Report Wire

Tag: UU Lalit

  • Big footwear to fill after CJI Lalit; hope to proceed his good work: Justice Chandrachud

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court decide Justice DY Chandrachud, who will take oath because the fiftieth Chief Justice of India (CJI) on November 9, stated on Monday that he has “very big-sized shoes to fill” as Justice UU Lalit’s successor and hoped to proceed the “good work” initiated by him.

    CJI Lalit, who had a brief tenure of 74 days as the top of the judiciary, is about to demit the workplace on the age of 65 years on November 8 which is a court docket vacation.

    Justice Chandrachud, whereas addressing the farewell operate organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for Justice Lalit, stated the forty ninth CJI confirmed outstanding management and was dedicated to rising entry to justice throughout his tenure.

    CJI Lalit prioritised itemizing of essential constitutional points, decreased pendency and helped remodel the picture of the establishment from a “colonial justice delivery system to a system where people have to be reached out to”, the senior-most apex court docket decide stated.

    “Personally, as your successor, I am conscious that I have very big sized shoes to fill because you have really raised the bar for the chief justice,” Justice Chandrachud, who’s the son of former CJI YV Chandrachud, stated.

    Elevated as a decide of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, Justice Chandrachud may have a tenure of two years because the CJI and is because of retire on November 10, 2024.

    The occasion was attended by a number of dignitaries, together with judges of the Supreme Court and Attorney General of India R Venkatramani.

    “We have seen how he (CJI Lalit) prioritised listing of important constitutional cases and how he ensured accessibility to these hearings for general public by live streaming them. (addressed issued concerning) listing process and improving transparency in registry and decreasing pendency. During my tenure, I hope to continue all the good work that CJI Lalit has begun,” Justice Chandrachud stated.

    He emphasised that establishments strengthen when people work collectively and added that CJI Lalit “expanded the reach of the National Legal Services Authority” and “rolled the wheel in helping us transform the image of our institution from a colonial justice delivery system to a system where people have to be reached out to”.

    Justice Lalit turned the second CJI to be immediately elevated to the apex court docket bench from the Bar.

    Justice S M Sikri, who turned the thirteenth CJI in January 1971, was the primary lawyer to be elevated on to the highest court docket bench in March 1964.

    Justice Chandrachud stated CJI Lalit, whose profession is a mirrored image to public service, was collaborative and consultative with different judges on the bench and was above all, compassionate.

    His tenure as a decide and CJI was marked with an in depth collaboration with the Bar and “that sense of stability” should proceed to stay, which might be my endeavour as nicely, he stated.

    Justice Lalit was a senior advocate and was appointed a particular public prosecutor for the CBI to conduct the trial within the 2G spectrum allocation case earlier than being appointed a decide of the apex court docket on August 13, 2014.

    SCBA president senior advocate Vikas Singh stated though CJI Lalit “unfortunately had a very short tenure”, he addressed points raised by the Bar, together with itemizing of circumstances and “(these) 74 days are a testimony of all that has been done”.

    “The kind of humbleness that he talked to lawyer”there was a lot respect proven to junior-most members of the Bar. It was so humbling,” the senior lawyer stated.

    In his handle, Justice Chandrachud said that whereas appointment to the Supreme Court is an honour, “it can also be daunting for judges coming from the high courts” as the highest court docket “has its own work rhythm” and offers with a wide range of legal guidelines and he “came to grips with criminal law” whereas sitting with the outgoing CJI.

    He additionally stated that one doesn’t settle for judgeship for financial necessities or the perquisites as they’re all “in vain” if one just isn’t true to the “call of consciousness which leads to these offices”.

    Justice Chandrachud stated that CJI Lalit’s manner was an instance on how “we can remain calm even in the most stressful of solutions”, which “reflected his temperament—  a yearning to reach out to unheard voices”.

    “As a chief, despite the limitation on time, he has been kind enough to hear every one, take multiple steps to provide solutions while prioritising consultation and deliberation,” Justice Chandrachud stated.

    He additionally shared his alternate with CJI Lalit on the latter’s dialog with a former CJI on how a decide ought to learn a quick, which “left a deep imprint on his mind”.

