Skip to main content
Sabrang

Rule of Law

Sabrang

Bombay HC grants bail to accused Vikram Bhave in Narendra Dabholkar murder case

He has been granted bail on a condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh

06 May 2021

Bombay HC grants bail to accused Vikram Bhave

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Vikram Bhave, an accused in the 2013 murder case of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar holding that there are “not enough reasonable grounds” to conclude that the allegations against him are prima facie true.

According to an Outlook report, a Division Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale noted that there were discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence and “the material on which much emphasis has been placed by the CBI to link the appellant (Vikram Bhave) with the incident in question, does not appear to indicate that the accusation levelled against the appellant can be said to be prima facie true.”

Bhave has been accused of helping two other accused, Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar who allegedly shot Dabholkar on August 20, 2013 in Pune. CBI has reportedly claimed that Bhave had accompanied Sachin and Sharad for a recce of the crime scene and also showed them the escape route.

Early in March this year, the Bombay High Court had criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the State Special Investigation Team (SIT) for not completing their probe into the murders of communist leader, Govind Pansare and Narendra Dabholkar.

While hearing a batch of petitions filed by the families of Dabholkar and Pansare, the same Bench had remarked that the Dhabolkar was murdered in 2013 and the probe into the matter was yet not completed.

According to an Indian Express report, Vikram, who is currently lodged at the Yerwada Central Jail, will be released after submitting a cash bond of Rs 1 lakh. He has also been asked to stay in Pune for a month, surrender his passport and report to the police station for a period of three months.

Related:

Bombay HC disturbed at delay in Dabholkar-Pansare murder investigation

Narendra Dabholkar and his immortal ideas

‘I Shot at Narendra Dabholkar Twice’: Sharad Kalaskar Confesses

Bombay HC grants bail to accused Vikram Bhave in Narendra Dabholkar murder case

He has been granted bail on a condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh

Bombay HC grants bail to accused Vikram Bhave

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Vikram Bhave, an accused in the 2013 murder case of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar holding that there are “not enough reasonable grounds” to conclude that the allegations against him are prima facie true.

According to an Outlook report, a Division Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale noted that there were discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence and “the material on which much emphasis has been placed by the CBI to link the appellant (Vikram Bhave) with the incident in question, does not appear to indicate that the accusation levelled against the appellant can be said to be prima facie true.”

Bhave has been accused of helping two other accused, Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar who allegedly shot Dabholkar on August 20, 2013 in Pune. CBI has reportedly claimed that Bhave had accompanied Sachin and Sharad for a recce of the crime scene and also showed them the escape route.

Early in March this year, the Bombay High Court had criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the State Special Investigation Team (SIT) for not completing their probe into the murders of communist leader, Govind Pansare and Narendra Dabholkar.

While hearing a batch of petitions filed by the families of Dabholkar and Pansare, the same Bench had remarked that the Dhabolkar was murdered in 2013 and the probe into the matter was yet not completed.

According to an Indian Express report, Vikram, who is currently lodged at the Yerwada Central Jail, will be released after submitting a cash bond of Rs 1 lakh. He has also been asked to stay in Pune for a month, surrender his passport and report to the police station for a period of three months.

Related:

Bombay HC disturbed at delay in Dabholkar-Pansare murder investigation

Narendra Dabholkar and his immortal ideas

‘I Shot at Narendra Dabholkar Twice’: Sharad Kalaskar Confesses

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

We cannot gag reporting of proceedings: SC dismisses EC’s plea against Madras HC’s ‘murder’ remark

The apex court held that freedom of speech and expression covers freedom to cover court proceedings too

06 May 2021

ECI

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Election Commission of India’s plea to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by judges in court. The EC had approached the Apex Court after a Bench (Madras High Court) of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had remarked that the EC officers should be booked for murder for irresponsibly conducting political rallies amid the fierce second wave of coronavirus.

Before approaching the Supreme Court, the Election Commission had petitioned the Madras High court, raising the same grievance, but the State court refused to entertain it. “The post-mortem on either count may have to wait, particularly in the light of the immediate measures that may be put in place,” the High Court had said.

On May 3, the Supreme Court had refused to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by judges but had ensured the Election Commission that it would write a balanced order while preserving the strength of state courts and maintaining the sanctity of the Election Commission.

Today, on May 6, the Supreme Court pronounced in open court that freedom of speech includes media coverage of court proceedings. LiveLaw quoted the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah saying, “Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting proceedings in judicial institutions as well. The Courts’ works have a direct impact on the rights of citizens and also to the extent citizens can exact accountability from institutions.. It would do us no good to prevent new forms of media from reporting our work.”

Referring to the reporting of court proceedings in real-time by the digital media, the court also said, “Now people are more digital oriented and hence look to the internet for information. hence it would do no good to prevent a new medium to report proceedings. constitutional bodies will do better than complain about this......With the advent of technology we are seeing reporting with real time updates it’s a part of freedom of speech and expression of press. It’s an extension of open court”, reported Bar & Bench.

