Nagpur Mar 24 PTI Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut on Thursday said the Supreme Court ruling on transfer of cases filed against former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh was not a setback for the Maharashtra government but quipped it was an effort to provide solace to someoneThe apex court transferred to the CBI the investigation in multiple cases registered against Singh currently under suspension over allegations of misconduct and corruption in Maharashtra A very murky affair is going on amid echelons of power on who should investigate the matter a bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said while transferring the probe to the central agency from the Maharashtra policeSpeaking to reporters in Nagpur Raut rejected suggestions that the ruling was a setback to the Shiv Sena-led Maha Vikas Aghadi MVA governmentIt is not a setback to the state governmentit is just one more effort to give solace dilasa to someone the Rajya Sabha member remarkedWhenever the Maharashtra government tries to reach to the real culprits and tries to take action against them based on facts such decisions come I am surprised that all relief raahat is being received by people concerned with only one party the Sena leader said without naming any partyRaut said the Maharashtra Police is a competent force capable of carrying out impartial investigationsThe Maharashtra Police is the most impartial police force in the country Somewhere a big conspiracy is being framed against Maharashtra it is very unfortunate The people of Maharashtra are taking note of it the Parliamentarian said without elaboratingEarlier in the day the Supreme Court refused to revoke the suspension of Singh and said all future FIRs too will be transferred to CBIThe exigencies in the advancement of principles of justice require the investigation to be transferred to CBI We are not saying appellant Singh is a whistle-blower or anyone involved in this case is washed with milk the bench notedThe apex court said a thorough investigation is required to regain the faith of people in the state policeWe are unable to accept the contention that an FIR is registered by those who had complaints against the petitioner We are of the view that state itself should have allowed CBI to carry the investigationWe are of the prima facie view that there is some concerted effort which needs the investigation by CBI What is the truth who is at fault how does such scenario come to prevail is something which investigation must get into CBI must hold an impartial inquiry into all these aspects the court saidSingh is facing multiple cases of extortion corruption and misconduct and was removed from the post of Mumbai police chief last year over his alleged mishandling of the Antilia bomb scare caseThe top court had granted the senior IPS officer a major relief on November 22 when it directed the Maharashtra Police not to arrest him in criminal cases lodged against himThe Maharashtra police had earlier told the apex court Singh cannot be considered a whistleblower under the law as he chose to speak out against alleged corruption involving former state home minister Anil Deshmukh only after he was transferredSeeking dismissal of Singhs plea for a CBI probe into the entire matter and against any coercive action by the state the Maharashtra government had filed an affidavit in the apex court and said the ongoing investigation in criminal cases against the IPS officer should not be interfered with PTI CLS RSY RSY

New Delhi Mar 24 PTI The Supreme Court Thursday transferred to the CBI the investigation in multiple cases against former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh over allegations of misconduct and corruptionA very murky affair is going on amid echelons of power on who should investigate the matter a bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said while transferring the probe to the central investigative agencyThe exigencies in the advancement of principles ofjustice require the investigation to be transferred to CBI We are not saying appellant Singhis a whistle-blower or anyone involved in this case is washed with milk the bench notedThe bench also refused to revoke the suspension of Singh and said all future FIRs too will be transferred to CBIThe apex court said a thorough investigation is required to regain the faith of people in the state policeWe are unable to accept the contention that an FIR is registered by those who had complaints against the petitioner We are of the view that state itself should have allowed CBI to carry the investigationWe are of the prima facie view that there is some concerted effort which needs the investigation by CBI What is the truth who is at fault how does such scenario come to prevail is something which investigation must get into CBI must hold an impartial inquiry into all these aspects the court saidThe bench however noted it was not commenting on the merits of the allegations as it does not want the investigation to be influenced in any mannerWe do not want the investigation to be influenced by the observation of this court The High Court Bombay has treated this as a service dispute which it is not and thus we set aside the HC verdict We allow the appeal and direct the probe into 5 FIRs and three PEs be transferred to CBI with all recordsSuch transfer to be completed within one week and all officials to extend full cooperation to CBI to try arrive at the truth the bench said Singh is facing multiple cases of extortion corruption and misconduct and was removed from the post of Mumbai police chief over his alleged mishandling of the Antilia bomb scare case The top court had granted him a major relief on November 22 when it directed the Maharashtra Police not to arrest him in criminal cases lodged against him and wondered if he was being hounded for filing cases against police officers and extortionists what could happen to a common manThe Maharashtra police had earlier told the apex court that Singh cannot be considered a whistleblower under the law as he chose to speak out against alleged corruption involving former state home minister Anil Deshmukh only after he was transferredSeeking dismissal of Singhs plea for a CBI probe into the entire matter and against any coercive action by the state the Maharashtra government had filed an affidavit in the apex court and said that the ongoing investigation in criminal cases against the former top police officer should not be interfered withPrior to this the Bombay High Court had dismissed Singhs petition seeking quashing of inquiries initiated against him by the Maharashtra government and said he can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal holding it was a service matter It had rejected his claim that the governments action was a consequence of his allegations of corruption against Deshmukh PTI PKSSA SK SK