    The objective of a decide studying a quick is to “meet the lawyer” intellectually and to not “beat the lawyer” by means of aggression in court docket, he shared.

    During the occasion, SCBA vice-president Pradeep Rai additionally responded to Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s latest assertion on the current Supreme Court collegium system for appointment of judges being “opaque”, saying the “Bar cannot remain silent”.

    Rai asserted that the “collegium system is working absolutely nicely” and stated “he (law minister) is a political person (but) judges do not have the medium to say something or make a statement”.

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court decide Justice DY Chandrachud, who will take oath because the fiftieth Chief Justice of India (CJI) on November 9, stated on Monday that he has “very big-sized shoes to fill” as Justice UU Lalit’s successor and hoped to proceed the “good work” initiated by him.

    CJI Lalit, who had a brief tenure of 74 days as the top of the judiciary, is about to demit the workplace on the age of 65 years on November 8 which is a court docket vacation.

    Justice Chandrachud, whereas addressing the farewell operate organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for Justice Lalit, stated the forty ninth CJI confirmed outstanding management and was dedicated to rising entry to justice throughout his tenure.

    CJI Lalit prioritised itemizing of essential constitutional points, decreased pendency and helped remodel the picture of the establishment from a “colonial justice delivery system to a system where people have to be reached out to”, the senior-most apex court docket decide stated.

    “Personally, as your successor, I am conscious that I have very big sized shoes to fill because you have really raised the bar for the chief justice,” Justice Chandrachud, who’s the son of former CJI YV Chandrachud, stated.

    Elevated as a decide of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, Justice Chandrachud may have a tenure of two years because the CJI and is because of retire on November 10, 2024.

    The occasion was attended by a number of dignitaries, together with judges of the Supreme Court and Attorney General of India R Venkatramani.

    “We have seen how he (CJI Lalit) prioritised listing of important constitutional cases and how he ensured accessibility to these hearings for general public by live streaming them. (addressed issued concerning) listing process and improving transparency in registry and decreasing pendency. During my tenure, I hope to continue all the good work that CJI Lalit has begun,” Justice Chandrachud stated.

    He emphasised that establishments strengthen when people work collectively and added that CJI Lalit “expanded the reach of the National Legal Services Authority” and “rolled the wheel in helping us transform the image of our institution from a colonial justice delivery system to a system where people have to be reached out to”.

    Justice Lalit turned the second CJI to be immediately elevated to the apex court docket bench from the Bar.

    Justice S M Sikri, who turned the thirteenth CJI in January 1971, was the primary lawyer to be elevated on to the highest court docket bench in March 1964.

    Justice Chandrachud stated CJI Lalit, whose profession is a mirrored image to public service, was collaborative and consultative with different judges on the bench and was above all, compassionate.

    His tenure as a decide and CJI was marked with an in depth collaboration with the Bar and “that sense of stability” should proceed to stay, which might be my endeavour as nicely, he stated.

    Justice Lalit was a senior advocate and was appointed a particular public prosecutor for the CBI to conduct the trial within the 2G spectrum allocation case earlier than being appointed a decide of the apex court docket on August 13, 2014.

    SCBA president senior advocate Vikas Singh stated though CJI Lalit “unfortunately had a very short tenure”, he addressed points raised by the Bar, together with itemizing of circumstances and “(these) 74 days are a testimony of all that has been done”.

    “The kind of humbleness that he talked to lawyer”there was a lot respect proven to junior-most members of the Bar. It was so humbling,” the senior lawyer stated.

    In his handle, Justice Chandrachud said that whereas appointment to the Supreme Court is an honour, “it can also be daunting for judges coming from the high courts” as the highest court docket “has its own work rhythm” and offers with a wide range of legal guidelines and he “came to grips with criminal law” whereas sitting with the outgoing CJI.

    He additionally stated that one doesn’t settle for judgeship for financial necessities or the perquisites as they’re all “in vain” if one just isn’t true to the “call of consciousness which leads to these offices”.

    Justice Chandrachud stated that CJI Lalit’s manner was an instance on how “we can remain calm even in the most stressful of solutions”, which “reflected his temperament—  a yearning to reach out to unheard voices”.

