SC NOTICE TO ANSALS IN UPHAAR CASE

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued warrants for arrests of real estate tycoons Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal on a plea for cancellation of their bail, which was granted after their conviction in the June 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy in New Delhi.

A bench of Justice BN Agrawal and Justice GS Singhvi issued bailable arrest warrants against the Ansal brothers and two others on a plea that out on bail after their conviction, they were manipulating the judicial system and causing the Delhi High Court to delay the disposal of their appeal against their conviction.

The tragedy claimed 59 lives, while over 100 people were injured during the maiden show of the Hindi film "Border" on June 13, 1997 in the Uphaar theatre in south Delhi.

Terming the tragedy as "not an ordinary case", the bench also issued notices to them seeking their response as to why their bail should not be cancelled.

The bench asked petitioner Neelam Krishnamurthy, the president of the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, to submit to it the certified copies of various orders of the high court related to the proceedings on the Ansal brothers' appeal.

The bench also sought from Krishnamurthy the certified copies of the high court business schedules for the dates the Ansal brothers' appeal had been slated for hearing.

The bench summoned the high court records to ascertain whether the high court has been giving "due priority" to dispose of the appeal by Ansal brothers.

The bench sought the high court records after the petitioner's counsel KTS Tulsi submitted that despite its initial order to dispose of the Ansal brothers' appeal within six months, the high court has not been able to do so.

Tulsi said the high court was hearing the matter for more than six months and held over 20 hearings but none of them lasted beyond 20 minutes as the Ansal brothers' counsel sought adjournment on one pretext or another.

At this the apex court bench observed: "This case has taken 10 years in trial court. It cannot be treated as an ordinary case. This was a clear case of criminal negligence. Priority ought to have been given to its hearing so that people can have confidence in judiciary."

On Tulsi's submission that the Ansal brothers were taking repeated adjournments, the bench said, "The system should not be allowed to suffer and nobody should be allowed to manipulate it."

"The petitioner has to produce the certified copy of the high court orders (to enable this court) to ascertain as to in what manner the case is proceeding."

On Tulsi's submission that he might face difficulty in producing the certified copies of the high court's orders, the bench directed the high court registrar to give him the requisite copies of the orders.

Earlier, Tulsi submitted that as per the evidence adduced in the high court, a clear case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or unintentional killing had been made out against the Ansals.

Yet the trial court convicted them on charges of committing criminal negligence, which entails a maximum of two years' jail, while the charges of unintentional killing entails imprisonment of up to 10 years.

JAPANESE BABY CASE : GRANDMOTHER MOVES SC

The Grandmother of Japanese infant has 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.

The lady was forced to move to the apex court after she learnt that the custody of the child could not the given to the father as Indian laws do not permit a single father to adopt a girl child.

Manjhi was born on July 25^th after their biological parents, Ikufumi Yamada and Yuki Yamada, entered into a contract with a women in Gujarat to give birth to their child as the biological mother could not conceive. The problem started when a month before Manjhi was born, Yuki divorced her husband, Dr Ikufumi Yamada, and disowned the child.

RIGHT TO FIR

The Supreme court today directed that police officers failing to register FIRs shall be personally liable for contempt and disciplinary action would be taken against them.

A two judge bench headed by Justice B N Agrawal today issued interim directions in this regard when all the states except two failed to respond to Supreme Court’s notice.

The apex court had on July 14^th had asked all the states to give their views if the police officers can be made personally liable if the either fail to register FIR against the accused or after registering the FIR they fail to take any action.

The court was perturbed as none of the states except U P and Arunachal Pradesh has filed their responses in the matter. The court has not directed chief secretaries of all the states and union territories to see that the police officers in every police station shall registers FIRs and if they fail to do so the concerned authority shall take immediate action against the police officer.

HOW TO IMPEACH MUSHARRAF

As the move to impeach President Parvez Musharraf intensifies, we will tell you what is the procedure for impeaching the president in Pakistan

Article 47 of the Pakistan's constitution provides the power to impeach President on the ground of physical or mental incapacity, on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct

The impeachment proposers must have at least 50% majority in the National Assembly that is 171 of the total 442 members have to propose the impeachment .

Having got the majority, The Speaker shall then transmit a notice to the President within three days.

And the speaker shall then summon the two Houses to meet in a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after the receipt of the notice by him.

The joint sitting may investigate the ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded. The President shall have the right to appear and be represented during the investigation before the joint sitting.

And if after consideration of the result of the investigation a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership that is 295 of total 442 members of parliament, declaring that the President is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the Constitution or of gross misconduct, the President shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution

SC JUDGE RECUSES HIMSELF FROM HEARING

Supreme Court Judge Justice B N Aggrawal, who was hearing the petition related to the Ghaziabad provident fund scam has recused himself from hearing the case. Aggrawal has said he was hurt by the contemptuous behaviour of the lawyers arguing the case.

The Supreme Court Judge was offended when Former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan insisted that the directions given by the apex court were in a way protecting corrupt Judicial Officers. Agrawal was also furious when another lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, dared the bench to initiate contempt proceedings against them.

The high profile Ghaziabad treasury scam case involves atleast 36 retired and sitting judges who allegedly benefited financially from the multi-crore Ghaziabad provident fund scam. The case involves an apex court judge, seven Allahabad High Court judges, six retired High Court judges and 12 judges from subordinate judiciary in Uttar Pradesh . The case was being heard by a three-judge bench headed by B N Aggarwal

BAN ON SIMI TO CONTINUE : SC

The SC today stayed the judgment of the tribunal which lifted the ban on SIMI. The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by chief justice KG Balakrishnan. The court after hearing the brief argument from the government side stayed the tribunal’s order and issued notice to SIMI. This effectively means the ban on SIMI will continues.

During the brief argument additional solicitor general Gopal Subreminam tried hard to convenience the court that there is enough evidence against SIMI. While slamming the tribunal judge Subreminam went on to say that the judge has failed l to give any findings while lifting the ban on SIMI. Subreminam also stated that 77 witnesses, top officers and IGs of every state has been examined by the tribunal and still the tribunal said it will not go into the evidence of the case and lifted the ban.

SC go ahead for reservation to Muslims in AP

The Supreme Court has given a go ahead to Andhra Pradesh government on four per cent Muslim reservation for admissions to colleges. But the court said admission to professional courses under this category shall be subject to the Andhra Pradesh's high court's order.

Last year, the Andhra Pradesh government had announced 4 percent reservation in professional institutes to the 15 backward groups of Muslims in the state.

The state government had moved the petition as the process of counseling for admissions into the engineering and medical colleges has already begun.