Supreme Court stays trial in two cases involving Azam Khan's son Abdullah
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government on an appeal filed by Mr. Abdullah.
On July 23, the High Court dismissed two petitions filed by Mr. Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Mr. Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards.
'Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed,' the High Court said.
Mr. Abdullah filed separate petitions in the High Court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA Court.
BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a case against Mr. Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth.
According to the complaint, Mr. Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993.
Mr. Saxena also filed an FIR against Mr. Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019.
Mr. Saxena alleged that Mr. Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 Assembly elections. Mr. Saxena also accused Mr. Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections.
According to him, Mr. Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI). He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a minute ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear T.N. plea against HC order barring it from using name, picture of CM Stalin in welfare schemes
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4, 2025) agreed to hear on August 6 the appeal of the DMK Government against the Madras High Court order asking it not to use names and photographs of present and former Chief Ministers in welfare schemes. A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State Government, that the High Court by its interim order restrained use of names and portraits of the CM and former CMs in welfare schemes. Mr. Rohtagi said it has been held by the Supreme Court that the name and pictures of the CM can be used in welfare schemes. The Bench agreed to hear the plea on Wednesday (August 6). 'Ungaludan Stalin': Madras HC bars naming schemes after living persons The Madras High Court, on July 31, restrained the Tamil Nadu Government from naming any new or rebranded public welfare schemes after living individuals. It also barred the use of portraits of former Chief Ministers, ideological leaders, or any Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) insignia, emblem, or flag in advertisements promoting such schemes. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the order while hearing a PIL filed by AIADMK MP Shanmugam. The MP had challenged the naming and promotion of the government's public outreach programme titled 'Ungaludan Stalin' (With You, Stalin), alleging that it violated established norms. While the Bench clarified that the order did not prevent the State from launching, implementing, or operating any welfare schemes, it stated the restrictions applied solely to the nomenclature and promotional content associated with such schemes.
Hans India
a minute ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Questions Rahul Gandhi's Patriotism Over China Territory Claims, Stays Defamation Case
The Supreme Court delivered sharp criticism to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Monday regarding his assertions that China had seized over 2,000 square kilometers of Indian territory. The justices questioned whether a genuine patriot would make such statements, though they simultaneously halted defamation legal proceedings against the Leader of Opposition. The controversy stems from Gandhi's statements during his 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, where he alleged that Chinese forces had occupied significant portions of Indian land and were physically attacking Indian military personnel in Arunachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, expressed skepticism about the source of Gandhi's information regarding the territorial claims. The justices questioned Gandhi's approach as the Leader of Opposition, suggesting that such concerns should be raised within Parliament rather than through public statements. They emphasized that his position carries significant responsibility and questioned why he would make such assertions publicly instead of utilizing proper parliamentary channels. Gandhi had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court rejected his petition in May, which challenged both the summoning order and the criminal complaint filed against him. The High Court had previously ruled that freedom of speech does not provide protection for statements that defame the military forces. The original complaint was filed by Udai Shanker Srivastava, who accused Gandhi of making disparaging comments about the Indian Army during his political campaign. The complainant alleged that Gandhi's remarks were made in the context of ongoing border tensions with China and were detrimental to the armed forces' reputation. During a 2022 press conference in Rajasthan, Gandhi had criticized the ruling party for allegedly ignoring China's territorial advances and military aggression. He claimed that while media attention focused on internal political matters, insufficient attention was given to what he described as China's capture of Indian territory and violence against Indian soldiers. Gandhi reiterated similar claims in January 2023 while in Jammu and Kashmir, stating that former military officials had corroborated his assertions about territorial loss. He mentioned meeting with retired army personnel and a delegation from Ladakh who allegedly confirmed that Chinese forces had taken control of significant Indian territory. The Congress leader also claimed that former military personnel informed him that numerous patrolling points previously under Indian control had been permanently occupied by Chinese forces. These statements formed the basis of the defamation case filed in Uttar Pradesh, which led to a trial court issuing summons against Gandhi. After receiving the summons, Gandhi approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to have both the proceedings and the summons dismissed. However, the High Court rejected his petition, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court. The case highlights the delicate balance between political criticism and statements that may be perceived as harmful to national interests or military morale. While the Supreme Court has stayed the defamation proceedings, the justices' comments reflect concerns about the appropriateness of Gandhi's public statements regarding sensitive border issues. The matter underscores ongoing political tensions regarding India's border management and the role of opposition leaders in addressing national security concerns. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests that while legal proceedings have been paused, questions remain about the proper channels for raising such sensitive issues in India's democratic framework.
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
In Delhi's Lodhi-era park inside 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali', no badminton or basketball courts, rules SC
The Supreme Court has ordered the park inside the Lodhi-era monument "Gumti of Shaikh Ali" premises not to be used for the construction of badminton or basketball courts. Built during the Lodhi era, the Gumti has been declared protected by the Delhi government's archaeology department.(HT File Photo) The top court had previously directed the Delhi government to issue a fresh notification to declare the Lodhi-era monument "Gumti of Shaikh Ali" a protected monument under law. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah further directed the authorities against any commercial activity, including kiosks or shops in the area. The top court was also assured that the park, comprising four quadrants, would be maintained and beautified for it to retain its natural beauty and might be used for the benefit of the general public. "The only direction which needs to be given here is that it should not be used for any other purpose and no activity such as construction of badminton court, basketball court, etc., be made considering the limitations of the area itself," the bench's July 31 order said. The apex court further directed the court commissioner to coordinate with the department concerned, including the Horticulture Department, for maintenance and beautification of the park. The matter was posted for August 28. The dispute over the monument surfaced when the top court directed the Defence Colony resident welfare association to vacate its structures and pay ₹40 lakh to the archaeology department of the Delhi government as compensation for occupying the historical place since the 1960s. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought to have the Gumti declared a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). The plea was filed in the top court after the Delhi High Court dismissed his plea in 2019. The top court has been regularly passing directions to ensure removal of encroachments, illegal occupation, and beautification of the monument and its surrounding area. Protected monuments under the AMASR Act benefit from legal protection, conservation efforts, and restrictions on activities around them to ensure their preservation for future generations. Such monuments are safeguarded against damage, destruction, and unauthorised construction or excavation in their vicinity.
