Supreme Court pauses Madras High Court order on top cop arrest in kidnapping case
The Supreme Court today set aside the Madras High Court's order that led to the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) HM Jayaram. The top court also directed that the investigation in the kidnapping case allegedly involving him be transferred to the Crime Branch–Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).The apex court made the observations during the resumed hearing of Jayaram's petition challenging the June 16 High Court order, which had directed police to arrest him in connection with a minor's kidnapping case. The high court's order came while it was hearing an anticipatory bail petition by an MLA implicated in the same case.advertisementA bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan also requested the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to assign the bail petition and other matters connected to the kidnapping case to a different bench, noting the 'controversial circumstances' in which the high court had passed its order.
In yesterday's hearing, the Supreme Court had questioned the basis of the ADGP's suspension and called the High Court's order of a ranked officer's arrest 'demoralising'.The bench also noted that there were 'other issues' with how the case had been handled and asked the state government to 'transfer the investigation to an independent authority like the CID.'The Tamil Nadu government informed the court that it would now entrust the investigation to the CB-CID.Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the state, submitted: 'We would want the suspension to continue till investigation is complete. It's according to the rule.'advertisementThe bench, however, questioned the basis of the suspension, pointing out that the state had earlier claimed Jayaram had not been arrested. 'If he was not arrested, then on what basis is he suspended? Do you have a copy of the suspension order?' the bench asked.Dave responded that the officer was suspended under Rule 3 of the All India Services Rules, which allows suspension when an inquiry related to a criminal charge is pending. 'As soon as it's completed, a decision will be taken for revocation of the suspension,' he added, clarifying that it was 'dehors (outside) the High Court's order.'Counsel for Jayaram argued that there was no departmental inquiry or FIR against him when the High Court passed its order. 'The High Court has acted as a police station. They arrested me and kept me in custody for 24 hours,' he said. 'I had appeared before the court as an officer of the court and appeared on court orders.'The case concerns an incident involving a runaway couple who have since gotten married. According to submissions made in court, the boy's mother filed an FIR after members of the girl's family allegedly entered their house and kidnapped the boy's younger brother. Fathers of both the girl and the boy have since withdrawn their complaints, telling the court they are 'now samdhis (becoming family through marriage).'advertisementJayaram's counsel maintained that all proceedings against him arose solely from the High Court's order. The Supreme Court observed that since the suspension was independent of the High Court's direction, Jayaram could seek remedy as per law.Earlier, the court granted a passover to allow the state counsel to seek instructions. Following this, the state confirmed its willingness to hand over the investigation to the CB-CID.In its order, the Supreme Court recorded the state's submission that Jayaram's suspension was not a result of the High Court's directive but in accordance with service rules, and that a decision on continuing or revoking it would be taken upon completion of the investigation.The Supreme Court last heard the matter yesterday, when it sought clarification from the state on the grounds for the suspension and arrest.Meanwhile, the counsel for Tamil Nadu told the court that the state government will entrust the investigation to the Crime Branch-Central Investigation Department (CB-CID).Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, however, said, 'We would want the suspension to continue till the investigation is complete. It's according to the rule.advertisementThe ADGP is alleged to be involved in an abduction case of a minor, along with the MLA who had evaded arrest in the same case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: Saraya Industries got no foreign funds since 2007, says Sukhbir
Jun 29, 2025 08:20 AM IST Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) president Sukhbir Singh Badal on Saturday dared Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann to prove that Saraya Industries, in which party leader Bikram Singh Majithia had an inherited share of 11%, had received even one rupee in foreign funding from 2007. Lashing out at the state government over Majithia's arrest, the SAD chief said the case was registered only because Majithia had been 'exposing' the dispensation over various issues. Sukhbir also challenged the CM to prove the disproportionate assets case, asserting that the entire case was based on a bundle of lies. (HT Photo) The Punjab Vigilance Bureau arrested Majithia on June 25 in a disproportionate assets case allegedly involving laundering of ₹ 540 crore 'drug money'. It was Sukhbir's maiden press conference after the arrest of Majithia. Regarding Saraya Industries Limited, he said, 'The only foreign funding received by Saraya Industries was in March,2006 when it received ₹ 35 crore from United States-based Clearwater Corporation in exchange for 25% shares in the company. Majithia entered politics in 2007.' He also made it clear that all transactions of Saraya Industries were scrutinised and accepted by the Income Tax department. Sukhbir also challenged the CM to prove the disproportionate assets case, asserting that the entire case was based on a bundle of lies. Sukhbir asserted that Mann had pressurised the state DGP to register the case because 'Majithia had been constantly exposing him and his corrupt and immoral cabinet colleagues'. He termed the government action 'vendetta politics'. 'An affidavit which the government had submitted to the Supreme Court in 2023 while appealing for cancellation of Majithia's regular bail and seeking his custodial interrogation in an NDPS Act was used verbatim to register this new case against him. This was done despite the fact that the Supreme Court rejected the affidavit in April this year and refused to overturn the regular bail given to Majithia by the high court or grant the request for custodial interrogation,' Sukhbir said. The SAD chief further said that the apex court even asked the AAP government to complete the probe in two days 'following which it has now taken this new route to engage in political vendetta'. He also condemned the manner in which former DGP Siddharth Chattopadhyaya and ex-deputy director of Enforcement Directorate Niranjan Singh were called by the Vigilance Bureau to share information regarding the drug case. He claimed that his party had conclusive proof of the corrupt activities of the CM and his wife.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court has limited the use of nationwide injunctions, a move seen as a victory for Donald Trump, though his birthright citizenship order remains challenged. While the ruling restricts judges' power to block policies nationwide, it allows challengers to pursue class-action lawsuits. This could lead to varied enforcement across states, creating uncertainty for families regarding their children's citizenship status. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A HOST OF POLICIES Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The U.S. Supreme Court 's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump , except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump 's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out."I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions."Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect."I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed."The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court."As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case."Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others."The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School 's immigrants' rights clinic.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
