they should be transferred and decided by this Court. The top Court had directed all writ petitions to stand transferred to this Court. The matter will be heard by the apex court on March 13, after written submissions and counters are filed by all parties. The petition contained a PIL filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, who are a couple for almost 10 years. They recently had a

The Delhi Government has been instructed by Delhi High Court to ensure payment of wages to the workmen of a government hospital. The bench of Justice Rekha Palli said that the hospital workmen have not been paid any wages since April 2022 due to the e files moving up and down between two departments of the Delhi Government. The Court said that this portrays a very sad picture of affair in the state.She felt sorry for the plight. The Justice said that petitions preferred by the workmen depicts a very sorry W.P.(C) state of affairs, wherein they have not been paid any wages since 12.04.2022 as the accounts couldnt be settled between two offices. The petitioner counsel stated that the petitioners has been compelled to approach the Court instead of Labour Court. The counsel said that the instead of directing the respondent to ensure that the petitioners are given their due , matter has been, adjourned time and time and again. The Court directed for issuance of notice to the responde

A notice has been issued by the Supreme Court to the Election Commission of India on January 27,with respect to a review petition that was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) General Secretary BL Santosh against the August 2021 order which inflicted a fine of Rupees 1 lakh on BJP for not following the directions to publish the criminal antecedents of candidates. The bench said that the Election Commission of India (ECI) was as an additional respondent in the review petition and issued notice to it. The bench has asked the Advocate K Vishwanathan, who was the amicus curiae in the main matter, for assisting the Court in the review petition also. The bench had agreed to hear the review petition filed by BJP in the open court on November 30,2021. Not only BJP, but seven other parties were also punished for contempt. As a mark of fine..Communist Party of India( Marxist), Nationalist Congress Party were fined for five lakhs whereas Indian National Congress, Janta Dal, Rashtriya Janat

The Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju  while attending a program praised the Central government under the leadership of Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi for taking initiative and working for the  improvement of courts and facilities for judges, he however said even after so much of work, the PM is still accused of hijacking the judiciary. It was during a question session by India TV’s Rajat Sharma on the show Aap ki Adalat that Rijiju spoke on the matter. The law minister talked about all that PM Modi has done in 8.5 years to increase the facilities for judges by  making court halls, lawyers chambers etc. The Law minister  spoke about Rs.9,000 crores that was approved for judiciary which no other government has done . On a sad note Rijiju added that after we have done so much for judiciary, we are said that we are hijacking judiciary. Truth is there is a problem with their thinking. Talking further Rijiju cited example of the Congress government which  during national emergency ha

By Inderjit Badhwar There is a rainbow on the cover of this issue of India Legal. When our editorial team sat to discuss how best to illustrate the theme of our latest cover story, we unanimously invoked the rainbow—the Indradhanush. Why? Because nature in no other form depicts its “vibgyor” colours more emphatically than in the vibrant arc that cuts a swathe across the skies after a rain. What better expression of diversity can there be? And it is to this subject that our writer Shaan Katari Libby devotes her current essay. The rainbow on the cover is an expression of hope—a wish that our judiciary will strive to make our benches reflect the true strength of this country—its diversity.  Our benches, as of now, do not mirror the multi-faceted nature of this nation. Without going into statistics, I can state with certainty that there is an abysmally inadequate representation of religious and linguistic minorities, women, scheduled castes and tribes, OBCs in our courts. And the abs

The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking setting up  of a regulatory authority to review the contents of non-film songs on the grounds that the Central government had clear regulations to keep a tab on the information available on various media platforms.  The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Union government had laid down a clear regime to regulate the content available on public platforms. The petition had sought immediate ban on all non-film songs having obscene or vulgar content. It noted that the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 addressed the issue regarding regulation of content being telecast on television. The High Court observed that mandating a statute or adding provisions to a statute amounted to legislation, which was not permissible in the constitutional scheme of this country. It said the role of judiciary was prima