The Bench also referred to some foreign countries where courts live stream matters. According to a LiveLaw report, the Bench said, “The courts must be open in the physical and metaphorical sense, except in camera proceedings...open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms….We cannot gag the reporting of proceedings.”

The Supreme Court ruled, “We find no substance in prayer of the Election Commission to restrain the media from reporting court proceedings. It is essential to hold the judiciary accountable.”

In the previous hearing before the Supreme Court, the Bench had said that they cannot demoralise the High Courts as they are vital pillars of the judicial process. The court held that sometimes judges say things spontaneously and they can “say something if they observe something. They have experience”. When Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi (appearing for EC) pointed out that the harsh criticism has to stop, Justice Shah retorted, “Harsh criticism is because we want orders to be followed. Sometimes orders are not followed. Last week, people died in a fire in Gujarat, the HC can say anything looking at the hard realities.”

(To be updated with order)

Related:

Election Commission officers should probably be booked for murder: Madras HC

SC refuses to restrain media from reporting HC oral remarks in EC plea

We cannot gag reporting of proceedings: SC dismisses EC’s plea against Madras HC’s ‘murder’ remark

The apex court held that freedom of speech and expression covers freedom to cover court proceedings too

ECI

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Election Commission of India’s plea to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by judges in court. The EC had approached the Apex Court after a Bench (Madras High Court) of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had remarked that the EC officers should be booked for murder for irresponsibly conducting political rallies amid the fierce second wave of coronavirus.

Before approaching the Supreme Court, the Election Commission had petitioned the Madras High court, raising the same grievance, but the State court refused to entertain it. “The post-mortem on either count may have to wait, particularly in the light of the immediate measures that may be put in place,” the High Court had said.

On May 3, the Supreme Court had refused to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by judges but had ensured the Election Commission that it would write a balanced order while preserving the strength of state courts and maintaining the sanctity of the Election Commission.

Today, on May 6, the Supreme Court pronounced in open court that freedom of speech includes media coverage of court proceedings. LiveLaw quoted the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah saying, “Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting proceedings in judicial institutions as well. The Courts’ works have a direct impact on the rights of citizens and also to the extent citizens can exact accountability from institutions.. It would do us no good to prevent new forms of media from reporting our work.”

Referring to the reporting of court proceedings in real-time by the digital media, the court also said, “Now people are more digital oriented and hence look to the internet for information. hence it would do no good to prevent a new medium to report proceedings. constitutional bodies will do better than complain about this......With the advent of technology we are seeing reporting with real time updates it’s a part of freedom of speech and expression of press. It’s an extension of open court”, reported Bar & Bench.

The Bench also referred to some foreign countries where courts live stream matters. According to a LiveLaw report, the Bench said, “The courts must be open in the physical and metaphorical sense, except in camera proceedings...open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms….We cannot gag the reporting of proceedings.”

The Supreme Court ruled, “We find no substance in prayer of the Election Commission to restrain the media from reporting court proceedings. It is essential to hold the judiciary accountable.”

In the previous hearing before the Supreme Court, the Bench had said that they cannot demoralise the High Courts as they are vital pillars of the judicial process. The court held that sometimes judges say things spontaneously and they can “say something if they observe something. They have experience”. When Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi (appearing for EC) pointed out that the harsh criticism has to stop, Justice Shah retorted, “Harsh criticism is because we want orders to be followed. Sometimes orders are not followed. Last week, people died in a fire in Gujarat, the HC can say anything looking at the hard realities.”

(To be updated with order)

Related:

Election Commission officers should probably be booked for murder: Madras HC

SC refuses to restrain media from reporting HC oral remarks in EC plea

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Manipur: CCM applauds HC order allowing safe passage to Myanmar refugees

The people’s group requested central and state governments to uphold humanitarian rights and obligations

06 May 2021

Manipur high court

Citizens Committee Manipur (CCM) on May 3, 2021 welcomed the High Court’s judgement to uphold human rights of seven Myanmar nationals, who entered India secretly to seek protection provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at Delhi.

The judgement looked into the matter of journalists Pau Khan Thawn, Cing San Lun, Si Thu Aung, Niang Go Man, 10-year-old Nang Sian Mung, 9-year-old NangKhan Hau and 5-year-old Dim Sian Huai Nuam, who fled Myanmar after a military coup in February 2021 and the banning of their media and news service Mizzima.

In the judgement, the Chief Justice insisted that India is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) even if it is not a party to the UN Refugee Conventions.

Accordingly, it said, “The far-reaching and myriad protection afforded by Article 21 of our Constitution, as interpreted and adumbrated by our Supreme Court time and again, would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement.”

Non-refoulement is the principle under international law that a person fleeing persecution from his own country should not be forced to return. The aforementioned people were hiding at Moreh before they were brought to Imphal as per an April 20 High Court order.

