New Delhi [India], October 8 (ANI): A Bihar-based lawyer approached the Supreme Court raising grievances related to the low case disposal rate of the Patna High Court and urged the top court to issue directions to appoint 5 ad hoc judges dedicated exclusively for deciding the pending bail applications.

Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], September 28 (ANI): The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved the order on the bail plea of former Maharashtra minister Anil Deshmukh in a money laundering case.

  New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Bombay High Court to hear and decide expeditiously the bail plea of Maharashtra’s former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli expressed displeasure that... The post appeared first on .

New Delhi Apr 26 PTI Depriving farmers of their livelihood and property without the authority of law would be a violation of the Constitution the Supreme Court said on TuesdayA bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said there is no justification for not paying compensation to farmers for widening of roadsConstruction or widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation the action of the respondents would be arbitrary unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 300A of the Constitution the bench saidThe top courts judgment came on a plea filed by eight farmers against a Kerala High Court judgment that dismissed their appealsThe appellants are the owners of the land in dispute measuring 17078 hectaresAccording to the appellants the panchayat had requested them to let their land be utilised for the construction or widening of the Sulthan Batheri Bypass road and they were assured that they would be given adequate compensation for the landHowever no compensation was paid when the road was constructed they saidThe appellants made various representations since the construction was going on and even after it was completed but when no heed was paid to their request they approached the high courtThe apex court said the appellants are farmers and the land utilised in this case was agricultural landIt was part of their livelihood Depriving them of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of law would be violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution it saidThe top court said Article 300A though not a fundamental right has the status of being a constitutional or a statutory rightIt provides that no citizen would be deprived of his property save without authority of law Depriving somebody of his property where it is land can be made by a number of modes for example by acquisition surrender or by transfer and other facets alsoIn the present case it being utilised for the road to be owned by the panchayat or municipality it could either have been voluntarily surrendered transferred by way of title deeds or by way of acquisition as may be provided under the statute the bench saidThe apex court said to say that there was a substantial delay on the part of the appellants in agitating for their rights would not be correctIt said the sole question for consideration would be as to whether the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land to the panchayat free of cost without raising any claim for compensationThe panchayat as also the Public Works Department have failed to produce a single piece of document or evidence in any other form in support of their defence that the appellants have surrendered their land voluntarilyThe consistent stand of the appellants on the other hand has been that they have not given their land to the panchayat voluntarily and that they were assured that they would be suitably compensated the bench saidThe top court said Article 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of lawIn the present case we do not find under which authority of law the land of the appellants was taken and they were deprived of the sameIf the panchayat and the PWD failed to produce any evidence that appellants have surrendered their land voluntarily depriving the appellants of the property would be in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution the bench said while allowing the appeals filed by the farmers PTI PKS RC

New Delhi [India], March 4 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to issue notice and adjourned the matter while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the Delhi Government to prohibit/control the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs, which are injurious to health, in order to secure the right to health, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

New Delhi Jan 25 PTI As India celebrates its 73rd Republic Day on Wednesday a new book provides a comprehensive and fascinating account of the origins and evolution of the most important fundamental right - the right to life and personal liberty - as enshrined in Article 21 of the ConstitutionLiberty After Freedom A History of Article 21 Due Process and the Constitution of India by Rohan J Alva a counsel practising in the Supreme Court also traces how the evolution of Article 21 mirrors the broader history of the republic of IndiaAlva says the right to life and personal liberty is that one fundamental right which impacts the life of every single Indian and its growing salience is represented by the fact that in recent years this right has become part of our daily conversations in terms of the recognition of the right to privacy and the decriminalisation of homosexualityGiven its high importance I believe the story of how this right came to be and the women and men who shaped its destiny deserves to be told he saysAccording to the author much of what we hold precious and dear today in terms of rights is because of Article 21 and a result of not being chained to the past Article 21 has now become the prime basis for persons to become equal members in society and to enable them to fulfil their individual worth he saysThe fundamental right to life and personal liberty is not an arcane right it was a site of political contest ideological dispute and above all a struggle to realise a strong framework of rights for India This book presents that history Alva writes in the book to be released by HarperCollins India on February 10Article 21 has had the most outsized influence on the progressive development of rights in India When India gave herself the Constitution on January 26 1950 both life and liberty were thought to be in peril because the Constituent Assembly decided not to grant due process protection to themLiberty After Freedom explores the intellectual beginnings of this paramount fundamental right in order to decode and unravel the controversies which raged at the time the Constitution was being craftedAlva argues that semantics must not cloud the fact and indeed our judgment about the central importance of due process and the fact that it has now been accepted as a part of Article 21The sooner we recognise this the better it will be for the cause of constitutional justice given that it is in the nature of Article 21 to resolve emerging and vitally important questions concerning the liberty and freedom of individuals he writesAlva is also of the view that since the Constitution does not enumerate a detailed list of rights which apply to all aspects of human life the open-textured reading of Article 21 as incorporating the due process guarantee becomes the vehicle by which new rights are to be realised for the peopleIt is due process which has made Article 21 a robust fundamental right and which has today enabled the triumph of individual freedom If we can exercise individual autonomy as free agents in India it is largely because of what Article 21 has come to mean and we are fortunate for it From a promising start in 1946-1947 the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune had something entirely else in store for due process the book saysBy the time the Indian Constitution came to life in 1950 the due process guarantee was absent from the Constitutions text Nevertheless from the ashes of its unsavoury rejection by the Drafting Committee due process against all odds found its way into the Indian Constitution It had to it adds PTI ZMN RB RB RB