The Allahabad High Court has declared Rule 8 (6) of the UP Subordinate Education TGG Service Rules as valid and said it is not contradictory to the regulation. The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bal Krishana and 94 others. The reliefs sought in the writ petition is as under: “A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned rules 8(6) of UP Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) services (4th Amendment) rules 2016 to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to an extent that it does prescribed as one of the qualification of having passed intermediate with subject Sanskrit one of the qualification relating to Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduates Grade) Subject Hindi. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quashing impugned advertisement dated 15.03.2018 being advertisement no

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that objected to the transfer of five acres of land of the University of North Bengal to the Department of Tourism, Government of West Bengal to establish a Hotel Management Institute, namely, ‘State Institute of Hotel Management’. The submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that the University is transferring the land to a Society without any consideration and that the University itself should run the course instead of transferring it to the Society for running the Hotel Management Institute. A further plea has been raised that the University is falsely circulating misleading information that no land is being transferred and only the user right of the land is given to the Department of Tourism.   The Counsel appearing for the University has stated before the High Court that the University is not transferring the land to the Department of Tourism or the Society but only the user right is being transferred to set

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with its January 4 order over the  conduct of Local Bodies elections in Uttar Pradesh. The Apex Court, however, gave the All India Council of Mayors four weeks time to file an intervention application in the original petition regarding their demand to extend the tenure of the present Mayor till the civic body elections were held and the triple test process was not completed in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner requested the Apex Court that the tenure of the present Mayor should be extended till the civic body elections ware held and the triple test process was not completed in UP. The All India Council of Mayors had moved the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict, which had ordered immediate civic body elections without OBC reservation. On January 4, the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha had partially stayed the Allahabad High Court order that directed the Uttar

The Supreme Court decided on Friday to hear before February 13, the petition filed by the State of Goa against the Central Water Commission (CWC) giving approval to the Karnataka government’s detailed project report (DPR) for the construction of dams on Mhadei river, which would lead to diversion of Mhadei river water into Karnataka.     Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for the State of Goa, mentioned the matter before the Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Dipankar Datta. The Counsel contended that the matter was related to divergence of three rivers near the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa, besides the construction of dams on Mhadei river, which would lead to diversion of Mhadei/Mandovi river system waters into the Malaprabha reservoir in Karnataka.  Stating that he might not hear the dispute, but would assign a coram for the same, the CJI listed the matter on February 13 for further hearing. However, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond pointed ou

By Sanjay Raman Sinha A recent verdict of a single bench of the Delhi High Court on a student’s right to continue study despite failing to pay dues has raised eyebrows. A Class X student studying in a private unaided school had failed to pay his school dues due to his father’s poor pecuniary condition. The student was to appear in CBSE board exam practicals, but the school took stringent action against non-payment of dues and struck his name off the rolls. In his plea, the student prayed for permission to appear in the practicals. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that not allowing a student to take examinations infringes on his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Taking note that the boy had approached it at the last hour for reprieve, the Court held that a student cannot be made to suffer and not be allowed to attend classes or be barred from taking examinations in the middle of an academic session for non-payment of fees. The Court directed the school to issue a Class

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence pronounced to a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by a trial court and observed that extra-judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence. In November 2015, an FIR had been lodged alleging that on the previous night informant’s brothers (the appellant/ applicant) and one other person had a quarrel, and thereafter, the appellant confessed before the informant that he had killed the other person by hitting him on his head with a metate (grinding stone).   The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to coma as a result of injuries sustained on the head. The doctor further opined that the injuries were ante- mortem and caused by blunt force impact.  On conclusion of investigation, police filed the chargesheet. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8, witnesses including the investigating officer and the

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on Indian Premier League founder Lalit Modi for making derogatory comments against Senior Advocate and former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing his mother Bina Modi in a property dispute case. The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, while refusing to pass a written order, orally directed Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Modi, to use his ‘good office’ and advise his client to take ‘remedial measures’.  The Apex Court observed that whenever two parties involved in a litigation took their fight to a public forum, it became detrimental to both the parties and led to retaliation in a similar manner.  Stating that both the parties in the case were mature enough to understand not to give in to such outbursts, the top court of the country directed Modi to remove the social media posts made by him against his family members and Rohatgi.  The Bench further observed that the legal battle between