NO NEED FOR CBI INQUIRY IN KANDHMAL : ORISSA

The Orissa Government today defended itself from ongoing attacks over the issue of Kandhmal violence. In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the state government said that there is no need for a CBI investigation into the Kandhmal violence as the government is keeping a close eye on the investigation done by state police.

In a 24 page affidavit filed in the apex court, the state government said that the communal clashes are a result of centuries old rivalry between Kandhas the Scheduled Tribes and Panas, the Scheduled Castes of the state. State government also said that they are giving financial assistance to the people whose houses have been damaged and the institutions like schools and hospitals. The government however said that they will not be paying any compensation to the churches as this is against the secular policy of the state government.

On the issue of rape of a nun, the state government said that they are monitoring the investigation on the top level. The government also informed the court that the nun is not cooperating the investigation. The government went on saying that they have already appointed a High Court judge to look into and give its findings on the killing of Swami Laxmananda and incidents of violence in the aftermath.

SC refers SIMI ban issue to larger bench

A matter related to ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) was today referred by the Supreme Court to a larger bench. The ban on SIMI was in August lifted by a special tribunal whose order was subsequently stayed by the apex court. The reference was made by a two-judge bench of Justices S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph in view of the fact that a larger bench of three judges of the apex court was already hearing the ban imposed on the SIMI by the Government in 2001.

The tribunal headed by Delhi High Court judge Justice Geeta Mittal on August 5 had lifted the ban on SIMI saying no new evidence was placed against the organisation to justify the ban. However, a day later, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan stayed the tribunal's order an dissued notice to SIMI while asking the Centre to place before it all documents pertaining to the justification of the ban. The apex court's stay was opposed by Dr Shahid Badr, who was the President of the outfit till September 27, 2001 when the Centre had come out with its first notification to declare it as an proscribed organisation.

The Centre had been extending the ban every two years since 2001 on the ground that SIMI was continuing with its anti-national activities and Badr had earlier challenged the original ban before the apex court. Justifying the ban, the Centre had told the Supreme Court that SIMI was involved in subversive and anti-national activities including the recent blasts in Ahmedabad. The Govt said the tribunal failed to appreciate the 'background note', 'cabinet note' and 'intelligence reports' before arriving at its decision to lift the ban on the organisation.

The argument was opposed by Badr's counsel Jaiswal whosaid the tribunal had gone into all these three aspects andwas of the view that the averments in them were not supportedby evidence and deposition of the government witnesses. She said the background note of the Centre's February 7, 2008 notification extending the ban on SIMI till 2010, whichwas placed before the Tribunal in sealed cover, spoke aboutnine cases involving its members who were already acquitted after facing trial in the courts. However, the apex court had observed "the backgroundnote can be a general statement while issuing the notification.

The background note is only a synopsis which could be substantiated in future. "The Centre had complained to the apex court that it had given details about SIMI's alleged involvement in the July 2006 Mumbai train serial blasts to justify the ban, but the same was ignored by the tribunal. According to the Centre, the tribunal set up under the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, in its 263-page orderhas not pressed anything on the merits of the case even whenthe government has provided Intelligence Bureau report spointing towards members of SIMI indulging in terrorist activities.

SC puts brakes on trial in Rizwanur Rehman case

The Supreme Court today said that the trial in the Rizwanur Rehman case would not commencetill the Calcutta High Court decides a petition filed by industrialist Ashok Todi challenging CBI's decision to chargesheet him in the case. However, the apex court remained silent on the issueof framing of charges in the case in which the investigating agency in its report alleged that Todis used pressure tactics to drive Rizwanur to commit suicide.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnanasked the High Court to dispose of the petition filed by Todi, Rizwanur's father-in-law, at the earliest. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Todi whose daughter Priyanka married Rizwanur, had sought a stay on the trial court from framing the charges in the case. He submitted that the registration of the FIR by the CBI was illegal as the High Court had only asked the agency toprobe the cause of death of Rizwanur, whose body was found near railway tracks. Todi, along with six others, was chargesheeted by the CBI on September 22 for alleged abetment of Rizwanur's suicide.

A Metropolitan Magistrate in Kolkata has asked theaccused to appear before it on October 27. Todi sought a stay on the proceedings in the trialcourt alleging that the CBI was only allowed to find out thenature of the death of Rizwanur but it filed a charghesheet. Besides Todi, the chargesheet named his brother Pradeep, brother in-law Anil Saraogi, IPS officer and former Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police Ajoy Kumar, former Assistant Commissioner of Police Sukanti Chakraborty,sub-inspector Krishnendu Das and Rizwanur's neighbour S M Moinuddin alias Pappu. The lawyer appearing for the victim's family opposed Todi's plea and even wanted the Bench to give a time-frame tothe High Court for disposing of the pending petition.

Godhra fire: SC refuses to stay publication of Nanavati report

The Supreme Court today refused to pass any order to stay the implementation of Nanavati Commission report on Godhra fire carnage and subsequentcommunal riots in 2002 in Gujarat. An NGO, Citizen for Justice and Peace, had filed apetition seeking to restrain Gujarat Government from circulating and publishing the report contending that the Commission was not authorised to give its report in parts. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, however, said that there was no bar on the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act to give a preliminary report.

The Court said it would consider the grievances of the petitioner only after getting the response from the State government. The petitioner had claimed that the publication of the report by the Commission headed by Justice Nanavati, a retired apex court judge, would provide a ground to the state government to take a liberal stand against the accused inthe post-Godhra riots of 2002 that claimed over 1,000 lives.

While seeking a stay on the circulation of the report, the NGO run by social activist Teesta Setalvad had referred toanother report on the incident prepared by a Committee headed by Justice U C Banerjee, a retired Supreme Court judge. The Justice Banerjee Committee set up by the Lalu Prasad-headed Railway Ministry had concluded that the burningof S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra was purely an accident. However, after the report was leaked the Gujarat High Court had stayed the Banerjee Committee report.