Mumbai Jan 18 PTI The Bombay High Court on Tuesday commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence awarded to sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit who were convicted by a Kolhapur court for kidnapping 14 children and killing five of them between 1990 and 1996A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and S V Kotwal commuted the death sentence awarded to the two women after holding that the Maharashtra government and the Centre had caused inordinate delays in executing their death sentence and had breached their fundamental rightsThe bench noted that the government authorities particularly the state government had acted casually delayed protocol despite being aware of the seriousness of the case and did not execute the death sentence awarded to the women despite their mercy petitions being rejected by the President over seven years agoThe Maharashtra authorities had delayed processing papers related to the mercy petitions filed by the convict women and a bunch of mercy petitions filed by others on their behalf it saidThe state prison authorities had failed to follow the protocol of informing the convicts about the status of their pleas the state government officials had delayed sending relevant details to the Union ministry of home affairs and in seeking a hearing in HC the bench notedThough the procedure for deciding mercy petitions mandates speed and expediency the state machinery showed indifference and laxity at each stage the court saidThe High Court noted in its judgement that the womens conviction and death sentence for having kidnapped 14 children and killing five of them was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006Their mercy petition was rejected by the President of India in 2014The day that their death sentence was to be executed in August 2014 the sisters filed the present plea in the High Court seeking that their death sentence be commuted due to inordinate delay in its execution and that they be released from custody immediatelyThe High Court noted that the state made a statement on not executing the death sentence till the plea was heard finally but did nothing to seek circulation or schedule the next hearing and the plea was heard finally by the court in September-October 2021The position of law that an unexplained delay in disposal of mercy petitions may result in commuting the death sentence was already holding the field when mercy petitions by the petitioners were made the bench saidDespite this legal position only due to the causal approach of the officers of the respondent state Maharashtra the mercy petitions were not decided for 7 years 10 months and 15 days it saidThe bench of Justices Jamdar and Kotwal said that the state machinery showed indifferenceThat it took over seven years for movement of files is unacceptable Dereliction of duty of the state is the reason for commuting the death sentence it saidThe sessions court in Kolhapur had convicted the accused and sentenced them to death in 2001 The death sentence was confirmed by the High Court in 2004 and thereafter by the Supreme Court in 2006The convicts approached the governor with a mercy petition in 2008 which was rejected in 2012-13 After that they approached the President with a mercy petition and the same was rejected in 2014The sisters argued before the High Court that they had both suffered over 25 years in custody and had therefore invoked their fundamental right under Article 21 through the present petitionThe women urged the court to commute their death sentence to a life term and to also order for their release forthwith considering the 25 years they already spent behind by bars as the life sentence already undergoneAdvocate Sandesh Patil appearing for the Centre argued that the mercy petition had been sent across to the President as soon as it was received from the state government and that there had been no delayThe President had decided on the application within 10 months he saidThe bench allowed the womens petition partly by commuting their death sentence to life It however refused to allow them to be released from custody stating that the two women will have to serve their life sentence till the end of their natural life considering that the crime committed by them was heinousThe argument of the state Maharashtra government that they death sentence should be executed today overlooks that it is the dereliction of its officers that is the cause for commuting the sentence of death sentence to life imprisonment it saidThe High Court further said that while the state was supposed to represent the interest of the society in a criminal justice system in the present case the state machinery had not only violated the constitutional rights of the two convicts but it had also failed the innocent victims of a heinous crimeMeanwhile when contacted advocate Manik Mulik who was a defence counsel in the case when it was tried in the Kolhapur sessions court welcomed the HC decisionHe said an appropriate decision has been taken by the HC as inordinate delay took place in execution of the death sentence awarded to the sistersSuhas Nadgauda additional superintendent of police Anti-Corruption Bureau who was part of the state CID team that probed the case said the prosecution had built a watertight caseA strong case was put up by the prosecution which led to the conviction of the two sisters and over 150 witnesses were examined during the trial he saidThe entire case unfolded during an investigation of an offense against Anjana Gavit mother of the two sisters who died in 1997 before the trial began in the Panchvati police station in Nashik in 1996 The kidnapping and murder of children were revealed during that probe the police officer recalledHe said as the scope of the crime was spread across Nashik Pune Kolhapur and Thane the case was transferred to the state CID which then formed a special team to prove the kidnapping and murdersI was a part of the team at Kolhapur Later all the cases from these cities were clubbed together and a common charge-sheet was filed in the sessions court in Kolhapur said NadgaudaHe said noted lawyer Ujjwal Nikam was the special public prosecutor in the caseKiran Shinde Renukas husband who was also arrested in the case He had given an application before the trial court expressing his wish to provide information about the crimeThe court granted his application and he was made an approver He gave statements in the court explaining the roles of the three women the two sisters and their mother in the crime the police officer said PTI AYA SPK ARU RSY RSY

