Latest news with #JusticeKant
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Ashoka prof Mahmudabad can return to social media, SC raps SIT on probe
The Supreme Court on Wednesday relaxed Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad's bail conditions, allowing him to resume writing online posts or articles, except on topics related to the subjudice case, reported PTI. He was arrested by the Haryana Police on May 18 after two First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed in connection with his posts on the Indian Army's 'Operation Sindoor'. The top court granted him bail on May 21. A SC bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, on Wednesday, said, 'He is free to express any opinion except on the sub-judice case.' The bench also raised concerns over the direction of the investigation being carried out by the Haryana Police's Special Investigation Team (SIT), stating that it had 'misdirected itself' in its handling of the case. It further directed the SIT it to restrict its inquiry to the two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against Mahmudabad over his social media posts on Operation Sindoor. 'We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself. They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,' Justice Kant said, as quoted by LiveLaw. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, told the court that the SIT seized his devices and also enquired about foreign trips for the last ten years, LiveLaw reported. Court questions seizure of personal devices The bench noted that there was no justification for seizing the professor's electronic devices as part of the investigation. 'We just want to know from what purpose they have seized devices? We will call them (officers),' Justice Kant said. It also added that since Mahmudabad was cooperating with the investigation, 'there was no need to summon him again.' 'You don't require him (Mahmudabad), you require a dictionary,' Justice Kant observed. It further directed the SIT to examine whether an offence had been made out under the FIRs and submit a report within four weeks. Mahmudabad's social media posts: Background Mahmudabad was held for making alleged derogatory remarks toward the Indian Army and two women officers — Colonel Sofia Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh — who appeared at media briefings on 'Operation Sindoor'. In his post, he described the appearance of two women officers at a press briefing as mere 'optics' and 'just hypocrisy'. The remarks drew strong backlash and were seen as disrespectful towards women in uniform. Shortly after, the Haryana Women's Commission took suo motu cognisance, and a BJP Yuva Morcha leader filed a complaint against him.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
‘Disturbing': SC asks YouTubers who joked about disabled to attend next hearing too
THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday reiterated its call for framing guidelines for social media users, balancing freedom of speech and expression with rights and duties. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this as it heard a plea by M/s SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Cure Foundation accusing YouTubers Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar of cracking insensitive jokes on persons with disabilities (PwDs). Complying with the court's direction during the last hearing, the five appeared before the Bench Tuesday. The Supreme Court gave them two weeks to file a counter-affidavit and directed all except Sonali Thakkar to appear again before the bench on the next date of hearing. Thakkar has been allowed to appear online. 'Respondents number 6-10 are present in court in compliance with our order. Their counsel seeks and is granted two weeks to file counter-affidavit… No further time shall be granted… Respondents 6-8 and 10 shall remain present in person on the next date as well. Any absence shall be viewed seriously. Respondent No.9 (Sonali Thakkar) is permitted to appear online,' the bench said in its order. Justice Kant said, 'Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined. (SMA Cure) Foundation has raised serious issues. Something very disturbing.' The court is also seized of two other petitions by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for clubbing of FIRs lodged against them in connection with allegedly objectionable remarks made on 'India's Got Latent' show. In May, the court while hearing Allahabadia's plea to club the FIRs against him had flagged the need to put regulations in place for social media use. It also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter. On Tuesday, the Attorney General sought more time to assist the court. He said the question of their enforceability will have to be considered at length. Allowing the request, Justice Kant said, 'We would like to test the guidelines… You have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts — where the limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start… We would like to invite open debate on that… Members of Bar, stakeholders and all so-called stakeholders, all invited.' He sought to stress that Article 21, which deals with the right to life and liberty, would prevail over Article 19, which deals with freedom of speech and expression. 'Right to dignity also emanates from the right which someone else is claiming… Article 19 can't overpower Article 21… Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place,' said Justice Kant. He also pointed to the need to ensure that the guidelines are not misused. 'What we are doing is for posterity. What we do should not be misused by anyone, you have to ensure that too. There has to be a balance. We have to protect citizens' rights,' Justice Kant remarked. Apology before NCW YouTuber Samay Raina appeared before the National Commission for Women (NCW) on Tuesday and submitted a written apology over remarks deemed disrespectful to women in his show 'India's Got Latent'. The NCW summoned Raina over objectionable content in the programme aired on an online platform. During the hearing before NCW chairperson Vijay Rahatkar, Raina expressed regret for his comments and assured the Commission that he would avoid such statements in the future, according to a statement. He also agreed to create content that upholds the dignity of women and spreads awareness about their rights and respect, the NCW statement said.