An appeal against the order has been pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that since the Banerjee Committee report has been stayed, the apex court should maintain parity and pass an order to restrain the circulationand printing of the Justice Nanavati Committee report also. The first part of the Nanavati Commission report which was placed before the Gujarat Assembly on September 25 said the fire in the Sabarmati Express coach in Godhra was a conspiracy and not an accident, contradicting the findings of the Justice Banerjee Committee report.

The 168-page report of the Commission said the burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, killing58 `kar sevaks' was a pre-planned conspiracy hatched at Aman Guest house in Godhra. "There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister or any of the ministers in his council or police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident,"the report said."On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved bythe evidence, the Commission comes to the conclusion thatburning of S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express in which'kar sevaks' coming from Ayodhya were killed was a pre-plannedact," the report said.

SC upholds right of minority institutions on appointments

Upholding the power of St Stephen's College to appoint its own principal, the Supreme Court today ruled that minority educational institutions have a constitutional right to appoint heads of their institutions and the Government cannot encroach upon their right. "It's a valuable right guaranteed under Article 30otherwise you are encroaching into it," a two judge bench ofJustices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal observed, while dismissing the Delhi University's appeal challenging the High Court's order granting absolute right to College to appointits principal.

The apex court upheld the ruling of the Delhi High Court that the right of minority educational institutions to appoint the head of institution cannot be taken away by any rule, regulation or any enactment made by state even if the institute is receiving 100 per cent aid.

The University had appealed against the high court order on the ground that Article 30 which granted minorities the right to establish and administer their own institutions was "not an absolute right." Senior counsel P P Rao tried hard to argue before the apex court that the university had the right to frame regulations for prescribing standards of education and uniformity in the standards "in national interest. "But the argument did not convince the apex court which observed "You show us one minority college not maintaining the standards. Otherwise we will be making minority institutionsonly a farce."

The apex court's ruling has its genesis in the controversy relating to the appointment of Fr Valson Thampu, as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) by the St Stephen's management. A single judge of the Delhi High Court had on March 12 on a petition filed by an aggrieved candidate aspiring to bethe principal, Sheetal P Singh, asked the college to adhere to the qualification prescribed by the UGC which was inconsonance with the impugned Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, the list of candidates for appointment of principal has to be approved by the university,thus vesting it with the final say in the appointment of the head of the institution.

On March 15, Thampu resigned, and the college issued afresh advertisement for the post of principal which according to the university was in violation of Clause 7 (2) of Ordinance XVII. According to the Delhi University the college prescribed a minimum age of 50-60 years qualification for the principal's post and failed to properly constitute the selection committee in violation of the regulations prescribed under theordinance. The university submitted that despite repeated reminders and notices, the college failed to comply with the regulations and in the meantime the latter filed a writ petition in theDelhi High Court challenging Clause 7(2)of the Ordinance XVII.

On August 21, the High Court quashed clause 7 (2)of the Delhi University's Ordinance XVIII which empowered itto appoint principals of all colleges under its jurisdiction.

SC refuses to stay expulsion of Amarinder Singh

The Supreme Court today refused to stay the expulsion of former Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh from the state assembly and the police investigations into the Amritsar land scam. The court, however, restrained the Election Commission from declaring his seat as vacant. The former chief minister was earlier expelled on September 3, from the House after a resolution was passed on the basis of the report of a special committee appointed by the Punjab assembly in the scam.

The apex court also stayed the direction of the special committee to the Director of Vigilance for submitting a report of the inquiry within two months to the panel. A three-judge bench of Justices B N Aggrawal, G S Singhvi and Aftab Alam said that the police shall proceed with the investigations in the case without being influenced by the observations and directions passed by the special committee,which had ordered an FIR into the case.

Counsel for Amarinder Singh pleaded that the police investigations and interrogations should be stayed as the Prakash Singh Badal Government was allegedly planning to arrest the former Chief Minister out of political vendetta. The apex court further transferred to itself the batch of writ petitions on the issue pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to itself and posted the matter for further hearing to December 2.

The bench granted four weeks to the parties to file their counter-affidavits and told them to file their rejoinders within two weeks. The Special committee in its report had held Amarinder Singh and two other Congress leaders Jagjit Singh Chaudhary and Jugal Kishore Sharma guilty in the land scam. The committee in its report had held Amrinder and two others guilty in the scam and had recommended registration of the FIR against them. It also allowed their custodial interrogation.

Singh was expelled for the remaining term of the 13th Assembly Sabha and the Election Commission was asked to declare his seat vacant for holding a by-poll to the Patiala constituency represented by the 66-year-old Congress leader. The alleged irregularities related to grant of certain exemptions, given by Capt Amrinder Singh as the Chief Minister, in connection with the development of 32.10 acres of land.

Chaudhary was a minister (local government) during the previous Congress regime headed by Singh. He was not the member of the House when a resolution was passed to expel Singh.

SC stays Allahabad HC order related to judge's appointment

The Supreme Court today stayed the proceedings in the Allahabad High Court related to a  petition challenging the appointment of Dr Satish Chandra as a judge of the High Court. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, in an interim order, stayed the direction of the High Court seeking the report of the collegium recommending the appointment of Chandra as the judge of the High Court. The Bench issued notices to the Centre and advocate Mahesh Chandra Gupta, who has challenged the appointment of Chandra as the judge contending that he lacks the essential qualification.

The apex court has also sought response from Chandra, who is now the sitting judge of the High Court. Allahabad High Court has challenged the order of its judicial side contending that its division bench has exceeded its jurisdiction. 

The High Court Bench comprising Justices Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath had directed the High Court (Administrative side) to place before it the report of committee which made a recommendation to the collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and its two senior most judge, to appoint Chandra as a judge of the Allahabad High Court. 

