New Delhi [India], August 8 (ANI): Justice DY Chandrachud on Monday expressed his displeasure with the Supreme Court Registry after being informed that a matter was deleted after being listed.

Aarey activists and citizens sat on a sit-in protest inside the police station demanding the release of people detained. The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a petition challenging the cutting of trees in Mumbai’s Aarey colony for a Metro car shed tomorrow. Save Aarey protestors are once again... The post appeared first on .

Save Aarey activist Zoru Bhathena on Twitter alleged that the JCBs are clearing the forest on the Aarey Forest Car Shed plot illegally, he said “JCB’s at work illegally clearing trees in the Aarey Forest. Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a petition challenging the cutting of... The post appeared first on .

New Delhi Apr 24 PTI The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to a 21-year-old woman from Patna who was booked by Bihar police under the prohibition law after her Scooty was driven by her cousin with nine bottles of liquorThe top court also took a serious note of the fact that the girl was refused anticipatory bail by the high court and said We are clearly of the view that the High Court must not abdicate its constitutional powers and ensure that the personal liberty of the accused in appropriate cases has to be safeguarded A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant in a recent order said Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above we confirm the ad-interim order by directing that in the event of the arrest of the appellant she shall be released on bail forthwith subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court It said the appellant is a 21-year old girl who was denied anticipatory bail by the high courtThough there is an embargo in Section 762 of the statute we see no reason why the High Court ought not to have exercised its power as a Constitutional court to grant anticipatory bail to protect the personal liberty of the accused in a case such as the present where a 21-year-old girl is sought to be prosecuted following the recovery of liquor bottles from a scooty which though belonging to her was not being driven by her at the relevant point of time the bench saidIt added that the refusal of the high court to grant anticipatory bail in such cases leads to a proliferation of litigation before this court Many accused will not have the resources or the awareness to pursue their remedies before this court Unless the High Court exercises its constitutional duty to protect personal liberty they will continue to languish in jail the bench saidOn April 7 the top court while issuing notice to the Bihar government had granted interim stay on the arrest of the girl in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Rupaspur of district Patna BiharIt noted that the girl has been denied anticipatory bail by the impugned order of the Single Judge of the Patna High Court dated January 6In her plea before the top court the girl has challenged the high court order and sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in the case registered for offences punishable under Section 30a of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act of 2016 against the appellant and four other co-accusedAdvocate Gaurav Aggarwal appearing for the girl said nine bottles of liquor were allegedly recovered from a scooty belonging to the appellant and the two-wheeler was alleged to have been ridden by one of the co-accused cousin of the girlThe bench noted that a charge sheet has been filed in the caseSeveral cases arising out of the states prohibition law have reached the top court which has taken a very critical view of the cases which has started to clog the judicial systemOn April 5 in another matter the top court was informed by the state government that extensive amendments have been made to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act of 2016 which was enacted to ban the manufacture trade storage transportation sale and consumption of liquor in the stateThe apex court is seized of pleas including the one which challenges the constitutional validity of the ActOn March 30 the Bihar Assembly had introduced and passed an amendment bill that seeks to make the law less stringent for first-time offenders in the stateOn March 10 the top court during a hearing in another matter related to the law had expressed concern over delay in disposal of bail matters in Patna High Court and suggested that having designated benches to hear cases arising out of Bihar prohibition law will help in bringing in the consistency of relief and efficient disposal of mattersThe Patna High Court had earlier told the top court that there is a phenomenal increase in the filing of bail applications due to the enforcement of prohibition in the state and roughly 25 percent of regular bail pleas are being filed under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act aloneThe high court had said it is working with less than half of its sanctioned strength and the increase in the filing of bail applications is causing a delay in disposal of regular bail pleasOn March 8 the Bihar government has assured the top court that the stringent Bihar liquor law would be changed after the court came down heavily on it for framing such a legislation that has led to thousands languishing in jail and bail matters clogging the judicial systemSimilarly on January 11 a bench headed by Chief Justice of India CJI N V Ramana had in another matter dismissed a batch of petitions of the Bihar government challenging the grant of anticipatory and regular bails to accused under the states stringent liquor law also saying these matters have choked the courtsThe top court had noted that it was a matter of concern if anticipatory bail applications were becoming infructuous because they were taken up for the first time after a year of their filing and regular bail applications had to be filed instead PTI MNL SRY