New Delhi Feb 25 PTI In a significant order the Supreme Court on Friday said the Allahabad High Court can consider granting bail to the convicts who are not repeat offenders and have served 14 years or more as jail terms as sentence as this would ensure massive decline in pendencyThe apex court also said the convicts who have served jail terms between 10 to 14 years can be considered for bail during the pendency of their appeals against conviction in the high courtThe Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow benches had approximately 183000 Criminal Appeals pending as of August 2021 and there are 7214 convicts in various jails across Uttar Pradesh who have already undergone more than 10 years of their conviction and their criminal appeals are pending adjudication in the high courtA bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh was exasperated over the non-formulation of common template by the Allahabad High Court and the Uttar Pradesh government to deal with the issue of bail to convicts who have served out considerable period of sentence and no likelihood of hearing of their appeals in near futureThe bench then went on to grant bail in 21 such cases filed against the denial of bail to convicts by the high courtThe fact remains If a convict has served out 14 or more than 14 years of the sentence then his case is likely to be considered for remission The court should either direct the state authorities that his application for remission be considered within three months or enlarge him on bail the bench observedIt asked the counsel for the high court and the state government to note its directions on consideration and grant of bail to convicts The court said We have put the word to the learned counsel A list should be prepared of all cases where the persons have served out the jail sentences of 14 years and are not a repeat offenderIn these cases bail can be granted in one go Second category of persons could be one where the persons have served out more than 10 years sentence and In these cases bail can be granted at one go unless there are any accentuated circumstances These two parameters can be followed The bench asked the counsel for the high court to convey its views and to this the lawyer said though he was appearing on the administrative side he would pass on the directions of this courtIf a person has served out 14 years of imprisonment then I do not understand as to why the bail is not considered on grounds that the lawyer was present or the lawyer not present There has to be a repeat offender or something like that for opposing or denying the bail Justice Kaul observed during the hearingThe bench said that it took 15 to 20 minutes in deciding the 20 odd bail applications and the same can be done in the high court by preparing the list of cases where the convicts have served either 14 or more or between 10 to 14 years of jail termWe wanted the high court to find a solution otherwise we could have done it earlier but we did not do it because we wanted the high court to find the template But frankly both of us were exasperated today so we decided on these Template has to be there The template which was sought to be implemented earlier was so complex the bench saidEarlier the top court had asked both the Uttar Pradesh government and officials of Allahabad High Court to sit together and jointly submit the suggestions for regulating the matters of bail applications during the pendency of the appeals of the convicted personsThe top court had said that if the suggestions are not given then it may formulate some guidelines on its ownIt had said that Allahabad High Court registry has 20-25 page suggestions which are like counter-suggestions to those already given by Uttar Pradesh governmentThe top court was hearing criminal appeals of the convicts in heinous offences seeking bail on the ground that they have spent seven or more years in jail and be granted bail as their appeals against the convictions are yet to be listed for regular hearing in the high court due to the long pendencyThe high court has given a slew of suggestions to the top court like in cases of serious and grave offences rights of the victim and his family should be considered before granting bail to an accusedIt suggested to the top court that a victim impact assessment report should be obtained after consulting the victim and the report should clearly state all concerns along with vital information on physical mental and social impact of the crime and impact the bail may have on the victimThe high courts registry had given its suggestions to the top court in pursuance of an earlier order asking it to help in laying down broad parameters for regulating the matters of bail applications during the pendency of the appeals of the convicted personsOn August 23 last year the UP government had suggested to the top court that bail pleas of life convicts if they have undergone 10 years of jail term and in other cases where half of the period of the maximum sentence awarded have been spent can be considered by the High CourtIt had said that to ensure public peace and the well-being of the society life convicts who are hardened