Mumbai Jan 18 PTI The Bombay High Court on Tuesday commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence awarded to sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit who were convicted by a Kolhapur court for kidnapping 14 children and killing five of them between 1990 and 1996A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and S V Kotwal commuted the death sentence awarded to the two women after holding that the Maharashtra government and the Centre had caused inordinate delays in executing their death sentence and had breached their fundamental rightsThe bench noted that the government authorities particularly the state government had acted casually delayed protocol despite being aware of the seriousness of the case and did not execute the death sentence awarded to the women despite their mercy petitions being rejected by the President over seven years agoThe Maharashtra authorities had delayed processing papers related to the mercy petitions filed by the convict women and a bunch of mercy petitions filed by others on their behalf it saidThe state prison authorities had failed to follow the protocol of informing the convicts about the status of their pleas the state government officials had delayed sending relevant details to the Union ministry of home affairs and in seeking a hearing in HC the bench notedThough the procedure for deciding mercy petitions mandates speed and expediency the state machinery showed indifference and laxity at each stage the court saidThe High Court noted in its judgement that the womens conviction and death sentence for having kidnapped 14 children and killing five of them was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006Their mercy petition was rejected by the President of India in 2014The day that their death sentence was to be executed in August 2014 the sisters filed the present plea in the High Court seeking that their death sentence be commuted due to inordinate delay in its execution and that they be released from custody immediatelyThe High Court noted that the state made a statement on not executing the death sentence till the plea was heard finally but did nothing to seek circulation or schedule the next hearing and the plea was heard finally by the court in September-October 2021The position of law that an unexplained delay in disposal of mercy petitions may result in commuting the death sentence was already holding the field when mercy petitions by the petitioners were made the bench saidDespite this legal position only due to the causal approach of the officers of the respondent state Maharashtra the mercy petitions were not decided for 7 years 10 months and 15 days it saidThe bench of Justices Jamdar and Kotwal said that the state machinery showed indifferenceThat it took over seven years for movement of files is unacceptable Dereliction of duty of the state is the reason for commuting the death sentence it saidThe sessions court in Kolhapur had convicted the accused and sentenced them to death in 2001 The death sentence was confirmed by the High Court in 2004 and thereafter by the Supreme Court in 2006The convicts approached the governor with a mercy petition in 2008 which was rejected in 2012-13 After that they approached the President with a mercy petition and the same was rejected in 2014The sisters argued before the High Court that they had both suffered over 25 years in custody and had therefore invoked their fundamental right under Article 21 through the present petitionThe women urged the court to commute their death sentence to a life term and to also order for their release forthwith considering the 25 years they already spent behind by bars as the life sentence already undergoneAdvocate Sandesh Patil appearing for the Centre argued that the mercy petition had been sent across to the President as soon as it was received from the state government and that there had been no delayThe President had decided on the application within 10 months he saidThe bench allowed the womens petition partly by commuting their death sentence to life It however refused to allow them to be released from custody stating that the two women will have to serve their life sentence till the end of their natural life considering that the crime committed by them was heinousThe argument of the state Maharashtra government that they death sentence should be executed today overlooks that it is the dereliction of its officers that is the cause for commuting the sentence of death sentence to life imprisonment it saidThe High Court further said that while the state was supposed to represent the interest of the society in a criminal justice system in the present case the state machinery had not only violated the constitutional rights of the two convicts but it had also failed the innocent victims of a heinous crime PTI AYA ARU ARU

Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], December 9 (ANI): Advocate-activist Sudha Bharadwaj, who was recently granted default bail by the Bombay High Court in the Bhima Koregaon case was released from Byculla jail in Mumbai on Thursday.

New Delhi [India], December 6 (ANI): The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Monday sought urgent listing of its plea before the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's order of granting default bail to advocate-activist Sudha Bharadwaj, who was arrested and had been in jail for over two years in the Bhima Koregaon case.