New Delhi Feb 28 PTI The Supreme Court Monday asked the Centre to make its stand clear on the status of a Pakistani national who has been languishing in a detention centre for seven years as Islamabad refuses to accept him as its citizen saying how long can you keep a person inside A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj to seek instruction whether 62-year-old Mohammad Qamar can be released for a brief period to enable him to apply for Indian citizenship as his five-children are Indian citizensNataraj said This is a peculiar case I need to take instruction We are not bound by what Pakistan is saying A person convicted under the Foreigners Act has to be kept in a detention centre He cannot be allowed to go out This is the statutory requirementThe bench said Question is that he has served his sentence of 3 years and six months Now after serving his sentence he has been lodged in a detention centre since 2015 awaiting his deportation At the time when Pakistan has refused to accept him as its citizen how long can you keep a person inside It said that Qamar has said that he wishes to apply for Indian citizenship as his children are all Indian citizensYou please take instructions whether he can be released for a brief period so that he can apply for Indian citizenship Granting citizenship is your call we are not going to interfere with that the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing after three weeksSenior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for Qamars children who have sought their fathers release from the detention centre pointed to an order of the top court by which it had directed the Centre to release detenues in the detention centres of Assam who had been lodged for more than two years in view of the pandemic Earlier this month the top court had sought Centres reply on the plea filed by Qamars childrenMohammad Qamar 62 was arrested on August 8 2011 from Meerut Uttar Pradesh and was held guilty by a court here for overstaying his visa He was sentenced to three years and six months in jail and a fine of Rs 500Having completed his sentence on February 6 2015 Qamar father of five was sent to the detention centre at Lampur in Narela here on February 7 2015 for deportation to Pakistan However the Pakistan government did not accept his deportation and he is still languishing at the detention centreAccording to his daughter and son who have moved the top court through advocate Srishti Agnihotri their father Qamar alias Mohammad Kamil was born in India in 1959He Qamar had gone with his mother from India to Pakistan as a child of around 7-8 years in 1967-1968 on a visa to meet his relatives there However his mother died there and he remained in Pakistan in the care of his relatives the plea of habeas corpus filed in the top court saidIt said that Qamar on attaining adulthood came back to India on a Pakistani passport in around 1989-1990 and got married to Shehnaaj Begum an Indian citizen in Meerut Uttar PradeshOut of this wedlock five children were born the plea said adding that Qamar has no documentary proof to show that he had gone with his mother to Pakistan in around 1967-68 and his mother died there and therefore his story has not been believedNevertheless the undisputed fact is that he came to India around 1989-90 on a passport of Pakistan and did not renew his visa due to lack of education and subsequently got married here it saidIn Meerut he was doing menial jobs and residing there along with his family who all have Aadhaar cards issued by UIDAI the plea saidInitially Qamar filed a plea before the Delhi High Court in 2017 praying for his release so that he can stay with his familyDuring arguments his counsel had submitted that Qamar would apply for Indian citizenship in accordance with law and also make a representation to the respective authorities giving particulars of all the family members who would stand security in case he is released from the detention centreThe High Court in its order dated March 9 2017 disposed of his plea directing that his representation be considered as per lawQamars son as per the order of the High Court made a representation to civil authority on August 11 2017 under the provisions of the Foreigners Act to allow his father to reside with his family and take proper steps for registering him as an Indian citizen and also for getting proper medical treatment for his illnessThe plea said meanwhile with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic the top court on April 13 2020 passed an order in the suo motu petition where it directed the Centre to release foreigner detainees who have been under detention for two years or more on certain terms on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs 5000 with two sureties of the like sum of Indian citizensOnce again Qamar children moved the High Court seeking relief on the grounds of orders of the top court where the Centre submitted that it was prepared to take a humanitarian approach for releasing the father of the petitioners but Uttar Pradesh was not willing to do the sameIt had put on record UP governments reply which said that Qamar is divorced and therefore there is no justifiable ground for him to live in India and his release from the detention centre is not recommendedThereafter the High Court said that the petitioners should approach the top court for relief PTI MNL SA