Senior advocate Harish Salve and Ashok K Srivastava, appearing for the High Court, submitted that when only the eligibility was challenged how could High Court seek the records of the collegium and sub-committee relating to the consultation process on appointment of a judge.  

Salve urged the Bench, also comprising Justices V S Sirpurkar and P Sathasivam, to hear the matter saying its a serious matter as the steps taken by the High Court amount to judicial review of the decision on appointment of judge. "How can the collegium report be sought. Then we are going into the merits (decision to appoint judge)," he said adding that the High Court can go into the issue of eligibility but not into the decision of the collegium which are confidential in nature. Chandra was appointed as the judge of the High Court on August 6.

Supreme Court stays trial in Sohrabuddin fake encounter case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the proceedings in a trial court over the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh in a fake encounter by the Gujarat police. A two judge bench headed by Justice Tarun Chaterjee ordered the stay after Amicus Curiae Gopal Subramanium argued that unless the court decides on the CBI investigation, the trial in the case should not go on.  The court has now fixed November 11th as next date of hearing and the trial court has been directed to keep the records in safe custody.

Subramanium pressed upon the court that the entire investigation done by Geeta Johri is a farce and the chargesheet in the trial shall not be able to stand scrutiny of law. According to the petitioner, the Gujarat police has not even made the Andhra Police officers witnesses who could pose as an important evidence in the case.

Subramanium also ridiculed the state police for  not even telling about the motive in the chargesheet. According to the chargesheet, the motive of the encounter was that the police officers wanted media publicity which led them to do such an encounter. 

Soharabuddin was killed by the Gujarat police in the fake encounter on November 26, 2006, and after couple of days his wife Kauser Bi was also eliminated. The apex court in May 2007 had refused to transfer the investigation of the case to the CBI.

Senior Gujarat police officers -- D G Vanzara (DIG), Raj Kumar Pandiyan (SP) and Dinesh M N (Rajasthan Cadre IPS officer) are among the main accused in the case.

SC refuses to stay ban on smoking

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the operation of the law prohibiting smoking at public places. The court has also transferred to it, all other cases relating to this issue pending in Delhi High Court and other High Courts. The court also issued notice to the central government on petitions foiled by ITC and Hotels Association of India challenging the validity of rules issued by the government.   

 

While arguing before a two judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal, lawyer for ITC, Hotel Association of India demanded that the 2008 rules providing for ban on smoking at public places be stayed. The petitioners wanted these rules not to come in force on October 2. As they provide power to inspectors from customs and excise department to fine and punish the manager of hotel or restaurant where the smoking takes place in contravention to the rules. 

The government in the case has contended before the Supreme Court that all the cases relating to this issue should be transferred to the Supreme Court. The court has, according to the government's request, decided to consider the matter before it.  

CJI defends judges appointment procedure

The Chief Justice of India Justice K G Balakrishnan has strongly defended the appointment procedure of Judges. A day after law minister severely criticized the appointment procedure of the judges by the collegiums, Justice Balakrishnan said that they are following the procedure set by Judgment of the apex court. 

The Chief Justice said that he will follow the procedure set by the Supreme Court judgment unless law is amended by the parliament. Justice Balakrishnan also went on saying that in the present system too, the chief minister can be consulted but this is subject to satisfaction of the chief justice of the particular high court. 

The Chief Justice however refrained from giving his personal views on the collegiums system in which judges are appointed after the recommendation from the High court and a final decision is taken by three senior most judges in the Supreme Court. Law Minister H R Bharadwaj has said on Wednesday that collegiums system of appointment of judges has failed completely.

No relief for Utsav Bhasin for now

The Delhi High Court today refused to give any interim protection to Utsav Bhasin, a Haryana industrialist's teenaged son, accused of killing one person with his BMW car in south Delhi.  Bhasin had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail in the case after the city police imposed additional charge against him under a harsher penal provision under IPC section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). 

Justice Veena Birbal, after hearing the contention of Bhasin and Delhi Police on the accused's bail plea, adjourned the matter for tomorrow. Justice Birbal, however, refused to grant any interim protection to Bhasin who is facing a threat of being re-arrested after the death of one of the accident victim. Bhasin was earlier denied anticipatory bail by the trial court on September 18.

Though he was granted bail by the police soon after the incident, he is facing re-arrest as the police invoked a harsher penal provision against him after an accident victim, Anuj Singh, succumbed to his injuries on September 12. Bhasin, 19, son of industrialist R K Bhasin from Bahadurgarh in Haryana, challenged the September 18 order passed by a trial court dismissing his bail petition. He said in his petition that he was falsely implicated by the police in this case as it was a case of accident that took place due to an error committed by drivers of either of the two vehicles involved in the incident.

Informing the court that he was ready to join the investigation, he said there is no evidence to establish that he had any motive to kill the victim Anuj Singh, who was travelling on a bike.  Following the victim's death, another penal provision of 304 A(causing death by rash and   negligent acts) of the IPC was invoked against the accused. Later, another stringent provision of section 304 was also invoked against Bhasin. 

The accused, who planned to fly to Singapore for joining a BBA course, was earlier granted bail by Lajpat Nagar police as he was booked under IPC section 304 A (causing death by rash negligent acts), a mild provision which attracts a maximum of two years' jail term. Bhasin was allegedly at the wheels when his BMW car hit two men on a motorcycle around 2.30 am on September 11 near Moolchand flyover in south Delhi.

SC hands over UP provident fund scam probe to CBI

The Supreme Court today handed over to CBI the investigation of the Uttar Pradesh provident fund scam in which the names of some judges from the higher judiciary, including one from the apex court, have cropped up. The apex court granted three months time to the investigating agency to place the status report relating to the probe in the case. However, a bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat said though three months time have been given, CBI shall not in any way be stopped from going ahead with filing of the final report earlier.