    “As a chief, despite the limitation on time, he has been kind enough to hear every one, take multiple steps to provide solutions while prioritising consultation and deliberation,” Justice Chandrachud stated.

    He additionally shared his alternate with CJI Lalit on the latter’s dialog with a former CJI on how a decide ought to learn a quick, which “left a deep imprint on his mind”.

    The objective of a decide studying a quick is to “meet the lawyer” intellectually and to not “beat the lawyer” by means of aggression in court docket, he shared.

    During the occasion, SCBA vice-president Pradeep Rai additionally responded to Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s latest assertion on the current Supreme Court collegium system for appointment of judges being “opaque”, saying the “Bar cannot remain silent”.

    Rai asserted that the “collegium system is working absolutely nicely” and stated “he (law minister) is a political person (but) judges do not have the medium to say something or make a statement”.

  • Concerns flagged on SC collegium’s independence

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: A senior advocate within the presence of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Tuesday flagged considerations about hypothesis that the Supreme Court collegium sends suggestions for the appointment of judges provided that it feels they might be accepted by the federal government.

    “There are whispers in the air and I hope they are not true, of the collegium thinking that they will send recommendations only if they are going to be accepted by the government. This, I think, is a very dangerous thought… If it’s true, it necessarily means prior informal consultation. That would mean the negation of the independence of the judiciary and of the NJAC judgment,” C S Vaidyanathan mentioned on the M K Nambyar Memorial Lecture organised by SASTRA University.

    NEW DELHI: A senior advocate within the presence of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Tuesday flagged considerations about hypothesis that the Supreme Court collegium sends suggestions for the appointment of judges provided that it feels they might be accepted by the federal government.

    “There are whispers in the air and I hope they are not true, of the collegium thinking that they will send recommendations only if they are going to be accepted by the government. This, I think, is a very dangerous thought… If it’s true, it necessarily means prior informal consultation. That would mean the negation of the independence of the judiciary and of the NJAC judgment,” C S Vaidyanathan mentioned on the M K Nambyar Memorial Lecture organised by SASTRA University.

  • CJI recuses from listening to ex-Karnataka CM Yediyurappa’s plea

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Friday recused himself from contemplating a plea filed by former Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa and minister Murugesh Nirani towards a Karnataka High Court order of restoring a felony case associated to denotifying parcels of land throughout his tenure as deputy CM and allotting them to entrepreneurs.

    When the matter was taken up for listening to, the CJI mentioned, “I have some difficulty; I can’t take up this matter. I’m saying this should be before a bench of which I am not a member.” Accordingly, the CJI directed the matter to be listed earlier than an applicable bench after Diwali.

    Yediyurappa had challenged the Karnataka HC’s January 5, 2021, order rejecting his plea to quash a felony grievance filed by A Alam Pasha, alleging that the chief had illegally denotified 20 acres from land acquisition proceedings to unduly favour non-public events. The HC had directed the Special Court to take cognisance and proceed as per regulation on the premise of the chargesheet filed by the Lokayukta police in 2012.

    “That being the position of law, the quashing of the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner in PCR.No.25/2012 for want of sanction, in my view, will not operate as a bar to maintain the instant complaint. The prohibition contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and section 300 of the CrPC does not get attracted to the facts of the case as the respondents have not been prosecuted or acquitted based on the earlier complaint lodged against them in PCR.No.25/2012,” Justice John Michael D’Cunha had mentioned in his order.

    In 2021, a bench headed by the then CJI had refused to remain the HC’s order however had granted them interim safety from arrest. Former CJI SA Bobde, whereas listening to the petition, had mentioned, “You are a sitting chief minister. Who will issue a warrant against you? At most, they can issue a request for you.”

    Questioning the HC’s energy of continuing to take motion underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act towards a public servant with out prior sanction, Yediyurappa in his plea had mentioned, “Intention of the Parliament to offer protection to a Public Servant is also evident from the insertion of Section 17A in the PC Act.”

    NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Friday recused himself from contemplating a plea filed by former Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa and minister Murugesh Nirani towards a Karnataka High Court order of restoring a felony case associated to denotifying parcels of land throughout his tenure as deputy CM and allotting them to entrepreneurs.

