Report Wire

Tag: Prashant Bhushan

  • SC discover to HCs on plea for establishing of ‘Gram Nyayalayas’

    By IANS

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought a reply from all excessive courts on a plea for the Centre and all states to take steps to arrange ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ underneath the supervision of the apex court docket.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, NGO National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and others, submitted earlier than a bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer that regardless of a course from the highest court docket in 2020, many states have but not taken any motion.

    He added that these ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ needs to be such that folks could possibly articulate their grievances with out requiring a lawyer.

    In 2008, the Parliament handed an Act for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ on the grassroots stage for offering entry to justice to residents on the doorstep.

    The bench, additionally compromising Justice V. Ramasubramanian, mentioned the excessive courts needs to be made a celebration within the matter as they’re the supervisory authority. After listening to arguments, the bench issued discover to the Registrar General of all excessive courts and made them events within the case, and scheduled the matter for additional listening to on December 5.

    In 2020, the highest court docket directed the state governments, that are but to return out with notifications for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’, to take action. It additionally requested the excessive courts to expedite the method of session with state governments.

    The plea contended that sections within the Act present that the state authorities in session with the excessive court docket will appoint a ‘Nyayadhikari’ for every ‘Gram Nyayalaya’.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought a reply from all excessive courts on a plea for the Centre and all states to take steps to arrange ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ underneath the supervision of the apex court docket.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, NGO National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and others, submitted earlier than a bench headed by Justice S.A. Nazeer that regardless of a course from the highest court docket in 2020, many states have but not taken any motion.

    He added that these ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ needs to be such that folks could possibly articulate their grievances with out requiring a lawyer.

    In 2008, the Parliament handed an Act for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’ on the grassroots stage for offering entry to justice to residents on the doorstep.

    The bench, additionally compromising Justice V. Ramasubramanian, mentioned the excessive courts needs to be made a celebration within the matter as they’re the supervisory authority. After listening to arguments, the bench issued discover to the Registrar General of all excessive courts and made them events within the case, and scheduled the matter for additional listening to on December 5.

    In 2020, the highest court docket directed the state governments, that are but to return out with notifications for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’, to take action. It additionally requested the excessive courts to expedite the method of session with state governments.

    The plea contended that sections within the Act present that the state authorities in session with the excessive court docket will appoint a ‘Nyayadhikari’ for every ‘Gram Nyayalaya’.

  • Big query mark over Election Commission’s equity in previous few years: Prashant Bhushan

    By PTI

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday mentioned the equity of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come underneath cloud in the previous few years.

    He accused the ECI of protecting mum when massive leaders from the ruling celebration violate the ballot code, whereas performing swiftly towards the opposition events in such instances, and likewise claimed that the schedule of elections is made protecting in thoughts the comfort of the federal government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is underneath menace and people talking towards the federal government face sedition and different critical expenses, and they don’t seem to be in a position to get bail for years.

    He was talking on the subject ‘Challenges earlier than Democracy ‘ throughout a programme organised right here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi each day.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he mentioned.

    The Election Commission takes motion if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition events. But it retains quiet when massive leaders from the ruling celebration violate it. We have been witnessing this for a really very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are ready as per the comfort of the federal government, he mentioned.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he mentioned.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he mentioned.

    Bhushan additionally alleged that there was an absence of independence in all regulatory establishments, and termed it as one of many greatest issues. He mentioned the judiciary was fashioned to guard the basic rights of individuals and to maintain the legislature and the chief inside limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he mentioned.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the digital voting machines (EVMs), he mentioned that though there was no important manipulation in EVMs at current, within the coming occasions it can’t be dominated out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he mentioned.

    In order to sort out these challenges, a lot of reforms will be introduced by introducing Initiatives and Referendum regulation, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation regulation, he mentioned, including that parliamentary committees needs to be revived.

    Since the opposition has turn into weak now, these reforms can’t be executed by it alone and therefore individuals want to boost their voices now. They can elevate voices towards unfair practices like which was executed for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch massive agitations on points like unemployment and privatisation of public sector models, which will even strengthen the opposition, he mentioned.