New Delhi Feb 25 PTI The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea of BJP leaders against the Calcutta High Court directing the State Election Commissioner to examine the ground situation in each of the 108 West Bengal municipalities going to polls on February 27 and take a decision on deployment of central paramilitary forcesA bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant told senior advocate P S Patwalia appearing for BJP leaders Mousumi Roy and Pratap Banerjee Sorry We are not inclined to entertain this petitionPatwalia said that wide scale violence and irregularities were reported during previous phases of municipal elections and deployment of central forces will help in ensuring free and fair electionsHe said the high court had erred in asking the State Election Commissioner to examine the ground situation and take a call on deployment of central forces PTI MNL SA

New Delhi Feb 18 PTI The Uttar Pradesh government Friday told the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn 274 recovery notices and proceedings initiated against anti-CAA protestors in 2019 for damages caused to public and private propertiesA bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant said the state government will refund the entire amount worth crores of rupees recovered from the alleged protestors due to the proceedings initiated in 2019It granted liberty to the UP government to proceed against alleged anti-CAA protestors under the new law -- Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act notified on August 31 2020The bench refused to accept the submission of Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad that the protestors and the state government be allowed to move the claim tribunal instead of directing refundsOn February 11 the top court had pulled up the UP government for acting on the recovery notices issued to the alleged anti-CAA protestors in December 2019 and gave one final opportunity to it to withdraw the proceedings and warned that it will quash the proceedings for being in violation of the lawIt had said that the proceedings initiated in December 2019 were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and cannot be sustainedThe apex court was hearing a plea filed by one Parwaiz Arif Titu seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protestors by the district administration for recovering losses caused by damage to public properties during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act CAA agitations in UP and asked the state to respond to itThe plea has alleged that such notices have been sent in an arbitrary manner against a person who had died six years ago at the age of 94 and also to several others including two people who are aged above 90 PTI MNL SA

New Delhi Jan 29 PTI Equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not judiciary the Supreme Court saidA bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi said it is prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to an expert body Theequation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like pay commissions This is because such a job evaluation exercise may include various factors including relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees and such evaluation would be both difficult and time-consuming apart from carrying financial implications the bench saidThe top court said unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and that the courts interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice the courts would not interfere with such complex issues The observations came while hearing an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh High Court which had allowed a plea seeking revision ofpension of a man employed as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest PCCF The top court said the High Court in the impugned orders passed in writ petition as well as in the review petition had thoroughly misdirected itself by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work It is well-settled legal position that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors the bench said while setting aside the order of the high courtPTI PKS SRY

New Delhi Nov 26 PTI The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the plea of an NGO challenging the Delhi High Court order which upheld the Centres decision to appoint senior IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna issued notice to the Centre and Asthana and sought their response on the plea of the NGO the Centre for Public Interest Litigation The NGO has filed a writ petition and an appeal against the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before his superannuation on July 31 Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the NGO said that they have filed the appeal as directed by the top court on November 18 Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre and Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi representing Asthana said that they would file their replies in two weeks On November 18 the top court had asked the NGO to file an appeal against the Delhi High Court order On October 12 the Delhi High Court upheld the Centres decision to appoint Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner saying there was no irregularity illegality or infirmity in his selection Dismissing a PIL challenging his selection it had said the justification and reasons given by the Centre for appointing Asthana are plausible calling for no interference in judicial review The high court had said the Supreme Courts decision in the Prakash Singh case which mandated a minimum tenure for certain police officials and the constitution of a UPSC panel before selection was not applicable to the appointment of Police Commissioner for Delhi but were intended to apply only to the appointment of a State DGP Asthana a 1984-batch IPS officer who was serving as the Director-General of Border Security Force was appointed the Commissioner on July 27 after being shifted to the Union Territory cadre from Gujarat cadre for the tenure of one year On August 25 the top court had asked the Delhi High Court to decide preferably within a period of two weeks the plea pending before it challenging the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner It had permitted the NGO to move the high court to intervene in the pending plea against Asthanas appointment The NGOs petition has urged the top court to set aside the Centres order to appoint Asthana after extending his service period At the outset the CJI had then expressed his inability to hear the PIL saying I had expressed my views during the selection of CBI Director The CJI in an earlier meeting of the high-powered selection panel which also comprised the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition had put forth the legal position which reportedly led to non-consideration of Asthana for being appointed as the CBI Director The NGO has urged the apex court to direct the central government to produce its July 27 order approving the inter-cadre deputation of Asthana from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadre It termed the extension of his tenure as well as appointment as illegal as he did not have a residual tenure of mandatory six months of service at the time of his appointment as Commissioner of Police since he was to retire within four days It also claimed that the order violated the Fundamental Rule 56d which stipulates that no government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years The central government did not have the power under Rule 3 of All India Services Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters Rules to relax Rule 161 of the All India Services Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits Rules in order to give the extension of service to Rakesh Asthana the PIL claimed The CPIL has further claimed that the Centres order violated the policy regarding Inter-Cadre deputation of All India Service Officers PTI MNL MNL RKS RKS

