&w=3840&q=100)
What to know about trial of Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro
The case received renewed attention after President Donald Trump directly tied a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian imported goods to Bolsonaro's judicial situation, which Trump called a witch hunt.
The Supreme Court's order for Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor, among other restrictions, came after Federal Police and prosecutors said Bolsonaro is a flight risk. Authorities, listing multiple social media posts, also accused Bolsonaro of working with his son Eduardo to incite the United States to interfere in the trial and impose sanctions against Brazilian officials.
On Friday, the US State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, prompting President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to condemn what he called the unacceptable interference of one country in another's justice system.
Here's what you need to know about Bolsonaro's trial: The charges against Bolsonaro The prosecution accuses Bolsonaro of leading an armed criminal organization, attempting to stage a coup and attempting the violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage, and deterioration of listed heritage sites.
A federal police investigation placed Bolsonaro at the top of a criminal organization that had been active since at least 2021. Police say that after Bolsonaro's loss to Lula, the organization conspired to overturn the election result.
Part of that plot included a plan to kill Lula and a Supreme Court justice, the prosecution alleges. It also says that the Jan 8 riot when Bolsonaro supporters ransacked top government buildings a week after Lula took office was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet says Bolsonaro's actions were not limited to a passive stance of resistance to defeat, but were a conscious effort to create an environment conducive to violence and a coup.
In the court order unsealed Friday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes said Bolsonaro and his son may also have committed the crimes of coercion during a legal proceeding, obstruction of an investigation involving a criminal organization and attack on Brazil's sovereignty.
What Bolsonaro says Bolsonaro has repeatedly denied the allegations and asserted that he's the target of political persecution. He has echoed Trump and called the trial a witch hunt.
The far-right former leader has now been barred from using social media, but on Thursday, he said on X that those who challenge the system are being punished, silenced, and isolated.
Regarding the restrictive measures carried out on Friday, Bolsonaro called them a supreme humiliation.
I never thought about leaving Brazil, I never thought about going to an embassy, but the precautionary measures are because of that, he told journalists in Brasilia.
Next steps After the prosecution called for a guilty verdict in its final allegations issued Tuesday, the defence will soon present its case, likely in the coming weeks.
The panel of Supreme Court justices that opened the trial against Bolsonaro will vote on whether to convict or acquit him. Experts say a decision is expected before the end of the year.
A guilty verdict on the coup plot charge carries a sentence of up to 12 years, which could, along with guilty verdicts on other charges, bring decades behind bars.
But Antonio Jose Teixeira Martins, a law professor at Rio de Janeiro State University, said Bolsonaro could be detained even before there's a verdict.
Whether this happens or not depends on how events unfold from now on, that is if these new measures prove sufficient to guarantee public order, the application of criminal law and prevent the risk of escape, Teixeira Martins said.
Brazil's top electoral court has already banned Bolsonaro from running in elections until 2030 over abuse of power while in office and casting unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
Bihar Voter List Revision Issue In Supreme Court Today: 10 Points
New Delhi: The controversial Special Intensive Revision or SIR of voter lists in Bihar ahead of the assembly election has been challenged in the Supreme Court and the matter would be heard by a two-judge bench today. Here are the top 10 points from this big story: The petitioners have argued that the SIR exercise would lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of voters. Various opposition parties in Bihar have claimed the disenfranchisement will benefit the BJP as the state machinery will target people opposed to the ruling alliance. The Election Commission, which is conducting the exercise, has argued that it is doing its constitutional duty by weeding the voters' list of people who are dead, migrated of registered multiple times. The Commission has also assured that no name will be deleted from the list without a due process and there will be month after the publication of the draft list on August 1 to hear objections and make changes. The petitioners have alleged that much of the disenfranchisement is happening due to lack of proper documents. The Supreme Court had asked the poll body to consider three documents for SIR -- Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card, and ration card. The court has pointed out that they are foundational records to obtain any of the 11 documents, including residence and caste certificates, listed by the Election Commission for voter verification. The Election Commission has argued that Aadhaar, Electoral Photo Identity Card, and ration card could easily be faked. At a joint press conference with leaders of CPI(ML) Liberation, RJD and CPM, Congress's Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the exercise has become a "citizenship test" and questioned its legality. "This is not a matter of political obstinacy. It is not a matter of institutional arrogance. Please reconsider it," he said. The Election Commission said on Sunday that 22 lakh voters in Bihar have died, 36 lakh people have either permanently shifted or not found, and seven lakh were found to have enrolled at multiple places.