criminals repeat offenders kidnappers in crimes related to massacre three or more than three murders habitual criminals and fall in prohibited categories as per the UP Jail Standing Policy - no bail should be granted PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Feb 23 PTI The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped states and Union Territories for delay in appointing nodal officers for utilisation of funds allocated for infrastructure in Consumer Commissions and said they will have to bear consequences for non-compliance of the orderA bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said the states and UTs are not understanding the severity of the situation and we have to do something more to make them understandWe will have to be merciless to make you understand the apex court said while imposing a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the states and the UTs which have not filed an affidavit mentioning compliance of its order Once again the states have done it They seem just not to appreciate the significance of the time schedule laid down by the court We expected that after the order dated December 1 2021 where we had clearly mentioned the significance of the time period things will change They have not States must bear the consequences of not complying with the order of this court within the stipulated time the bench said Advocate Aditya Narain who is the amicus curiae in the case told the apex court that 22 states and UTs have filed their compliance reports and as on date all except 12 states have nominated nodal officers The top court granted four weeks to the states and UTs to file compliance and warned that in case of failure the concerned Secretaries will have to remain present The matter is listed for next hearing on April 12 The top court had earlier directed all states except Maharashtra to fill up vacancies in the Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions by the end of January this year On the issue of development of judicial infrastructure the apex court had noted that a large part of the funds under category of utilisation certificate UC does not portray a very happy situation It must be appreciated that the utilization of the Central funding in turn requires planning by the States so that the funds do not lapse The project may be spread over a period of time and if the utilisation is on the basis of the total funds available without taking into account the time period within which that infrastructure would be built there is bound to be a situation of funds lapsing the bench had said In its December 1 order the top court had said that what is required is to take up as many projects as would result in utilisation of the fund in the given financial year so that the fund does not lapse It is suggested to us that in order to facilitate the utilization of funds within the stipulated time and to ensure that utilisation certificates are submitted so that no part of the fund lapses there should be nodal officers assisting the Empowered Committees We call upon the Central Government and the State Governments as well as the Union Territories to nominate the nodal officers for the said purpose within a week These nodal officers will coordinate and assist the Empowered Committees the bench had said The top court had made it clear that the Empowered Committees the nodal officers states and the Union government are all responsible to ensure that the funds allocated are utilised properly and within the time stipulated with proper utilization certificate to ensure that no fund lapses and are utilized under the Scheme The top court was hearing a suo motu case Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and MembersStaff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Feb 22 PTI The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Maharashtra government to put hands on hold in the investigation against former police commissioner Param Bir Singh over the allegations of misconduct and corruptionA bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said the messy state of affairs has the propensity of unnecessarily shaking confidence of people in police systemWhen the counsel for Maharashtra asked the apex court not to record its direction to put hands on hold the in order the bench recorded his assurance in the matterWe have now put down the matter for final hearing investigation being completed can pose problems Mr Darius Khambata senior advocate has assured to put their hands on hold We take the assurance on record the bench saidThe apex court asked the parties to file written synopsis and posted the matter for hearing on March 9The court expressed concern over the messy state of affairs in the state and said this is an unfortunate scenarioWe have had occasion to say earlier that it is messy state of affairs This is an unfortunate situationIt has the propensity of unnecessarily shaking confidence of people in police system Process of law must be carried in a manner the bench observedSolicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the CBI submitted that it is in the interest of things that all cases herein be investigated by the central probe agencyOnce you proceed with an investigation and record it then its not fair to stop midway State should not do anything that makes the process difficult Mehta saidThe apex court had earlier allowed Mumbai Police to carry on the investigation against Singh but restrained it from filing charge sheets on the FIRs against him over the allegations of misconduct and corruptionThe state police had earlier told the apex court that Singh cannot be considered a whistleblower under the law as he chose to speak out against alleged corruption involving former home minister Anil Deshmukh only after his transferThe top court had granted a major relief to Singh on November 22 by directing the Maharashtra Police not to arrest him in criminal cases lodged against him and had wondered if he was being hounded for filing cases against police officers