The Print
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
10 convicts from Jharkhand, including 6 on death row, move SC over long-pending verdict on appeals
Monday, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant took serious note of the petition and issued a notice to the Jharkhand HC for its response. According to the petition, jointly filed by the convicts, verdicts in eight cases were reserved more than three years ago. Judgments in the remaining two have not been pronounced despite a lapse of 2-3 years. New Delhi: Ten convicts from Jharkhand, including six who are on death row, have moved the Supreme Court, complaining against the delayed disposal of their appeals by the state HC. The petition raises important questions regarding convicts' rights to personal liberty and procedural fairness under the criminal justice system. It argues that convicts too have the right to live with dignity under the Constitution. Prolonged delay in disposal of their appeals is antithetical to Constitutional as well as statutory rights. Incidentally, this is the second time that convicts from Jharkhand have sought the top court's intervention in pending verdicts on their appeals filed against trial court decisions. In the previous round, four convicts had filed writ petitions under Article 32—a remedy under the Constitution to move the top court directly for enforcement of a fundamental right. Subsequent to the apex court's notice, the HC had delivered its verdict for all four, resulting in acquittal in three cases. In the fourth case, the HC had referred the case to a third judge due to a difference of opinion between the two judges. Nonetheless, the convict in the fourth case was released on bail immediately. Taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the state HC, Justice Kant's bench had asked its registrar general for a detailed report on the status of such cases, if any. Notably, all the 14 cases that have reached the top court were heard by a division bench of two judges. As per the Jharkhand HC website, Justice Rongon Mukopadhyay led the two-judges bench that heard and then reserved the verdict in these matters. Only the junior judges were different. Justice Mukopadhyay also heads the High Court Services Legal Committee—a legal aid body that provides free legal services to marginalised sections of the society. Three of six death row convicts, who filed their appeals in the HC in 2018, are facing death sentence in rape cases. One of the 10 petitioners has been in jail for more than 16 years and had filed his appeal in the HC in 2013. Six have been in jail for more than a decade, with two having spent more than 15 years behind bars. The remaining three have been in jail for 6 to 8 years now. The petitioners, who moved their petition through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), were represented in the top court by advocate Fauzia Shakil. Before moving the SC, the petitioners and their families repeatedly raised the issue of delayed verdicts with multiple authorities, including the Chief Justice of the HC. They also wrote to the Chief Minister's office and legal aid bodies such as NALSA, state as well as district legal services authority. The delay is not just a procedural violation, but a breach of a statutory mandate too. The petition pointed out that as per the Jharkhand HC rules, a judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. If not pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice may either post the case for delivering the judgment in an open court or withdraw and post it for disposal before an appropriate bench. In terms of the statutory mandate, the rape appeals ought to have been disposed of within six months of the filing of the appeal. Under the Criminal Law (Amendment Act), 2018, which came into effect on 21 April 2018, with the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 376 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc), an appeal filed against the sentence imposed under the rape law must be disposed of within six months from the date of filing of an appeal. The petition is also an attempt to seek correction of earlier Supreme Court judgments that have given relief to death row convicts only when there is delay on the part of the President or Governor in deciding mercy petitions, observing inordinate delay in the execution of death sentence causes mentally agony. Ironically, these judgments have excluded the impact of protracted delays in judicial proceedings, such as confirmation of death sentences or adjudication of criminal appeals, on a convict's mental health and dignity. Courts have criticised the executives—President and Governor—for their inexplicable delay in deciding mercy petitions of death row convicts while commuting them to life sentences, but have refrained from taking into account the judicial impasse that has forced prisoners to remain incarcerated for prolonged periods. Rather, judicial decisions have held that a convict is not under immediate threat of execution when his/her appeal is a subject of judicial consideration, meaning pendency of their case in a court does not affect them psychologically. 'It is further submitted that mere availability of judicial remedies does not eliminate the mental anguish; in fact, protracted delays in judicial proceedings exacerbate the suffering, as the convict is kept in a state of suspended animation—neither assured of life nor facing immediate execution,' the petition has submitted. 'It is respectfully submitted that the pendency of death sentence confirmation hearings or criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, is not a period of calm or relief. Rather, it is a period of uncertainty and anxiety. The convict remains incarcerated under the shadow of a potential execution despite the existence of legal remedies,' it added. Delay in pronouncement of judgments is not just a violation of the right under Article 21, but is a crucial factor for suspension of the sentence, the petition has argued. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Why Supreme Court hasn't confirmed a single death sentence in the last two years