The bench said "the court before which the final report/chargesheet will be placed will deal according to the law". The apex Court said CBI shall nominate an investigating officer to be incharge of the probe who can take the assistance of the state government officials. The UP government will provide all manpower and infrastructure facilities to the CBI for carrying out effective investigation, it said. 

The court said all the documents relating to the case will be microfilmed and deposited before it, the copies of which will be handed over to the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government. The documents already collected by the UP police and the reports prepared by it will be handed over to the investigating officer, it said.

Decs clear for CBI inquiry in to Ghaziabad Court P F Scam

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will be hearing a petition asking for CBI inquiry into the Ghaziabad Court P F Scam. It has not become almost certain that the CBI inquiry would be ordered in the scam as the Uttar Pradesh government has already recommended for the CBI inquiry into the whole scam. The court during the last hearing had asked the state government if they were open to the idea of CBI probe in the case.

During the last hearing, the court also lashed out the state government for not bringing to the court's knowledge, the letters written by SSP, Ghaziabad to DGP of the state. The SSP had written to the DGP saying "it was impossible for the local police to investigate the matter freely". A bench headed by Justices Arijit Pasayat is hearing a petition filed by Nahar Singh Yadav asking for CBI inquiry into the whole scam.

The Chief Justice of India Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice B N Agrawal have already recused themselves from hearing the case. The petition alleged that 34 members of judiciary, including an apex court judge, seven Allahabad High Court judge, six retired High Court judge and 12 judges from subordinate judiciary in the state, were beneficiary of crores of rupees allegedly withdrawn from the provident fund account of third and fourth-grade employees in Ghaziabad region between 2001 and 2008.

Relief to condom manufacturers

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Madras High Court order which banned the use of explicit pictures on Condom wrappers or advertisements. A two judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan also issued notice to Centre, Tamilnadu Government on a petition filed by Hindustan Latex Ltd., which challenged the High Court order. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had directed the Advertising Standard Council of India to make sure that advertisements on the packets of condoms are not contrary to constitutional norms preserving India’s rich cultural heritage.

The High Court also directed the condom manufacturers to present their proposed design of condom packets to the Advertising standards council and only after the clearance from the council, they can go ahead with such design of condom packet. The petitioners alleged in their petition that the High Court gave undue regulatory powers to Advertising Standards Council which is merely a non profit company under The Companies Act.

The petitioner in the case, C. Ravikumar had filed a petition in the Madras High Court saying that during his visit to Thailand, he found that there was no explicit pictures on the condom packets there. The petitioner also accused manufactures of publicizing obscenity while advertising their products. He also said in his petition that he even gave a representation to Advertising Standards Council of India in this regard but nothing happened in that regard.

SC notice on R K Anand's plea

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Registrar General of Delhi High court on a petition filed by Senior Advocates R K Anand and I U Khan. Both the lawyers were banned by Delhi High Court from practicing for a period of four months. 

A two judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal while admitting the appeal, issued notice to examine the issue whether a court can debar an advocate from practice which comes under the exclusive domain of Bar Council of India. Both the advocates were found guilty of contempt who were trying to manipulate Sunil Kulkarni, an eye witness  in BMW hit and run case in which Sanjeev Nanda was the prime accused.

While arguing for R K Anand, Senior Advocate R K Dhavan contended before the apex court that they have not been given proper opportunity to fight their case. He also said that the Delhi High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and the two advocates have suffered ignominy in the eyes of public. 

“This is an inherent case of excessive jurisdiction”, said R K Dhavan before the two judge bench. Dhavan tried to put through the case by raising technical questions of law as the apex court was not inclined to stay the order of the High Court. “The Delhi High Court has been very lenient on you”, said Justice B N Agrawal while hearing the case.

Dhavan went on saying that three important issues are involved in the whole case. First, Delhi High Court has stepped out of its jurisdiction while deciding the issue. Secondly, there has been a lack of due process of law in the whole case and lastly, there is serious question of admissibility of the evidence in this case. Petitioners argued that the correctness of  evidence in this case, the video chips on which the sting was recorded, has to be established by the forensic experts.

The petitioners also contended before the court that unlike other cases, no monetary transaction has taken place in this case and the two advocates have been punished without giving them a proper opportunity of being heard. The apex court has now fixed October 14^th as the next date of hearing.

 

NHRC approves of Chhatishgarh rational for backing Salva Judum

The National Human Rights Commission has approved the Chattisgarh government's policy of arming the activists of Salva Judam to tackle Naxal movement in the state. The Commission in its report submitted in the apex court in a sealed cover expressed concern over some some stray cases of criminal activities and violence by the Salva Judam activists against the dalits in the stated. The Commission also suggested some remedial measures to the court so that the arms provided to the Salva Judam are not misused.

A three judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan has now asked the petitioners, Central and State government to respond to the NHRC report. The petition filed in the Supreme Court had opposed the Salva Judam movement saying that in the garb of this movement, the activists are committing atrocities on dalits in the state. The court has fixed October 23rd as the date till the responses have to be filed and the matter shall be taken up for hearing in December.

The apex court earlier on Aril 15 had asked the NHRC to probe whether allegations that Salva Judam activists, backed by Chhatishgarh government for curbing Maoists spread in the state, have been indulging in rape and killings of aboriginals there. The court had asked the NHRC to have the allegations probed and submit its findings to the court within two months.

 

The apex court's order came during the hearing of a petition by academicians Ramachandra Guha and Nandni Sunder who had alleged that in the name of fighting Maoists, the state government was arming Salva Judam activists and encouraging them to kill innocent tribal and villagers. The contents of the right panel's report, submitted to the apex court Friday, could be discerned as the bench cited the main findings of the NHRC in its observation during the hearing of the matter.