The Print
38 minutes ago
- The Print
Sharda University didn't file FIR on student's suicide, SC informed
The information was given in a status report filed by senior advocate Aparna Bhatt, who has been appointed amicus curiae in the matter by the apex court to assist it. New Delhi, Jul 27 (PTI) The Supreme Court has been informed that the Sharda University in Greater Noida, where a girl student allegedly committed suicide, did not register the FIR in the incident but her parents did and that security guards brought down her body hanging from the ceiling fan of her hostel. In her 30-page report, Bhatt said that in the incident related to Sharda University, the FIR was registered by the parents and not by the university, and two persons named in the suicide note have been arrested. The report also said that postmortem revealed death by asphyxiation, and the investigation is ongoing and would be completed soon. In the detailed report, the amicus curiae gave a sequence of events and different versions of information available of the incident and pointed out that the immediate cause of concern was a complaint by faculty member Dr Mahinder Singh Chauhan (accused and presently in judicial custody) that the deceased had forged the signatures of her teachers in the manual that documents the practical work and is monitored by the teachers with regard to progress made. 'Upon further questioning, the university officials admitted that the warden did not call anyone – neither university authorities, nor the police or the hospital for an ambulance. The body was brought down by the security guards and carried out on a bedsheet by four hostel staff members. The warden eventually called the parents to tell them their daughter was in a serious condition in the emergency room (but did not mention suicide); it is assumed that other students had already informed the parents. 'No call to the PCR was made…The body was taken to a government hospital in Noida for PMR and later taken by the family for last rites. The family has not been in touch with the university or the police since then,' the report said. The status report also gave the police version in which they claimed that a series of protocols to be followed in such cases were violated by the university staff. 'The body has to be moved by the police, but the university staff took it upon themselves to do that. The scene was thus compromised because the warden entered and multiple people left fingerprints in the room. Secondly, the university hospital issued the medico-legal certificate (MLC) to the police, which is also against protocol. However, the officers clarified, the MLC only mentioned that she had no pulse and so on, but no internal examination of the body was conducted by the university hospital,' the report said. Similarly, Bhatt also gave the status of investigation in IIT-Kharagpur case where a fourth year mechanical engineering student allegedly committed suicide. The report said the FIR was registered by the university in which no one named as accused, postmortem contents are not known and investigation status is also not known as the police did not respond. The report said according to the information shared by the registrar, the deceased student had a good CGP (8.5 in the third year) and there was a slight dip in his grade in the last semester of third year but the same was not significant. Bhatt said despite repeated attempts, the police officer could not be contacted and hence the status of the investigation cannot be reported. 'The Amicus is informed by the Registrar of IIT Kharagpur that a post mortem was conducted but they are not aware of the findings,' the report said. On July 21, the top court took suo motu cognisance of the students' deaths in both these institutes and asked the amicus curiae to submit a status report with regard to the incidents. It had noted that a fourth year mechanical engineering student of the IIT, Kharagpur allegedly committed suicide three days after he returned to the institute after two-month summer break and was pursuing a five-year dual degree programme. The bench had also noted that it is the fourth unnatural death at the institute in the past seven months. Similarly, the top court had noted that in Sharda University a 21-year-old bachelor of dental surgery (BDS) second-year student allegedly committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note. The bench said, 'We would like to know how promptly the FIRs were registered in both the cases. We would also like to know who registered the FIRs. We would also like to know how promptly the management of the IIT, Kharagpur and Sharda University acted no sooner they learnt about the suicides. We would also like to know what has the preliminary investigation undertaken so far revealed in both the cases.' The top court has taken serious note of students' suicide in institutions of higher learning, and in March set up a national task force (NTF) to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent such incidents. On July 14, it had asked for a status report from the police in three states on the investigation over the suicides by students of IIT-Delhi, IIT-Kharagpur and a NEET aspirant in Kota, Rajasthan. The top court in its March 24 verdict appointed former apex court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat as the chairperson of the NTF and said secretaries of a state's higher education department, social justice and empowerment and legal affairs apart from the ministry of women and child development would be its ex-officio members. PTI MNL MNL KVK KVK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
Supreme Court may hear Delhi Govt's plea against blanket ban on overage vehicles today
Chief Minister Rekha Gupta-led Delhi government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the blanket ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai is likely to hear the plea today. The plea seeks to recall the top court's October 29, 2018, order upholding the National Green Tribunal's initial directive. The plea submitted that a comprehensive policy is required to tackle pollution in Delhi-NCR, which gives vehicle fitness based on actual emission levels of individual vehicles as per scientific methods rather than implementing a blanket ban based solely on age. The plea seeks a comprehensive study by the Centre and CAQM to assess the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria. Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said last week that pollution levels of vehicles should be determined based on their usage rather than their age, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the End-of-Life (EoL) vehicle policy. "There are many vehicles that have aged, but because they haven't been used much, their pollution levels are lower. There are so many new vehicles whose age is less but have been used a lot; so we believe that the parameter to determine pollution levels must be the use of the vehicle instead of its age," Sirsa told news agency ANI. On July 24, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran agreed to examine whether BS-VI compliant vehicles should have an end-of-life limit of 15 years for petrol vehicles and 10 years for diesel vehicles in the Delhi-NCR region. The apex court had earlier directed the transport departments of states in the National Capital Region (NCR) that all diesel vehicles more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years old shall not ply in terms of order of the NGT order. "All vehicles, diesel or petrol, which are more than 15 years old shall not be permitted to ply on the roads and wherever such vehicles of this age are noticed, the concerned authorities shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including seizure of the vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. "The vehicles which are more than 15 years old, will not be permitted to be parked in any public area, and they shall be towed away and challenged by the police in accordance with the law. This direction would be applicable to all vehicles without exception i.e. two wheelers, three wheelers, four wheelers, light vehicles and heavy vehicles irrespective of whether commercial or otherwise," the NGT said in its November 26, 2014, order. Recently, the Delhi government implemented 'No fuel for 15-year-old petrol and 10-year-old diesel vehicles' from July 1, 2025, in compliance with the mandate from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). However, within two days of its implementation, the city government, facing public ire, put it on hold, citing 'operational and infrastructural challenges' as the reasons. Key Takeaways The Delhi government's vehicle age ban has been put on hold due to public backlash. The government argues for a more scientific approach to vehicle emissions based on usage, not age. The Supreme Court will review the implications of the ban and consider a comprehensive study.