and extortionists what could happen to a common manSeeking dismissal of Singhs plea for a CBI probe into the entire matter and against any coercive action by the state the Maharashtra government has filed an affidavit in the apex court and said that the ongoing probe in criminal cases against the former top cop should not be interfered withPrior to this the Bombay High Court had dismissed Singhs petition seeking to quash inquiries initiated against him by the Maharashtra government and said he can approach the Central Administrative TribunalThe high court had held that it was a service matter and rejected his claim that the governments action was a consequence of his allegations of corruption against DeshmukhAfter Singh was shunted out as Mumbai police commissioner in March 2021 in the aftermath of the Antilia bomb scare case in a letter to Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray he levelled corruption allegations against DeshmukhIn his petition Singh had also alleged that DGP Pande told him that the inquiries were the fall-out of his allegations against Deshmukh an NCP leaderSingh was transferred to the Home Guard after Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze was arrested in the case of an SUV with explosives found near industrialist Mukesh Ambanis house Antilia and the subsequent suspicious death of businessman Mansukh Hiran PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Jan 21 PTI The Supreme Court Friday sought the Centres reply on a plea for creation of The Indian Environment Service on the lines of All India Service for environment safeguards at the ground levelA bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh while issuing notice to the Union Environment Ministry expressed doubt whether it could issue a mandamus for creation of a separate all India serviceThe apex court said however that an inquiry can be made whether the Centre intended to implement recommendations of the committee headed by a former Cabinet SecretaryThe top court was hearing a plea filed by advocate on record Samar Vijay Singh who referred to the report submitted by the High-Level Committee formed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under the chairmanship of former Cabinet Secretary T S R Subramanian in 2014 which recommended creation of a new All-India service the Indian Environment Service However the Parliament Standing Committee PSC rejected T S R Subramanian Report that reviewed various Acts administered by the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change inter-alia noted that the three-month period given to the HLC for reviewing six environmental Acts was too short and recommended that the government should constitute a new committee to review the laws the plea said Senior advocate K Sultan Singh argued for the petitioner The plea further stated that there is a lack of trained personnel involved in the administration policy formulation and supervising the implementation of policies of the state and central governments However due to problems of implementation and enforcement many of the set goals have not come to fruition Given the turmoil all over the country concerning environmental issues the creation of the All India Service The Indian Environment Service is the need of the hour the plea said The constant degradation of our ecosystem needs special attention from the Civil Service as well as from the part of the government it said However looking at the current administrative setup it can be inferred that the government servants might not be able to spare special time for environmental causes Now it becomes imperative to create an independent All India Service Indian Environment Service in order to bring relief to the masses at large the plea said The plea has also sought setting up an Indian Environmental Service Academy to train officers for environmental law enforcement PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Nov 22 PTI The Supreme Court Monday granted protection from arrest to former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh in criminal cases lodged against him in Maharashtra and sought responses from the state government its DGP and the CBI on his plea Singh who had accused the then Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh of corruption has alleged frame up in criminal cases Besides seeking protection from coercive steps Singh has sought CBI probe into the entire issue involving him A bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh issued notices to the Maharashtra government its DGP Sanjay Pande and the CBI on Singhs plea Issue notice Returnable on December 6 In the meantime the petitioner shall join the investigation and shall not be arrested the bench ordered PTI SJK SA

New Delhi Oct 22 PTI Expressing displeasure over delay in appointments in the Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the Supreme Court on Friday said if the government does not want the tribunals then it should abolish the Consumer Protection ActA bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said it is unfortunate that the top court is being called upon to examine and see that vacancies in tribunals are filled upIf the government does not want the tribunals then abolish the act We are stretching our jurisdiction to see the vacancies are filled in Normally we should not spend time on this and the posts should be filled Unfortunately the judiciary is called upon to see that these posts are manned This is not a very happy situation the bench saidThe top court was hearing a suo motu case on the inaction of the governments in appointing president and membersstaff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India The apex court in its order directed that the process of filling up vacancies in the State Consumer Commissions as per its earlier directions must not be impeded by the judgement of the Bombay High Court which had quashed certain Consumer Protection RulesAs the hearing commenced senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appointed