    Replying to a question by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking on the difficulty of electoral bonds on a precedence foundation, Bhushan mentioned the federal government was not within the situation and doubtless they had been stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he mentioned.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL difficult legal guidelines allowing funding of political events by way of the electoral bond scheme.

    When requested whether or not the opposition events would be capable of put up a united struggle towards the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) within the subsequent elections, he mentioned he was undecided whether or not united opposition can be a good suggestion or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he mentioned.

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday mentioned the equity of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come underneath cloud in the previous few years.

    He accused the ECI of protecting mum when massive leaders from the ruling celebration violate the ballot code, whereas performing swiftly towards the opposition events in such instances, and likewise claimed that the schedule of elections is made protecting in thoughts the comfort of the federal government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is underneath menace and people talking towards the federal government face sedition and different critical expenses, and they don’t seem to be in a position to get bail for years.

    He was talking on the subject ‘Challenges earlier than Democracy ‘ throughout a programme organised right here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi each day.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he mentioned.

    The Election Commission takes motion if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition events. But it retains quiet when massive leaders from the ruling celebration violate it. We have been witnessing this for a really very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are ready as per the comfort of the federal government, he mentioned.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he mentioned.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he mentioned.

    Bhushan additionally alleged that there was an absence of independence in all regulatory establishments, and termed it as one of many greatest issues. He mentioned the judiciary was fashioned to guard the basic rights of individuals and to maintain the legislature and the chief inside limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he mentioned.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the digital voting machines (EVMs), he mentioned that though there was no important manipulation in EVMs at current, within the coming occasions it can’t be dominated out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he mentioned.

    In order to sort out these challenges, a lot of reforms will be introduced by introducing Initiatives and Referendum regulation, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation regulation, he mentioned, including that parliamentary committees needs to be revived.

    Since the opposition has turn into weak now, these reforms can’t be executed by it alone and therefore individuals want to boost their voices now. They can elevate voices towards unfair practices like which was executed for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch massive agitations on points like unemployment and privatisation of public sector models, which will even strengthen the opposition, he mentioned.

    Replying to a question by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking on the difficulty of electoral bonds on a precedence foundation, Bhushan mentioned the federal government was not within the situation and doubtless they had been stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he mentioned.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL difficult legal guidelines allowing funding of political events by way of the electoral bond scheme.

    When requested whether or not the opposition events would be capable of put up a united struggle towards the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) within the subsequent elections, he mentioned he was undecided whether or not united opposition can be a good suggestion or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he mentioned.

  • Hijab Ban| Rules say that instructional establishments have energy to prescribe uniform: Supreme Court

    Express News Service

    While listening to pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there have been statutory guidelines which say that instructional establishments have the ability to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s rivalry that the faculties couldn’t prohibit entry for not carrying a gown and {that a} public establishment significantly a authorities establishment couldn’t impose a gown code, Justice Hemant Gupta requested, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia mentioned. 

    Bhushan additionally argued that over time, Muslim women carrying hijab had acquired relgious id which was protected beneath article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the extreme fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained college students to put on the hijab, or customary Islamic headband to instructional establishments was the dropout of Muslim women, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim women in Dakshina Kannada took switch certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the decide’s query as as to if the TC’s had been taken after completion of the category, Sibal mentioned that they had been taken earlier than completion of the category. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal mentioned. 

    He additionally added that the consequence of depriving younger women is depriving them of the basic proper of entry to training, privateness, dignity.  Sibal additionally mentioned that there was no “compelling need” for the state authorities to move the GO. 

    Referring to some college students carrying orange shawls to protest towards Hijab,  the bench mentioned, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement will not be respectful of the minority neighborhood, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves informed the courtroom. He additionally mentioned the judges and courts should ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional safety 75 years in the past, what’s the distinction between a turban and hijab? Women really feel concerning the hijab with the identical depth and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels concerning the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban solely affected Muslim women carrying hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination because it discriminated faith in addition to intercourse.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the truth that there isn’t any idea of barter of basic rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned, GO was an govt order & if the federal government wished to limit hijab, it might solely be carried out by means of regulation. 