    When the matter was taken up for listening to, the CJI mentioned, “I have some difficulty; I can’t take up this matter. I’m saying this should be before a bench of which I am not a member.” Accordingly, the CJI directed the matter to be listed earlier than an applicable bench after Diwali.

    Yediyurappa had challenged the Karnataka HC’s January 5, 2021, order rejecting his plea to quash a felony grievance filed by A Alam Pasha, alleging that the chief had illegally denotified 20 acres from land acquisition proceedings to unduly favour non-public events. The HC had directed the Special Court to take cognisance and proceed as per regulation on the premise of the chargesheet filed by the Lokayukta police in 2012.

    “That being the position of law, the quashing of the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner in PCR.No.25/2012 for want of sanction, in my view, will not operate as a bar to maintain the instant complaint. The prohibition contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and section 300 of the CrPC does not get attracted to the facts of the case as the respondents have not been prosecuted or acquitted based on the earlier complaint lodged against them in PCR.No.25/2012,” Justice John Michael D’Cunha had mentioned in his order.

    In 2021, a bench headed by the then CJI had refused to remain the HC’s order however had granted them interim safety from arrest. Former CJI SA Bobde, whereas listening to the petition, had mentioned, “You are a sitting chief minister. Who will issue a warrant against you? At most, they can issue a request for you.”

    Questioning the HC’s energy of continuing to take motion underneath the Prevention of Corruption Act towards a public servant with out prior sanction, Yediyurappa in his plea had mentioned, “Intention of the Parliament to offer protection to a Public Servant is also evident from the insertion of Section 17A in the PC Act.”

  • SC grants two weeks for Centre to answer Places of Worship Act

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted two weeks to the Centre to reply in pleas difficult the constitutionality of provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, a legislation that protects the identification and character of spiritual locations as existed on August 15, 1947. A bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices Ajay Rastogi and SR Bhat requested the Centre to file its reply by October 31, posting the matter for November 14.

    Stressing the truth that when the validity of parliamentary legislation is below problem, the courtroom is guided by the Centre’s stand, CJI Lalit requested how rather more time the Centre needed to file its response.

    Submitting that the federal government was contemplating its response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the courtroom to grant two extra weeks.

    Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted that the legislation was handed and not using a debate and that sure questions weren’t thought-about by the SC within the Ayodhya verdict that upheld the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The courtroom within the Ayodhya verdict had held that legislation can’t be used as a tool to achieve again in time and supply a authorized treatment to each individual disagreeing with the course that historical past has taken.
    The CJI requested Solicitor General as to what his “personal” views had been on the influence of the Ayodhya judgment on the current pleas.

    “In my opinion, it may not be covered. It cannot be coloured by this side or that side,” Mehta submitted.
    A plea has urged the courtroom to declare sections 2, and three, which criminalise ‘conversion’ of a spot of worship for one faith or sect into one other and likewise part 4 which says worship shall be decided on the idea of the scenario that existed on August 15 1947. 

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted two weeks to the Centre to reply in pleas difficult the constitutionality of provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, a legislation that protects the identification and character of spiritual locations as existed on August 15, 1947. A bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices Ajay Rastogi and SR Bhat requested the Centre to file its reply by October 31, posting the matter for November 14.

    Stressing the truth that when the validity of parliamentary legislation is below problem, the courtroom is guided by the Centre’s stand, CJI Lalit requested how rather more time the Centre needed to file its response.

    Submitting that the federal government was contemplating its response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the courtroom to grant two extra weeks.

    Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted that the legislation was handed and not using a debate and that sure questions weren’t thought-about by the SC within the Ayodhya verdict that upheld the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The courtroom within the Ayodhya verdict had held that legislation can’t be used as a tool to achieve again in time and supply a authorized treatment to each individual disagreeing with the course that historical past has taken.
    The CJI requested Solicitor General as to what his “personal” views had been on the influence of the Ayodhya judgment on the current pleas.