as amicus curiae in the case apprised the court about judgement passed by the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench quashing certain Consumer Protection RulesHe said the Centre introduced the Tribunal Reforms Act in violation of the apex court judgement in the Madras Bar Association caseAdditional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi appearing for the Centre said the government is in the process of filing an appeal against the Bombay high court order which quashed certain provisions of Consumer Protection RulesHe told the bench that the Tribunal Reforms Act introduced by the Centre was not in contravention rather it was in consonance with the Madras Bar Association judgement of the apex courtThe top court however remarked It seems that the bench says something and you do something else and some kind of embargo is being created and in this process the citizens of the country are suffering These are places for remedy like consumer forums These are small issues that people deal with and these are not high stake matters The very purpose of setting up these tribunals to provide consumer remedy is not being met the bench remarkedThe ASG submitted that there is no breach of the judgement of the top court and principles of Madras Bar have been duly incorporatedThe government is not making this an ego issue here in the supreme court or dragging its feet regarding the appointments he saidThe top court however said We dont want to comment but this does not paint a happy picture The apex court also directed the states to submit data in a prescribed form within one week failing which the concerned secretary has to remain present before itAs the hearing ended Justice Sundresh said there is a need to look at the problem from a different perspective and permanent consumer courts should replace consumer commissions which are manned by retired judicial officers on an ad-hoc basisWe need to have a permanent structure like the permanent court The time has come for us to have a permanent court for consumer court and have judges as we select it for district and higher judiciary We need to look at it from a different perspective We have to rethink if we go on with an ad hoc continuance of members for 5 years etcJustice Sundresh saidThe judge said What is the point of having a retired judicial officer What is the motivation level for him and what will be his mindset How do you fix accountability Is it required for the development of the institutionthe judge saidThe top court had in January said that Consumer rights are important rights and non-manning of posts and inadequate infrastructure in the district and state consumer commissions across the country would deprive the citizens of redressal of their grievancesThe top court had appointed senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan and lawyer Aaditya Narain as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter PTI PKS RKS RKS RKS

Stating that the roads cannot be blocked perpetually, the Supreme Court on Thursday took a grim view of the continuing blockade of highways connecting the national capital to the neighbouring states by farmers protesting against the farm laws. Justices S K Kaul, who was heading a two-judge bench, remarked while hearing a plea by a […]

New Delhi Sep 27 PTI Getting aid is not a fundamental right the Supreme Court observed on Monday and said the government should take into account various factors such as financial constraints and deficiencies while deciding on aid for educational institutions Also when it comes to aided institutions there cannot be any difference between a minority and non-minority one the apex court said Right to get an aid is not a fundamental right the challenge to a decision made in implementing it shall only be on restricted grounds said a bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh Therefore even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid an institution cannot question it as a matter of right Maybe such a challenge would still be available to an institution when a grant is given to one institution as against the other institution which is similarly placed the bench said The top court said if an institution does not want to accept and comply with the conditions accompanying such aid it is well open to it to decline the grant and move on its own way On the contrary an institution can never be allowed to say that the grant of aid should be on its own terms the bench said The apex courts observations came while allowing Uttar Pradeshs appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict holding that Regulation 101 framed under The Intermediate Education Act 1921 is unconstitutional The top court said that once it is held that right to get an aid is not a fundamental right the challenge to a decision made in implementing it shall only be on restricted grounds Therefore even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid an institution cannot question it as a matter of right Maybe such a challenge would still be available to an institution when a grant is given to one institution as against the other institution which is similarly placed Therefore with the grant of an aid the conditions come If an institution does not want to accept and comply with the conditions accompanying such aid it is well open to it to decline the grant and move in its own way the bench said The bench said that a policy decision is presumed to be in public interest and such a decision once made is not amenable to challenge until and unless there is manifest or extreme arbitrariness a Constitutional court is expected to keep its hands off An executive power is residue of a legislative one therefore the exercise of said power ie the amendment of the impugned regulation cannot be challenged on the basis of mere presumption the bench said Once a rule is introduced by way of a policy decision a demonstration on the existence of manifest excessive and extreme arbitrariness is needed the apex court said PTI PKS SA