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Probe 171 alleged fake encounters in 2021: SC to Assam rights panel
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The SC on Wednesday asked the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to inquire into 171 alleged incidents of fake encounters carried out by state police in 2021 but said barring a few incidents the PIL petitioner's claim about fake encounters appeared to be speculative. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh disposed of a petition by an advocate Arif M Y Jwadder and said, "We direct the AHRC to issue a public notice inviting all individuals who claim to be aggrieved (victims and their family members) by the alleged police encounters to come forward and furnish relevant evidence." Allowing AHRC to select team of police officials unconnected to the encounters for further inquiry into some cases if the need be, the bench said "fair and impartial inquiry" is a right of citizens aggrieved by police action and expected AHRC to adopt robust measures akin to witness protection protocols to safeguard the privacy, safety and security of those participating in the inquiry process. The state, in its counter-affidavit had said that out of a total of 171 cases, chargesheets have been filed in 125 cases, forwarding reports submitted in 23 cases, and remaining 23 cases are under investigation. Writing the judgment and examining the allegations of the petitioner, Justice Kant said that he has failed to independently place on record any cogent or verifiable material to substantiate the allegations. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Justice Kant said, "After minutely scanning such data, prima facie it seems that barring a few cases, it is difficult to infer that there has been a procedural breakdown, or the guidelines (relating to encounter inquiry) were flagrantly violated. " Referring to the status report relating to each FIR furnished by Assam, the bench said, "These documents prima facie belies the (petitioner's) claim of inaction and do establish that, at least at the foundational level, the criminal process was duly initiated. "
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court directs Centre, IAF not to release officer part of Operation Sindoor from service
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (May 22, 2025) directed the Centre and the Indian Air Force not to release from service a woman officer, who was part of Operation Balakot and Operation Sindoor but was denied permanent commission. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh sought responses from the Centre and the IAF on the plea of Wing Commander Nikita Pandey who claimed discrimination for being denied permanent commission. The Bench called IAF a professional force and said the uncertainty on service was not good for such officers. "Our Air Force is one of the best organisations in the world. Officers are very commendable. Quality of coordination they have exhibited, I think it's unparalleled. Therefore, we always salute them. They are a big asset for the nation. They are the nation, in a way. Because of them, we are able to sleep at night," Justice Kant said. The Bench noted a "tough life" for Short Service Commission (SSC) officers began following their recruitment, which called for some incentive after 10 or 15 years to grant them permanent commission. "That sense of uncertainty may not be good for the armed forces. It's a layman's suggestion, because we are not experts. On minimum benchmarks, there can't be a compromise," Justice Kant said. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the officer, said her client was an expert fighter controller, who participated as an expert in the Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS), which were deployed in Operation Sindoor and Operation Balakot. The senior counsel submitted that the officer had served more than 13.5 years in service but was impacted by a 2019 policy that denied her permanent commission and forced her to conclude her service after a month. 'The officer ranked second in the merit list of expert air fighter controllers in the country,' Ms. Guruswamy added. The Bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the IAF, the reason for not granting the officer permanent commission. Ms. Bhati revealed she belonged to an armed forces background herself, therefore, being receptive of the predicament of such officers but argued that the petitioner was found unfit by the selection board. She said the officer directly moved the Supreme Court without filing any representation and informed the Bench that a second selection board would be considering her case. The Bench ordered Ms. Pandey not to be released from service till further orders and posted the hearing on August 6. The Supreme Court, however, said no equity would be created in her favour and left open all the contentions in the case. Ms. Bhati had no objections in the officers continuing in service as most of the officers in the armed forces were brilliant officers but ultimate question related to the comparative merit and the need for keeping the forces young. She said a "steep pyramidal structure" was followed by IAF which requires that certain officers go out of the service after serving 14 years and new officers come in their place. Justice Kant told Ms. Bhati that armed forces should have the capacity to accommodate all SSC officers in the permanent commission, highlighting women officers performed exceedingly well. "Due to the lack of permanent commission for women officers after a long duration, Short Service Commission recruitment are taking place. That is the reason that inter se competition arises after 10, 12 and 15 years. You can have a policy of taking that many SCC officers, who can be accommodated in the Permanent Commission, if they are found suitable. If you have 100 SCC officers, you should have the capacity to take 100 of them to the permanent commission," the judge said. Ms. Bhati replied that normally out of 100 officers considered for the permanent commission, almost 90-95% officers were found fit but some lost out only on account of comparative merit. "There are a limited number of posts, it's a very steep pyramid structure," she said.