    “In my opinion, it may not be covered. It cannot be coloured by this side or that side,” Mehta submitted.
    A plea has urged the courtroom to declare sections 2, and three, which criminalise ‘conversion’ of a spot of worship for one faith or sect into one other and likewise part 4 which says worship shall be decided on the idea of the scenario that existed on August 15 1947. 

  • Journalist investigating company fraud claims risk, SC asks for making certain his security

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the copy of an affidavit, filed earlier than it in a sealed cowl by an investigative journalist probing a company fraud and claiming he was being stalked and attacked, to be despatched to the workplace of the Attorney General so steps may very well be taken for his security.

    The subject cropped up earlier than a bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit whereas it was listening to a plea associated to an organization which allegedly took loans from 27 banks and siphoned off the cash.

    Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, showing for the petitioner, positioned earlier than the bench an affidavit in a sealed cowl and mentioned the journalist has investigated the company fraud and is now dealing with threats.

    He mentioned the person was additionally attacked on his means house in Noida.

    The bench advised Attorney General R Venkataramani, who was current within the court docket, that there’s an allegation a couple of explicit company fraud being regarded into by a sure set of individuals, together with investigative journalists, and one of many scribes has now filed an affidavit saying he’s being adopted and watched.

    The bench, additionally comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and S R Bhat, apprehended the private security of the journalist could also be compromised.

    “We cannot disclose the name of that gentleman in the form of an order because we do not want it to be known”,  the bench mentioned, including it can ahead a replica of the affidavit to the workplace of the Attorney General.

    “You use your office and see to it that the man is provided security,” the bench orally mentioned.

    The apex court docket mentioned the Attorney General has assured it that the matter will likely be regarded into and sufficient and efficient steps shall be taken to make sure private security of the individual involved and his household.

    At the outset, the bench was knowledgeable by the petitioner’s counsel in regards to the firm having taken loans from 27 banks and a forensic audit report indicating the cash was swindled.

    “I want to place something in sealed cover,” the lawyer mentioned, including, “it is something important”.

    Noting that the journalist is fearing for his life, he urged the bench {that a} senior counsel be appointed to help the court docket as an amicus curiae within the matter.

    “because it is not just Rs 12,700 crore relating to one entity, there are two more entities which were also publicly listed and similar modus operandi have been followed in those entities as well and another Rs 12,500 crores have been siphoned through those two entities. So, total of approximately Rs 25,000 crore has been siphoned,” the lawyer claimed.

    The bench, whereas appointing a senior advocate as an amicus curiae, posted the matter for listening to on November 3.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the copy of an affidavit, filed earlier than it in a sealed cowl by an investigative journalist probing a company fraud and claiming he was being stalked and attacked, to be despatched to the workplace of the Attorney General so steps may very well be taken for his security.

    The subject cropped up earlier than a bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit whereas it was listening to a plea associated to an organization which allegedly took loans from 27 banks and siphoned off the cash.

    Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, showing for the petitioner, positioned earlier than the bench an affidavit in a sealed cowl and mentioned the journalist has investigated the company fraud and is now dealing with threats.

    He mentioned the person was additionally attacked on his means house in Noida.

    The bench advised Attorney General R Venkataramani, who was current within the court docket, that there’s an allegation a couple of explicit company fraud being regarded into by a sure set of individuals, together with investigative journalists, and one of many scribes has now filed an affidavit saying he’s being adopted and watched.

    The bench, additionally comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and S R Bhat, apprehended the private security of the journalist could also be compromised.

    “We cannot disclose the name of that gentleman in the form of an order because we do not want it to be known”,  the bench mentioned, including it can ahead a replica of the affidavit to the workplace of the Attorney General.

    “You use your office and see to it that the man is provided security,” the bench orally mentioned.

    The apex court docket mentioned the Attorney General has assured it that the matter will likely be regarded into and sufficient and efficient steps shall be taken to make sure private security of the individual involved and his household.

    At the outset, the bench was knowledgeable by the petitioner’s counsel in regards to the firm having taken loans from 27 banks and a forensic audit report indicating the cash was swindled.

    “I want to place something in sealed cover,” the lawyer mentioned, including, “it is something important”.

    Noting that the journalist is fearing for his life, he urged the bench {that a} senior counsel be appointed to help the court docket as an amicus curiae within the matter.