 

Quoting parts of the report, the bench said there are areas in the state, where the police does not have easy access and the Maoists have set up the parallel government. Accordingly, it was inevitable for the police to rope in Salva Judam activists' help in gaining access to the far-flung and remote areas of the state, where the Maoists have supplanted the state administration. The reprt elsewhere said that the police generally refuse to lodge criminal cases against the Salva Judam activists on the allegations of rape and violence by them against the poor and dalits.

  

DU VC asked to examine offending references against Hanuman in course material

The prestigious Delhi University Friday came under the Supreme Court's scanner for having sacrilegious references to Hindu god Hanuman and goddess Sita in its course material for graduation degree in History. Acting on a joint plea by some educationists, pointing out the inclusion of the offending references against the key characters of the Hindu epic Ramayana, a bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan asked the University's vice chancellor to examine the desirability of having the sacrilegious materials in the course.

 

The bench, which also included Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.M. Panchal asked Vice Chancellor Deepak Pental to have the desirability of having the offending references examined by an expert committee after hearing the objections of the petitioners. The bench issued the direction on a joint plea by a group of 8 eminent persons, including educationists, former diplomats, teachers, and journalists besides the political and socio-religious leaders.

 

Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani apprised the court about the inclusion of sacrilegious material for graduation degree course in History. Krishnamani said the University teaches its second year History (Hons) students that "Lord hanuman was a henchman of Lord Rama" and "the little monkey was a womaniser". Krishnamani said that the compulsory course material describes even Sita as "unfaithful to Rama" and as having been "seduced by Ravana and Laxman".

 

The sacrilegious references to the Hindu gods and goddesses were made in a chapter of the book "Many Ramayanas: the diversity of narrative tradition in South Asia" edited by Paula Richman. The offensive chapter titled "Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation" written by an author A.K. Ramanujan, said Krishnamani adding that the offending course material is being thrust upon the history students since 2005.

 

SC notice of Indian Airlines on grounding air-hostesses

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Indian Airlines on a petition filed by the five air-hostesses challenging the policy of the airline to ground them on account of overweight. A two judge bench headed by Justice Tarun Chatterjee issued notice when the counsel for petitioner Arvind Shama requested the court to look into the matter. The air-hostesses have accused Indian Airlines of terminating their services by taking the ground of weight.  

The court however assured that their interests shall be taken care of. “If we find merit in your appeal we will restore your services”, said Justice Tarun Chatterjee after hearing the arguments of the advocate. The Additional Solicitor General, Gopal Subramanium, who was appearing for the Airline also assured the court that the services of the airhostesses shall not be terminated illegally.

Sharma also contended before the court that the Delhi High Court had dismissed their appeal without going in to the core issue. The airhostesses also opposed the  circular through which the airline the relaxed terms with permissible overweight limit upto  three kg over and above the upper limit as laid down for the cabin crew. The court has asked Indian Airlines to file their responses within four weeks and matter will be now taken up in November.

Because Utsav is not Salman Khan

On the one hand there is Utsav Bhasin, a 20 year old boy who has been booked under section 304 (II) of Indian Penal Code for allegedly moving down a person by his BMW  the death of Anuj with his BMW car on September 11. 

If convicted in this section, Utsav can get upto ten years of jail term. When the relatives of Anuj, who lost his life in the accident moved to Delhi High Court for cancellation of bail granted to Utsav, Delhi police informed the court that the FIR has been amended and Utsav can be arrested any time soon.

On the other hand, there is Salman Khan. Salman also accused of the same offence, but not in the same section. Salman Khan is facing trial in a case of hit and run where he ran over his land cruiser over the people who were sleeping on the pavement of American Express bakery in Mumbai. 

Salman after the accident fled away from the scene and later, on the advice of the lawyers, surrendered before the court. One person died in the accident. But Salman was lucky enough as he was booked under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Our Constitution says law is equal for all but it doesn't look so in these two cases. Both Utsav and Salman fled away from the scene. Salman's bodyguard Ravindra Patil even warned Salman who was driving too fast still he was accused of rash and negligent act. In case of Utsav Bhasin, he too fled away from the accident but was accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

Its not that Bombay Police didn't want to charge Salman of culpable homicide. The state government had moved to Bombay High Court and even Supreme Court in this case. But the apex court in this case said that they don't want to interfere with the trial going on in the magistrate's court. The Court however gave a liberty to the trial court to invoke section 304 (II) if it comes during the trial that Salman infact knew that there may be an accident and people may be killed.

Salman is out on bail since then, its been five years and the trial court is yet to find out if Salman can be prosecuted under Section 304(II) and the life for the actor goes on as usual. But Utsav Bhasin is looking for anticipatory bail because he is not Salman Khan.

SC upholds ban on Deendar Anjum

The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition filed by a Muslim outfit Deendaar Anjum which challenged the order of Tribunal under Unlawful activities prevention act banning them for the fourth time. A two judge bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat while dismissing the petition said that the real activities of the outfit are different. 

The outfit was banned on 28^th August 2008 by the Delhi High Court judge Justice Mukul Mudgal who was heading the tribunal under the act. While upholding the ban on the outfit, Justice Mudgal had observed that there is sufficient cause for declaring Deendar Anjum an unlawful organization.

Quota seats to go to general category if fall vacant : SC

The Supreme Court on Monday, made it clear that vacant seats after providing the 27 percent OBC quota in higher educational institutions like IITs and IIMs shall go to general category candidates. A five judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan made it clear that there is no confusion in its judgment dated 10th of April this year. An application was moved in the apex court asking for clarification on two issues so as to how to fill the seats which are left vacant after providing the OBC reservation and what should be the cut off mark for reserved category candidates.