    While listening to pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there have been statutory guidelines which say that instructional establishments have the ability to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s rivalry that the faculties couldn’t prohibit entry for not carrying a gown and {that a} public establishment significantly a authorities establishment couldn’t impose a gown code, Justice Hemant Gupta requested, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia mentioned. 

    Bhushan additionally argued that over time, Muslim women carrying hijab had acquired relgious id which was protected beneath article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the extreme fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained college students to put on the hijab, or customary Islamic headband to instructional establishments was the dropout of Muslim women, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim women in Dakshina Kannada took switch certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the decide’s query as as to if the TC’s had been taken after completion of the category, Sibal mentioned that they had been taken earlier than completion of the category. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal mentioned. 

    He additionally added that the consequence of depriving younger women is depriving them of the basic proper of entry to training, privateness, dignity.  Sibal additionally mentioned that there was no “compelling need” for the state authorities to move the GO. 

    Referring to some college students carrying orange shawls to protest towards Hijab,  the bench mentioned, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement will not be respectful of the minority neighborhood, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves informed the courtroom. He additionally mentioned the judges and courts should ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional safety 75 years in the past, what’s the distinction between a turban and hijab? Women really feel concerning the hijab with the identical depth and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels concerning the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban solely affected Muslim women carrying hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination because it discriminated faith in addition to intercourse.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the truth that there isn’t any idea of barter of basic rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned, GO was an govt order & if the federal government wished to limit hijab, it might solely be carried out by means of regulation. 

  • SC agrees to listing plea on non-payment of wages to lakhs of employees below MGNREGA

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:  The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to listing the plea alleging non-payment of wages to lakhs of employees below the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA).
     
    The plea by advocate Prashant Bhushan has stated that there’s at the moment a grave disaster confronted by crores of employees below the scheme within the nation, with their pending wages piling up together with destructive balances in a lot of the states.
     
    It has added that as of November 26, 2021, the state governments are going through a scarcity of Rs 9682 crores and 100% of the allotted funds for the 12 months have been exhausted with 5 months of the 12 months nonetheless remaining.

    “This is despite this excuse of shortage of funds being a gross violation of the law…” The petition states.

    The plea by Swaraj Abhiyan says that the actual demand for work from registered job cardholders will not be precisely registered within the system, denying the job card holders their statutory proper to employment or failing which ‘unemployment allowance’.
     
    It seeks pressing instructions to redress this example and supply reduction to lakhs of rural poor.
     
    The petitioner additionally seeks pressing instructions from this courtroom to offer 50 ‘additional days of employment’ below the Act to every family and to precisely enable registration of demand for work straight on the official web site.

    The petition talks concerning the Preamble and the Act gives assured wage employment of a minimum of 100 days for each rural family. It says that that is a very powerful provision to be fulfilled.

    “It allows households facing distress due to unemployment, underemployment, or other economic hardships to get at least 100 days of work at the wage rate stipulated by the Government, and use the wage for survival and basic income security,” it stated,

    The plea notes that achievement of those targets depends on work being offered as per the legislation.
     
    “If work is not provided as per the guarantee, all the other aspects of this comprehensive social safety net fail to be realized. The social safety net falls flat if the job cardholders are unable to exercise their statutory right to apply for and get work on demand,” it’s argued.

    The petition contends that the worth of the scheme will increase exponentially throughout occasions of calamities and disasters, and due to this fact it’s much more essential in such occasions that the employees can safe their entitlements below the legislation seamlessly.

    “In truth, the MGNREGA makes particular provisions for extra days of employment to be offered in occasions of catastrophe and calamity,” it added.

  • Lakhimpur Violence: Why Ashish Mishra’s bail shouldn’t be abolished … Supreme Court requested inquiries to the UP authorities

    Lucknow: The Supreme Court has heard the petition in opposition to the bail of the son of Union Minister of State for Home Ajay Mishra Teni, accused within the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The Supreme Court has issued a discover to the state authorities asking why the bail of accused Ashish Mishra Monu shouldn’t be terminated. The court docket has additionally issued directions to make sure the security of the witnesses.

    Against the bail plea of ​​Ashish Mishra, the counsel for the petitioners, Prashant Bhushan, mentioned that the order of the High Court was mistaken in view of the seriousness of the form of offense that had been dedicated. Along with this, Bhushan additionally accused the witness of the incident of murderous assault earlier than the listening to.