    “because it is not just Rs 12,700 crore relating to one entity, there are two more entities which were also publicly listed and similar modus operandi have been followed in those entities as well and another Rs 12,500 crores have been siphoned through those two entities. So, total of approximately Rs 25,000 crore has been siphoned,” the lawyer claimed.

    The bench, whereas appointing a senior advocate as an amicus curiae, posted the matter for listening to on November 3.

  • SC asks States, UTs to reply to points associated to the homeless, plans for winter

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested all states and union territories (UT) to reply inside three weeks to points offered earlier than the court docket in a word by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan concerning the variety of homeless folks, shelter houses and the plans they’ve for them for the upcoming winter season.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit, which was listening to petitions associated to the city homeless, was advised the variety of shelter houses in city areas are grossly insufficient.

    “We are not being pessimistic but the kind of pressure of population we have in this country, whatever you do as of now today after a year or two, there will still be some infirmity or the other,” noticed the bench, additionally comprising Justices S R Bhat and Bela M Trivedi.

    “We have such a large population who are unfortunately without any subsistence, without any kind of means, who are rendered homeless,” it stated.

    The high court docket urged it will be higher if these points are handled by the excessive courts involved.

    Prashant Bhushan, showing for one of many petitioners, stated the apex court docket’s interventions within the matter have had helpful and salutary impact.

    “Do we keep interfering at every juncture?” the bench requested him.

    Bhushan referred to the apex court docket terming housing for the homeless an necessary nationwide concern and constituting a committee headed by former excessive court docket decide Justice Kailash Gambhir.

    He stated the matter has come up for listening to now, after nearly three years.

    “It is essential that all the states be asked to file status reports,” he stated.

    Bhushan stated the states ought to file standing stories giving particulars together with the variety of homeless folks, the variety of shelters useful in every state, their location and the services out there.

    He stated the states must also give particulars about their plans for winter which is approaching.

    The bench stated in its order {that a} word has been submitted by Bhushan which seeks to focus on the prevailing points and sure areas which wants consideration.

    “As stated in the note, certain questions raised in the penultimate paragraph call for detailed response on behalf of every state/Union Territories. We, therefore, direct all States/Union Territories to respond to the note and particularly to questions raised in the note,” it stated.

    The high court docket, which posted the matter for resumed listening to on November 29, directed that the responses be filed inside three weeks.

    During the listening to, the bench was knowledgeable concerning the National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) and likewise that the Centre has present funds to the states and UTs.

    “Now to what extent that financial accommodation has been translated into the form of actual facility is a matter of execution so why should the high courts be not given that particular task?,” the bench stated.

    While listening to the matter earlier, the apex court docket had expressed shock over welfare schemes for the homeless not being successfully applied even after spending 1000’s of crores of rupees.

    The petitioners had referred to a report of the apex court-appointed committee headed by former Delhi High Court decide Justice Kailash Gambhir and stated the variety of shelter houses in some states was a lot lower than required.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested all states and union territories (UT) to reply inside three weeks to points offered earlier than the court docket in a word by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan concerning the variety of homeless folks, shelter houses and the plans they’ve for them for the upcoming winter season.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit, which was listening to petitions associated to the city homeless, was advised the variety of shelter houses in city areas are grossly insufficient.

    “We are not being pessimistic but the kind of pressure of population we have in this country, whatever you do as of now today after a year or two, there will still be some infirmity or the other,” noticed the bench, additionally comprising Justices S R Bhat and Bela M Trivedi.

    “We have such a large population who are unfortunately without any subsistence, without any kind of means, who are rendered homeless,” it stated.

    The high court docket urged it will be higher if these points are handled by the excessive courts involved.

    Prashant Bhushan, showing for one of many petitioners, stated the apex court docket’s interventions within the matter have had helpful and salutary impact.

    “Do we keep interfering at every juncture?” the bench requested him.

    Bhushan referred to the apex court docket terming housing for the homeless an necessary nationwide concern and constituting a committee headed by former excessive court docket decide Justice Kailash Gambhir.

    He stated the matter has come up for listening to now, after nearly three years.

    “It is essential that all the states be asked to file status reports,” he stated.