The petitioner, while quoting various newspaper reports, informed the court that a large number of seats are vacant in the institutions and these seats have not been filled by the general category candidates as desired by the Supreme Court judgment. When asked about this, Solicitor General Goolam E Vahanvati sought time from the court saying he will have to investigate if such seats have remained vacant in reality. The Court has now given two weeks time to Solicitor General while posting the matter on 29th September.

On the issue of cut off marks, the court made it clear that a reserved category candidate cannot get a grace of more than ten marks below the general category candidate while getting the admission on reserved category seat.

SC stays CBI inquiry into U P constable recruitment scam

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court order for CBI inquiry into Constable recruitment scam in Uttar Pradesh. The Central Government had moved to the apex court saying that without even looking into the issue if the state police is not investigating the matter properly, the High Court could not have passed such an order. The Supreme Court has now issued a notice to the U P Government to clear its stand on Central Government’s petition. The state government had earlier recommended for the CBI inquiry into the whole matter whereas the Central Government had refused the same.

The Allahabad High Court had directed the CBI to probe the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of nearly 23,000 police constables during the regime of former chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav. Under the scanner were several top police officers who, it is learnt, were a part of the recruitment process. A Division Bench, comprising Justice Anjani Kumar and Justice Vijay Kumar Verma, had directed the CBI and the Union government to investigate the matter as requested by the state government on February 4, 2008.

The HC order came after a petition filed by one Amit Kumar Shukla and three others, who were among the candidates for the exam held in 2005. The petitioners had challenged an order dated April 21, 2008, whereby the Centre had turned down a request made by the UP government for a CBI inquiry into the alleged scam. The High Court had observed that the CBI's refusal to probe the matter could not be sustained by law since recent findings have indicated that the entire recruitment process was faulty.

When the central government’s counsel questioned the authority of the petitioners to demand a CBI inquiry, the court observed: “The petitioners are unsuccessful candidates and there are complaints of malpractices adopted in the impugned selection... hence the locus standi of the petitioners could not be questioned."

A high-level committee under the state chief secretary had recommended a CBI inquiry into the matter. The anti-corruption agency of the state had also submitted a report on April 16, 2006 to the state government, revealing glaring facts. It indicated that the requisite documents presented by applicants had also been forged.

The agency had also initiated the process to prosecute nearly 30 police officers involved in the scam under the Prevention of corruption act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the officers tendered a formal apology to Chief Minister Mayawati. While she accepted their apology and called off the proceedings against them -- in May 2007 -- she had sacked the 23,000 constables selected through the process.

No relief for R K Anand and I U Khan for now

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay for the time being, the order of the Delhi High Court banning the two senior advocates R K Anand and I U Khan from practice for four months. A two judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal however asked the Delhi High Court to place before it, the material on the basis of which the ban was imposed. 

Appearing for R K Anand, former Judge of Delhi High Court, R S Sodhi contended that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to ban the two lawyers from practice as this comes under the exclusive domain of Bar Council of India. This argument did not move the bench which said “we want to see the record. We don’t believe in the same order.  We must apply our minds before deciding the case”.

While appearing for I U Khan, senior advocate P P Rao objected to the Delhi High Court’s recommendation to strip off the two lawyers of their designation of Senior Advocate. On this the Justice Agrawal said “there is no problem in part II of the High Court order. There is no question of argument on this. The High Court was competent to pass that order. So long the full court doesn’t decide on the Judicial side, the High Court could have passed the order”. The court has not posted the matter for further hearing on 22nd of September. 

The Delhi High Court on August 20th found both the advocates guilty of contempt of court as their acts amounted to obstuction of administration of justice. A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Manmohan Sarin and Justice Madan B Lokur had not only debarred these advocates from practicing but also imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 each for their irresponsible behaviour. The bench had also recommended to the Delhi High Court that both the advocates should be stripped off  their designation of Senior Advocates.

Anand, the defence counsel and Khan, the prosecutor, were shown as colluding with the witness in a sting operation last year. The court on May 31 last year had taken suo motu cognisance of the sting operation showing Anand, in collusion with Khan, allegedly offering money to Kulkarni to depose in favour of Sanjeev Nanda, the prime accused in the hit-and-run case.

Govt. to decide on how to send Manjhi back home?

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central Government to dispose off within four weeks, an application filed by Japanese infant Baby Manjhi’s grandmother asking for travel documents to take the baby to Japan. 

The Solicitor General Goolam E Vahanvati appearing for the Centre, informed a two judge bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat that the government will finally decide if they have to issue the passport or the travel documents to Baby Manjhi to go home. The Solicitor also requested the petitioner, the grandmother of the Baby, to move a fresh application in this regard.  The Solicitor also made it clear to the government has “in principle” decided not to object to Manjhi’s father’s demand to take her to Japan

The court has also asked Satya, an NGO which is asking for the custody of Baby Manjhi, to approach the National Commission for protection of child rights if they have any grievance in the matter. The NGO had objected to the custody of Baby Manji being handed over to the grandmother by the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General on the other hand, had slammed the NGO for moving to the apex court saying they had no locus to intervene in the matter. While appearing for the NGO Satya, advocate Abhinav Sharma contended that Indian laws do not adoption of a girl child by a single father.

The court had earlier directed that the custody of the infant will remain with the grandmother till the matter is finally decided by the court. The grandmother of infant Manji had approached the Supreme Court, seeking that the child should not be separated from her and the father. She also sought requisition of relevant travel documents for the child, so that she could be deported safely to Japan.

The grandmother was forced to move the apex court, after she learnt that the custody of the child could not be given to the father as Indian laws do not permit a single father to adopt a girl child. Manji was born on the 25th of July after her biological parents Ikufumi Yamada and Yuki Yamada entered into a contract with a woman in Gujarat to become their child's surrogate mother. The problem started when a month before Manji was born, her biological mother divorced her husband and disowned the child.