    A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli heard the matter. Actually, on this excessive profile case, the SIT of Uttar Pradesh had filed a cost sheet of 5 thousand pages. Making Ashish Mishra the principle accused, a case was registered below the Arms Act together with different sections together with deliberate homicide, try and homicide.

    UP Chunav Fourth Phase: Ajay Mishra Teni casts his vote amidst heavy safety, watch video

    On October 3 final 12 months, 4 farmers have been killed in violence close to Banvirpur village of Lakhimpur MP and Union Minister of State for Home Ajay Mishra Teni. At the identical time, 4 folks together with a BJP employee, a neighborhood journalist, a driver have been additionally killed on this incident. The SUV with which the farmers have been crushed was reportedly a part of the minister’s convoy.

    The Supreme Court has now issued a route to place the matter for listening to after the Holi vacation. It is price mentioning that the accused Ashish was granted bail by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court previously. The kinfolk of the deceased had opposed the choice and mentioned that they might problem it within the Supreme Court.

    Ashish Mishra Monu (file photograph)

  • Bhushans: Court once more rejects police plea to shut case, says probe extra

    For the second time in 9 years, a Delhi courtroom has rejected a Delhi Police request to shut a 2011 case concerning an audio CD and directed it to analyze the CD contents once more.
    The case pertains to a purported cellphone dialog between former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh (who handed away final 12 months) through which a voice, allegedly that of Bhushan, refers to his lawyer-son Prashant Bhushan who can “manage… very well” and to a then Supreme Court decide.
    The re-investigation path got here on January 28 this 12 months. In its April 2014 “untrace report”, the Special Cell of Delhi Police had mentioned although Shanti Bhushan “suspected that “Amar Singh “could be behind the fabrication and circulation of the audio CD to malign his reputation” and that its circulation among the many media “was intended as an attempt to force him to leave the joint drafting committee for the Jan Lokpal Bill, since Mr Kapil Sibal and Sh P Chidambaram, the Union Ministers, were against his participation as co-chairman of the drafting committee… he could not put forward any worthwhile evidence in support of his allegations against… Chidambaram… Sibal and… Singh except oral allegations”.
    “It is not correct to proceed against anyone only on the basis of presumptions and without any substantial and corroborative evidence. Hence this case is being filed as untraced for want of any sufficient evidence,” police mentioned in its report.
    Police additionally cited a CFSL Delhi report which mentioned that contents of the CD had not been copied from the Amar Singh tapes that did the rounds following alleged tapping of his cellphone in 2005-06 – thereby rejecting a declare made by Prashant Bhushan.