    Bhushan stated the states ought to file standing stories giving particulars together with the variety of homeless folks, the variety of shelters useful in every state, their location and the services out there.

    He stated the states must also give particulars about their plans for winter which is approaching.

    The bench stated in its order {that a} word has been submitted by Bhushan which seeks to focus on the prevailing points and sure areas which wants consideration.

    “As stated in the note, certain questions raised in the penultimate paragraph call for detailed response on behalf of every state/Union Territories. We, therefore, direct all States/Union Territories to respond to the note and particularly to questions raised in the note,” it stated.

    The high court docket, which posted the matter for resumed listening to on November 29, directed that the responses be filed inside three weeks.

    During the listening to, the bench was knowledgeable concerning the National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) and likewise that the Centre has present funds to the states and UTs.

    “Now to what extent that financial accommodation has been translated into the form of actual facility is a matter of execution so why should the high courts be not given that particular task?,” the bench stated.

    While listening to the matter earlier, the apex court docket had expressed shock over welfare schemes for the homeless not being successfully applied even after spending 1000’s of crores of rupees.

    The petitioners had referred to a report of the apex court-appointed committee headed by former Delhi High Court decide Justice Kailash Gambhir and stated the variety of shelter houses in some states was a lot lower than required.

  • Preventive detention is “serious invasion” of non-public liberty, safeguards have to be strictly adhered: SC 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI:  The Supreme Court on Friday stated preventive detention is a critical invasion of non-public liberty and subsequently no matter little safeguards the Constitution and the regulation authorizing such motion present assume utmost significance and have to be strictly adhered to.

    A bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala made these observations because it quashed an order of preventive detention handed by the Tripura authorities dated November 12, 2021 and directed forthwith launch of an accused for offences underneath the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS).

    “The preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to”.

    The courtroom stated that in view of the article of the preventive detention it turns into very crucial on the a part of the detaining authority in addition to the executing authorities to stay vigilant and “keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye” in passing the detention order on the earliest from the date of the proposal.

    Any unreasonable delay except satisfactorily defined throws a substantial doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order dangerous and invalid as a result of the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the aim of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu, it added.

    The bench stated {that a} query whether or not the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained is determined by the information and circumstances of every case.

    The bench famous that the proposal to take steps to preventively detain the appellant on the finish of the Superintendent of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police (C/S) West Tripura, Agartala is dated June 28, 2021.

    It added that the proposal in flip forwarded by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Crime) on behalf of the Director General to the Secretary, Home Department is dated July 14, 2021.

    The high courtroom stated the order of detention is dated November 12, 2021 and there’s no clarification definitely worth the title why it took nearly 5 months for the detaining authority to go the order of preventive detention.

    It stated within the current case the circumstances point out that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was detached in passing the order of detention with better promptitude.

    The courtroom added that very important materials and information had been withheld and never positioned by the sponsoring authority earlier than the detaining authority.

    The bench stated that within the case available, in each the instances relied upon by the detaining authority for the aim of preventively detaining the accused, he was already ordered to be launched on bail by the involved Special Court.

    The bench stated that it’s clear that within the case available on the time when the detaining authority handed the detention order, this very important reality, particularly, that the bail was granted by the Special Court had not been delivered to the discover and then again, this reality was withheld and the detaining authority was given to know that the trial within the prison instances involved was pending.

    Accused Sushanta Kumar Banik had moved the highest courtroom difficult the order of the Tripura High Court dismissing his plea difficult the detention order handed by the state authorities. He was accused of the offences underneath PIT NDPS Act.

    NEW DELHI:  The Supreme Court on Friday stated preventive detention is a critical invasion of non-public liberty and subsequently no matter little safeguards the Constitution and the regulation authorizing such motion present assume utmost significance and have to be strictly adhered to.

    A bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala made these observations because it quashed an order of preventive detention handed by the Tripura authorities dated November 12, 2021 and directed forthwith launch of an accused for offences underneath the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS).

    “The preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to”.

    The courtroom stated that in view of the article of the preventive detention it turns into very crucial on the a part of the detaining authority in addition to the executing authorities to stay vigilant and “keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye” in passing the detention order on the earliest from the date of the proposal.