SC to hear R K Anand's petition against Delhi High Court ban

The Supreme Court is likely to hear the petitions filed by R K Anand and I U Khan against the Delhi High Court's order banning them for practicing for four months. A two judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal would be hearing as petitions of both the advocates are listed on Monday.

R K Anand in his 900 page petition has questioned the Delhi High Court's authority to ban them practice as banning of the advocates from practice comes under the exclusive domain of the Bar Council of India. Anand has also questioned the Delhi High Court's order on account or biasness.

The Delhi High Court on August 20th found both the advocates guilty of contempt of court as their acts amounted to obstuction of administration of justice. A division bench of Delhi High Court comprising Manmohan Sarin and Madan B Lokur had not only debarred these advocates from practicing but also imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 each for their irresponsible behaviour. The bench had also recommended to the Delhi High Court that both the advocates should be stripped of their designation of Senior Advocates.

Anand, the defence counsel and Khan, the prosecutor, were shown as colluding with the witness in a sting operation last year. The court on May 31 last year had taken suo motu cognisance of the sting operation showing Anand, in collusion with Khan, allegedly offering money to Kulkarni to depose in favour of Sanjeev Nanda, the prime accused in the hit-and-run case.

Decks cleared for Japanes Baby Manjhi to go home in Japan

The Grandmother of Baby Manjhi can now breath easy. The Central Government had decided not to object to her father's demand to take her to Japan. The case is likely to come up for hearing today in the Supreme Court. Justice Arijit Pasayat on the last hearing had asked the centre to explain if there are any laws to govern surrogacy in India.

According to sources the Solicitor General of India Goolam Vahanvati would be informing the court that the government has no problem if the father of child takes her to Japan. One NGO Satya, on the other hand had asked for the custody of Baby Manjhi. The government would also question the locus of the NGO in the whole case.

The court had earlier directed that the custody of the infant will remain with the grand mother till the matter is finally decided by the court. The grandmother of infant Manji had approached the Supreme Court, seeking that the child should not be separated from her and the father. She also sought requisition of relevant travel documents for the child, so that she could be deported safely to Japan.

The grandmother was forced to move the apex court, after she learnt that the custody of the child could not be given to the father as Indian laws do not permit a single father to adopt a girl child. Manji was born on the 25th of July after her biological parents Ikufumi Yamada and Yuki Yamada entered into a contract with a woman in Gujarat to become their child's surrogate mother. The problem started when a month before Manji was born, her biological mother divorced her husband and disowned the child.

Ansal Brothers surrender in Court

Real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal on Thursday surrendered before a Delhi court in compliance with the Supreme Court order cancelling their bail in the case of Uphaar fire tragedy which claimed 59 lives.

Ansal brothers surrendered before Additional Sessions Judge I K Kochhar at the Patiala House district courts.

Two managers of the Uphaar theatre, Ajit Chowdhary and Nirmal Chopra, also surrendered before the court.

On Wednesday all the four were directed by the apex Court to surrender before the trial court by 4 pm on Thursday.

An apex court bench comprising Justices BN Agrawal and GS Singhvi had ordered their arrest after cancelling their bail. 

The apex Court while cancelling the bail of the convicts had taken a strong exception to the alleged tampering with the judicial records of the case by the accused persons.

The bail of the convicts were cancelled on a petition filed by Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) challenging the order of the Delhi High Court.

The trial court on November, 20, 2007 had convicted the Ansal brothers along with three others under Section 304-A IPC (causing death due to rash and negligent act) and had sentenced them to two years imprisonment.

Seven others including Ajit Chowdhary and Nirmal Chopra, managers of the theatre whose bail was also cancelled yesterday, were convicted under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Others convicted under section 304 IPC were – Radha Krishan Sharma, Manmohan Unniyal (cinema's gatekeeper), Brij Mohan Satija, A K Gera and Bir Singh (all DVB officials).

The other three convicts - SS Sharma and ND Tiwari of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and HS Panwar of Delhi Fire Service - were also granted two years term as the offences were similar to that of the Ansal brothers.

Fiftynine cinegoers were killed in the blaze in the theatre on June 13, 1997 during the screening of Hindi blockbuster 'Border'.

The High Court had granted bail to the Ansal brothers and two other accused on January 4. 

Sanjeev Nanda gets five years jail term in BMW case

Sanjeev Nanda, grandson of former Naval Chief S M Nanda, was on Friday sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment by a Delhi court for mowing down six persons, including three policemen, with his BMW car in 1999.

"Sanjeev Nanda, I award you five years jail term and the time earlier spent by you inside the jail would be deducted," said Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar, who had earlier convicted him under a stringent penal provision which carries a maximum punishment of 10 years' imprisonment.

The court, however, did not impose any fine on him. It sentenced co-convict and businessman Rajeev Gupta to one year rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence.

His two employees - Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh - were however awarded six months' jail terms each for washing off blood stains and pieces of victims' flesh from the offending vehicle after the incident.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Gupta and Rs 100 each on his two employees, who were held guilty under Section 201 (destruction of evidence) of the IPC.

The court had on September two convicted Nanda under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC prescribing a jail term of up to 10 years or fine or both as punishment.

Nanda had crushed six persons to death while driving the BMW car in an inebriated condition in the wee hours of January 10, 1999 at Lodhi Colony in south Delhi. 

Nanda, 30, looked emotionally drained when brought to the court by the Delhi Police constables around 2.55 pm. He raised his hand after the judge called his name before pronouncing the sentence.

No yatra by Praveen Togadia would be allowed in Kandhmal : Orissa to SC

New Delhi, September 4, The Orissa government has informed the apex court on Thursday that no yatra would be allowed to be carried on in the state. The State Government's response came after the apex court asked the state government to put on affidavit whether any permission has been granted to VHP leader Praveed Togadia for his yatra carrying the ashes of Swami Laxmananda Saraswati. After the assurance the court directed the state government to see that no untoward incidents takes place in riot hit district.