    After going by the report, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma mentioned it seems that “the investigation has not been carried out in terms” of the courtroom’s earlier “order dated 25.01.2012 wherein police was directed to investigate the matter on nine points”.
    The CMM “further directed” the probe officer “to investigate the contents of the CD in question and file a report”. Although Shanti Bhushan’s counsel didn’t oppose the police request to simply accept the “untrace report” since Amar Singh was already lifeless, the courtroom handed its order.
    The case was registered on April 15, 2011 following a criticism by Shanti Bhushan that the CD appeared to have been “fabricated to malign me” and that its contents have been “defamatory”.
    The contents of the audio CD was first reported by The Indian Express – it was obtained on the workplace of The Indian Express on April 13, 2011, in an unsigned envelope, with out handle of the sender, and the newspaper subsequently despatched it to the Chief Justice of India.
    The Bhushans, who have been at the moment non-government representatives in a panel constituted to draft the Lokpal Bill following a quick by social activist Anna Hazare, denied that the cellphone dialog ever came about and referred to as it a “conspiracy” to weaken the Anna motion.
    Prashant Bhushan additionally instructed that it might have been a part of makes an attempt to intrude within the judicial course of in two instances through which he was the petitioner.
    On July 27, 2011, the Special Cell had filed a cancellation report with the CMM Tis Hazari stating that although the “CD in question is not doctored/tampered with” however the “allegations… that the CD has been fabricated in order to malign him (Shanti Bhushan) could not be substantiated and hence the offence of forgery u/s 469 IPC was not made out”.
    The investigators relied on a report of the CFSL, Delhi and Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) in addition to assertion of Amar Singh to reach at this conclusion.
    In his assertion in July 2011, Singh informed police that “few years back, Shanti Bhushan had visited him from Hotel Taj Man Singh. Sh. Virendra Bhatia, the then Advocate General of UP Government, was also present with him. During discussion regarding some case of Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav pending in the Allahabad High Court, (may be case of defection against Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav), Sh. Shanti Bhushan wanted to talk to Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav. He (Amar Singh) called Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav from the land line number of his residence and left the room after handing over the receiver of the phone to Sh. Shanti Bhushan, hence he did not listen the conversation between them”.
    Police mentioned Singh additionally “confirmed part of the conversation taken place between him and Sh. Mulayam Singh Yadav”.
    Two protest petitions, opposing the cancellation plea, have been filed – one by Shanti Bhushan and one other by two attorneys. Shanti Bhushan mentioned opinions given by an professional within the US and one other by Hyderabad-based Truth Labs had “clearly found the conversation in CD to be ‘doctored’.” In the Truth Labs examination, some sentences, he mentioned, “were found verbatim copied from” the Amar Singh tapes and that “the copies thereof (of these two reports) were supplied to the investigating agency, but the said opinions were withheld in the final (cancellation) report”.
    After listening to the protest petitions, the courtroom, on January 25, 2012, refused to simply accept the cancellation report and despatched the case again for additional probe on 9 grounds together with the supply of the CD, who ready and circulated it, date and time of its preparation, motive behind its creation.
    Police obtained voice samples of Singh, Yadav and Shanti Bhushan and despatched them to CFSL Delhi which “opined that voices contained in the CD in question were the probable voices of” the trio.
    Virendra Bhatia couldn’t be examined as a result of he had handed away in 2010.

    When The Sunday Express sought his feedback on the courtroom order for additional probe, Shanti Bhushan blamed Amar Singh and mentioned “the police were not interested in properly investigating… The CD came when Anna nominated me and Prashant (Bhushan) to the drafting committee.”
    “They should have properly investigated because it was quite clear that this was a fabricated CD. Therefore, who were the parties in the conspiracy for the fabrication of the CD was to be found out by the police…They wanted to destroy my reputation by manufacturing a false CD,” he mentioned, including that the “court should transfer the investigation to CBI”.
    Prashant Bhushan mentioned: “The Truth Labs had examined the two tapes and had come to the conclusion that Mulayam Singh’s voice had been lifted from the Amar Singh tapes. Clearly, this particular tape, this CD was fabricated. Because Amar Singh’s voice is also there in it, therefore Amar Singh had to be complicit in fabricating it. Police did not do a proper job. That is why they are again and again being asked to reinvestigate.”

  • Supreme Court agrees to listen to plea searching for launch of Rohingya detained in J&Ok

    The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up for listening to a petition searching for the quick launch of detained Rohingya in Jammu and Kashmir, and instructions to restrain the Centre from deporting them again to Myanmar. The apex court docket will hear the plea on March 25.
    The plea, filed by a Rohingya refugee, Mohammed Salimullah, via Advocate Prashant Bhushan, stated “these refugees have been illegally detained and jailed in the Jammu Sub Jail which has been converted into a holding centre with the IGP (Jammu) Mukesh Singh stating that they face deportation back to Myanmar following verification by their embassy”.
    Referring to experiences of their “imminent…deportation”, the plea stated, “This goes against India’s commitment to refugee protection and its obligations against refouling refugees to a place where they face persecution and is a violation of the Article 21 rights of all Rohingya persons living in India.”
    Though there will be nationwide safety exceptions to the non-refoulement rule, “any” such “exception” “must be rigorously and carefully proved”, the plea stated.

    Earlier this month, the J&Ok administration arrange “holding centres” beneath the Foreigners Act within the Hiranagar sub-jail in Kathua, and rounded up 168 Rohingya refugees, together with ladies and youngsters, from Jammu and positioned them there.
    A senior authorities official advised The Indian Express, “These immigrants were not holding valid passports required in terms of Section (3) of the Passports Act.”