    Any unreasonable delay except satisfactorily defined throws a substantial doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order dangerous and invalid as a result of the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the aim of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu, it added.

    The bench stated {that a} query whether or not the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained is determined by the information and circumstances of every case.

    The bench famous that the proposal to take steps to preventively detain the appellant on the finish of the Superintendent of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police (C/S) West Tripura, Agartala is dated June 28, 2021.

    It added that the proposal in flip forwarded by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Crime) on behalf of the Director General to the Secretary, Home Department is dated July 14, 2021.

    The high courtroom stated the order of detention is dated November 12, 2021 and there’s no clarification definitely worth the title why it took nearly 5 months for the detaining authority to go the order of preventive detention.

    It stated within the current case the circumstances point out that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was detached in passing the order of detention with better promptitude.

    The courtroom added that very important materials and information had been withheld and never positioned by the sponsoring authority earlier than the detaining authority.

    The bench stated that within the case available, in each the instances relied upon by the detaining authority for the aim of preventively detaining the accused, he was already ordered to be launched on bail by the involved Special Court.

    The bench stated that it’s clear that within the case available on the time when the detaining authority handed the detention order, this very important reality, particularly, that the bail was granted by the Special Court had not been delivered to the discover and then again, this reality was withheld and the detaining authority was given to know that the trial within the prison instances involved was pending.

    Accused Sushanta Kumar Banik had moved the highest courtroom difficult the order of the Tripura High Court dismissing his plea difficult the detention order handed by the state authorities. He was accused of the offences underneath PIT NDPS Act.

  • No rift in bench over itemizing of circumstances, says CJI Lalit

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Even as a bench led by Justice SK Kaul handed a judicial order saying that the brand new system of itemizing will not be giving sufficient time to take up issues, CJI UU Lalit on Thursday mentioned that each one the judges are fully on the identical web page. 

    Dismissing experiences of a rift between the judges close to the brand new system of itemizing, CJI whereas talking on the felicitation operate organised by the SCBA mentioned that no matter has been reported will not be the right state of affairs. “We’ve taken this new way/style of listing. There are teething problems. Whatever has been reported is not the correct state of affairs. We all judges are completely on the same page,” Lalit mentioned. 

    After taking up because the forty ninth CJI, Lalit for simpler dispensation of justice had modified the system of itemizing. As per the brand new system of itemizing, judges on non miscellaneous days (NMD’s) Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in a mixture of three firstly take up outdated circumstances within the morning session after which take up recent circumstances put up lunch in a mixture of two. 

    But terming the brand new system of itemizing as giving “inadequate time” to take up issues, a bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka whereas adjourning a case Nagesh Chaudhary vs State of UP & Ors of their order on Tuesday had mentioned, “The new listing system is not giving an adequate time to take up matters fixed for hearing like the present case as there are number of matters within the span of afternoon session.” 

    NEW DELHI: Even as a bench led by Justice SK Kaul handed a judicial order saying that the brand new system of itemizing will not be giving sufficient time to take up issues, CJI UU Lalit on Thursday mentioned that each one the judges are fully on the identical web page. 

    Dismissing experiences of a rift between the judges close to the brand new system of itemizing, CJI whereas talking on the felicitation operate organised by the SCBA mentioned that no matter has been reported will not be the right state of affairs. “We’ve taken this new way/style of listing. There are teething problems. Whatever has been reported is not the correct state of affairs. We all judges are completely on the same page,” Lalit mentioned. 

    After taking up because the forty ninth CJI, Lalit for simpler dispensation of justice had modified the system of itemizing. As per the brand new system of itemizing, judges on non miscellaneous days (NMD’s) Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in a mixture of three firstly take up outdated circumstances within the morning session after which take up recent circumstances put up lunch in a mixture of two. 

    But terming the brand new system of itemizing as giving “inadequate time” to take up issues, a bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka whereas adjourning a case Nagesh Chaudhary vs State of UP & Ors of their order on Tuesday had mentioned, “The new listing system is not giving an adequate time to take up matters fixed for hearing like the present case as there are number of matters within the span of afternoon session.”