When the matter came for hearing before a three judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Central Government's counsel, Gopal Subramanium informed the court that the Home Minister, Shivraj Patil has visited the violence hit places in the state and the situation in the state is tense. The ASG however maintained at the same time that the differences between the CRPF and the state have been resolved and the centre is satisfied with the arrangements made in the relief camps. The central government also assured the court that they are ready to provide any assistance if needed by the state. The Centre however was sceptical about the proposed yatra by VHP leader Praveen Togadia."The state government should not permit any inflammatory speeches to be made and it should also be kept in mind that any yatra will have serious consequeces", said Gopal Subramanium appearing for the centre.

After the centre concluded, the petitioner archbishop of Cuttack Raphael Cheenath represented by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves contended that the VHP and RSS men are going in the camps and there is no safety in these refugee camps.According to Gonsalves, when the home minister Shivraj Patil was visiting violence hit areas, 80 more houses were burnt down Gonsalves also referred to newspaper reports that situation in the area is tense. The Orissa government on the other hand maintained that they will utilise the the paramilitary forces to prevent any yatra from taking place. Representing the state government, senior advocate K K Venugopal assured the court that the state government will do its best to maintain law and order in the state. Venugopal however demanded that they should be provided with four more companies of paramilitary forces to control the situation. The court directed the centre to provide the same.

Archbishop Raphael Cheenath of Cuttack had filed the petition in the Supreme Court demanding a CBI inquiry into Kandhmal violence after which the court asked the state government if they have taken any steps to control the situation in violence hit district. The court also wanted to know if the state government has granted any permission to VHP leader Praveed Togadia for his yatra carrying the ashes of Swami Laxmananda Saraswati.

SC asks for status report on Kandhmal violence

The Supreme Court today directed the Orissa government to place its report relating to steps taken to protect lives of people belonging to the Christian community in riot-hit Kandhamal district. A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan posted the matter for further hearing at 2 pm on Thursday. 

The court also wanted to know if the state government has granted any permission to VHP leader Praveed Togadia for his yatra carrying the ashes of Swami Laxmananda Saraswati. The petitioner in the case, archbishop of Cuttack Raphael Cheenath also demanded that the proposed yatra of Praveen Togadia be stopped as it is likely to cause further trouble in the area which is already witnessing a tense situation. 

Cheenath who filed the petition in the apex court on Tuesday had alleged that the state government is not doing anything to prevent the houses of Christian community from being torched. The Central Government's counsel, Gopal Subramanium informed the court that the central government is keeping a close eye on the happenings in Kandhmal and Home Minister has also visited Orissa to assess the situation. 

The state government on  the other hand refuted all the allegations in the petition saying the government is trying its best to control the situation.

SC notice to Gujarat on "fake encounters"

The Supreme Court has issued notice to Gujarat government on a petition filed by noted poet Javed Akhtar asking for an independent inquiry by special investigation team (SIT) into all the encounters during the tenure of former DGP of Gujarat D G Vanjara. A two judge bench headed by Justice Tarun Chaterjee gave three weeks time to the state government to file its status report.

When the hearing started before the Supreme Court, Arguing for Akhtar, lawyer Prashant Bhushan pressed for issuing notice to Gujarat government as the petition filed by Akhtar was pending in the court for more than a year. Opposing the arguments, Gujarat's lawyer Hemantika Wahi informed the court that the matter relating to alleged fake encounter of Sameer Khan is already pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gujarat and a petition has also been filed in Gujarat High Court. Wahi tried to pursue the court that as the matter pending in Gujarat's courts, the petitioner should be asked to go to the High Court. 

The petitioners however contended before the court that the state government should file its reply. "Let the state government file its reply on what is the status of the case in High Court and lower court" said lawyer Prashant Bhushan arguing for the petitioner. The court was quick to ask the state government counsel what is the status of investigation in this cases. "Have you filed any charge sheet yet?" asked Justice Tarun Chaterjee hearing the petition.

The petitioners referred to the encounters of Sameer Khan and Ishrat Jahan as fake while demanding the inquiry into all the encounters between 2002 to 2007 when D G Vanjara was the DGP of the state. 

Orissa violence : SC to look into demand for CBI probe

The Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday, a petition filed by Archbishop Raphael Cheenath of Cuttack demanding a CBI inquiry into Kandhmal violence. When senior advocate Colin Gonzalves mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner to move to the Orissa High Court. The petitioner however contended before the court that it is not possible as he feels there is a treat to his life there.

The Additional solicitor General of India Gopal Subramanium intervened in the matter saying that the matter should be heard on Wednesday. He also assured the court that he will speak to the home secretary and appraise the court about the situation in Kandhmal. After hearing the arguments from both the sides, the Chief Justice listed the matter for hearing on Wednesday.

According to the petition, the situation in Kandhmal is tense and paramilitary forces should immediately be sent to the affected areas where more than 4000 villages have been burnt. The petition alleges that Orissa government has failed to maintain law and order situation in Kandhmal. The petition also accused the state government of turning a blind eye to human rights violation in the state after the brutal killing of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati. According to the petition, although, Union Government has sent RAF and CRPF, the state government is not taking the forces to the affected areas.

The petition which would be taken up for hearing on Wednesday, demands that adequate police force should be deployed in places where violence is taking place. The petition also demanded that CBI inquiry should be initiated to probe into the violence. NHRC should also be directed to see which are the political organisations and who are the persons spearheading the violent activities.

The petitioner also demanded that a compensation of Rupees four lakhs should be paid to those whose houses have been fully destroyed and a compensation of Rupees two lakhs should be paid to those whose houses have been destroyed partially.