  • ‘Andolan jeevi’ comment by PM Modi in Parliament irks Opposition

    Image Source : PTI PM Modi urged farmers to offer farm legal guidelines an opportunity.
    Speaking in Rajya Sabha on Monday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi slammed the mushrooming of a brand new breed of ‘skilled protestors’. PM Modi used the Hindi phrase  ‘andolan-jivi’ to explain a gaggle of people that are likely to hijack each protest or motion that has taken place within the nation within the latest previous. 

    “We are well aware of some terms like ‘shram-jivi’ and ‘buddhi-jivi’. But, I am seeing that from some time a new entity has come up in this country- ‘andolan-jivi’. This community can be spotted wherever there is a protest, be it agitation by lawyers, students, or labourers, sometimes at the forefront and sometimes from behind. These parasites feast on every agitation,” he mentioned. 

    ALSO READ: ‘Give farm reforms an opportunity, open to modifications’: PM Modi appeals farmers to finish agitation

    Reacting to PM Modi’s comment, Supreme Court lawyer and activist, Prashant Bhushan mentioned the feedback have been humiliating to the protesting farmers. 

    “Those to earlier claimed that they have made their political career through protests, are now calling farmers ‘andolan-jivi’ to humiliate them,” Bhushan mentioned in his tweet in Hindi. 

    Senior Congress chief and Maharashtra minister Ashok Chavan termed PM Modi’s selection of phrases as an ‘insult’ to farmers.

    “The farmer is one the key elements which is keeping the humanity alive. Using the word ‘andolan-jivi’ sarcastically for farmers’ agitation is an insult to farmers. It is disrespectful to them. Such usage is unacceptable,” Chavan, who holds PWD portfolio within the Uddhav Thackeray authorities, tweeted.

    Thousands of farmers have been tenting at Delhi’s borders since November demanding the repeal of three new agriculture legal guidelines that they are saying will finish the minimal help value (MSP) based mostly procurement of crops like wheat and paddy by the federal government and usher in massive corporates into the farm sector.

    They have rejected the federal government’s provide to droop the reforms for 18 months and haven’t joined talks after 11 rounds of talks ended final month.

    (With PTI inputs)
    Latest India News

  • Veil of privateness could be lifted for reliable state curiosity: Centre response in Delhi HC

    THE Centre Friday advised the Delhi High Court that although the suitable to privateness has been held to be a “sacred fundamental right” and is being “respected” by the federal government, the “veil of privacy” could be lifted for sure “legitimate state interest”.
    The authorities stated lawful interception, monitoring or decryption of any messages or info saved in any laptop assets is finished by authorised companies after due approval in every case by the competent authority.
    The authorities was responding to a petition looking for everlasting halting of the Centre’s surveillance tasks — Centralized Monitoring System (CMS), Network Traffic Analysis (NETRA) and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID). The petitioners have contended that these allow authorities authorities to intercept, retailer, analyse and retain phone and web communications information in bulk in violation of the basic proper to privateness.
    The PIL, filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Software Freedom Law Center, seeks structure of a everlasting and unbiased oversight authority — judicial or parliamentary — for authorising and reviewing interception and monitoring orders or warrants issued underneath the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the IT Act, 2000.
    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, showing for the petitioners, has argued that the three methods enable the federal government a 360 diploma surveillance of all residents, together with judges.
    The authorities Friday stated the curiosity of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of the nation, safety of the State, pleasant relations with overseas states or public order fall underneath “legitimate state interest”.
    “The grave threats to the country from terrorism, radicalization, cross-border terrorism, cybercrime, organized crime, drug cartels cannot be understated or ignored and a strong and robust mechanism for timely and speedy collection of actionable intelligence including digital intelligence, is imperative to counter threats to the national security. This is undeniably legitimate State interest,” it stated.

    The authorities stated there isn’t a blanket permission to any company for interception or monitoring or decryption. “Every proposal received from authorized law enforcement agencies for interception and monitoring, are scrutinized by the dedicated unit of the Ministry of Home Affairs with strict security and confidentiality before consideration by Central Government, for the approval as per the legal provisions,” the federal government reply said.
    It stated present safeguards of oversight by the excessive stage committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary at Central stage and by the Chief Secretary on the state stage are sufficient.