New Delhi Nov 25 PTI The Supreme Court has asked the Allahabad High Court to issue a fresh notification to set up special magisterial courts to try minor offences involving lawmakers and ensure allocation of cases to sessions or magisterial courts depending upon the gravity of offences saying the non-setting up of such courts in Uttar Pradesh was based on an evident misconstruction of its orders Asking the High Court to issue a fresh circular in conformity of the present order a bench headed by Chief justice N V Ramana took exception to non-setting up of special magisterial courts in Uttar Pradesh for trying lawmakers in minor offences and said that the notification issued by the high court on August 16 2019 was based on an evident misconstruction of its directions The order of the special bench which also comprised Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant came on pleas raising the legal question of whether minor offences triable by magisterial courts against lawmakers can be prosecuted before a special court presided over by a sessions judge who is senior to a judicial magistrate It has been alleged that such trials by sessions judges consequently lead to deprivation of one judicial forum for the right to appeal which is ordinarily available to other accused The apex court said the magistrate triable cases which have been going on before the sessions court till now will be transferred back to magisterial courts and the proceedings will commence from the stage where they were left and hence no fresh trial will take place We further direct that cases triable by Magistrates which are pending before the Sessions Court in view of the Circular dated 16 August 2019 shall stand transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction However the entire record and proceedings shall be transferred to the Court of the designated Magistrate and the proceedings shall commence from the stage which has been reached prior to the transfer of the proceedings as a consequence of which the trial shall not have to commence afresh the order said The order which came on petitions of Abdullah Azam Khan the politician son of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan alleging that he has been prosecuted by special sessions court instead of a magisterial court said that the apex court did not say that magistrate triable cases be transferred to the special sessions court Referring to its earlier orders the apex court said The directions do not mandate the High Courts to transfer cases which are triable by Magistrates to Sessions Courts The directions contained in the Order dated 4 December 2018 do not supplant the jurisdictional provisions contained either in the CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure or in other special enactments governing the trial of offences governed by those enactments The directions of the apex court mandate the assigning and allocation of criminal cases involving former and sitting legislators to Sessions Courts or as the case may be Magisterial Courts it said This has to be in accordance with the governing provisions of the law as applicable Consequently where a case is triable by a Magistrate under the Penal Code the case would have to be assignedallocated to a Court of a Magistrate vested with jurisdiction and the Order of this Court dated December 4 2018 cannot be construed as a direction requiring the trial of the case by a Sessions Court it said It said the Allahabad High Court shall ensure allocation of criminal cases involving former and sitting legislatures to as many Sessions Courts and Magisterial Courts as required in order that cases which are triable by a Magistrate are assigned to a designated Court of a Magistrate while cases triable by a Sessions Court are assigned to a designated Court of Sessions While reserving the order on Khans pleas the bench had said that to solve the legal problem of lawmakers being tried by special sessions courts for minor offences in some states like Uttar Pradesh it would direct high courts to set up special magisterial courts where ongoing cases would be transferred and the trials would be carried forward Observing that its earlier direction on setting up of special court was misinterpreted and misconceived by the Allahabad High Court which only set up special sessions court it had said The sessions court cannot take the case to be tried by magistrates On November 15 the apex court had said that the jurisdiction of special courts has to conform to the statutes and there would be a very serious problem if these courts decide this aspect The top court has been passing a slew of directions time-to-time for ensuring speedy investigation by the CBI and other agencies and conclusion of trials It had ordered the setting up of additional special courts by the high courts It had expressed deep concern over tardy probe and prosecution in CBI cases against the lawmakers and had issued directions for ensuring speedy investigation by the agency and conclusion of trials besides setting up additional special courts by the high courts PTI SJK SJK RKS RKS