However, after considering the case, the Court granted the seven Myanmarese persons safe passage to New Delhi to enable them to avail suitable protection provided by the UNHCR. It told the Foreigners Regional Registration Offices (FRRO) at Imphal airport to immediately provide them with temporary identification cards to enable them to travel to New Delhi, if necessary.

“The state and central governments shall facilitate their travel to New Delhi and shall not cause any obstruction,” said the order.

The complete document can be viewed below:

CCM Convener Babloo Loitongbam applauded the courage and determination of Human Rights Advocate Nandita Haksar and her husband Sebastian Hongray, who selflessly invested time, financial resources and energy to defend rights of asylum seekers.

Similarly, the CCM voiced concern about the other thousands of Myanmar nationals taking shelter in the state’s border villages without any support and protection other than the hospitality and warmth of poor villagers.

“In the last two weeks, generous citizens responded with utmost magnanimity to the appeal of the Humanitarian Sub-Committee of CCM, and this has made it possible to reach some basic needs such as food, clothing, medicine and utensils in four villages in Kamjong District, three villages in Tengnoupal District and three villages in Churachandpur District covering more than five hundred refugees. But this local private humanitarian effort is grossly inadequate to meet the growing needs on-ground,” said Loitongbam.

As such, the CCM urged the state government and the Centre to seriously consider the constitutional and human rights obligations to protect hapless persons as mentioned in the Monday order. Members further said that governments should consider giving unhindered access to the UNHCR to offer their mandated humanitarian services.

Related:

We want to serve humanity: Rohingya refugees offer help amidst Covid

Manipur HC orders safe passage for 7 Myanmarese to seek protection under UNHCR

India and the Myanmar crisis: Death of Justice, Death of Morality

Manipur HC orders safe passage of Myanmar nationals to Imphal

Manipur: CCM applauds HC order allowing safe passage to Myanmar refugees

The people’s group requested central and state governments to uphold humanitarian rights and obligations

Manipur high court

Citizens Committee Manipur (CCM) on May 3, 2021 welcomed the High Court’s judgement to uphold human rights of seven Myanmar nationals, who entered India secretly to seek protection provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at Delhi.

The judgement looked into the matter of journalists Pau Khan Thawn, Cing San Lun, Si Thu Aung, Niang Go Man, 10-year-old Nang Sian Mung, 9-year-old NangKhan Hau and 5-year-old Dim Sian Huai Nuam, who fled Myanmar after a military coup in February 2021 and the banning of their media and news service Mizzima.

In the judgement, the Chief Justice insisted that India is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) even if it is not a party to the UN Refugee Conventions.

Accordingly, it said, “The far-reaching and myriad protection afforded by Article 21 of our Constitution, as interpreted and adumbrated by our Supreme Court time and again, would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement.”

Non-refoulement is the principle under international law that a person fleeing persecution from his own country should not be forced to return. The aforementioned people were hiding at Moreh before they were brought to Imphal as per an April 20 High Court order.

However, after considering the case, the Court granted the seven Myanmarese persons safe passage to New Delhi to enable them to avail suitable protection provided by the UNHCR. It told the Foreigners Regional Registration Offices (FRRO) at Imphal airport to immediately provide them with temporary identification cards to enable them to travel to New Delhi, if necessary.

“The state and central governments shall facilitate their travel to New Delhi and shall not cause any obstruction,” said the order.

The complete document can be viewed below:

CCM Convener Babloo Loitongbam applauded the courage and determination of Human Rights Advocate Nandita Haksar and her husband Sebastian Hongray, who selflessly invested time, financial resources and energy to defend rights of asylum seekers.

Similarly, the CCM voiced concern about the other thousands of Myanmar nationals taking shelter in the state’s border villages without any support and protection other than the hospitality and warmth of poor villagers.

“In the last two weeks, generous citizens responded with utmost magnanimity to the appeal of the Humanitarian Sub-Committee of CCM, and this has made it possible to reach some basic needs such as food, clothing, medicine and utensils in four villages in Kamjong District, three villages in Tengnoupal District and three villages in Churachandpur District covering more than five hundred refugees. But this local private humanitarian effort is grossly inadequate to meet the growing needs on-ground,” said Loitongbam.

As such, the CCM urged the state government and the Centre to seriously consider the constitutional and human rights obligations to protect hapless persons as mentioned in the Monday order. Members further said that governments should consider giving unhindered access to the UNHCR to offer their mandated humanitarian services.

Related:

We want to serve humanity: Rohingya refugees offer help amidst Covid

Manipur HC orders safe passage for 7 Myanmarese to seek protection under UNHCR

India and the Myanmar crisis: Death of Justice, Death of Morality

Manipur HC orders safe passage of Myanmar nationals to Imphal

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

65 Congress MLAs, Jignesh Mevani move Gujarat HC to utilise MPLAD funds for medical facilities

The MLAs have sought the amount of around 99 crores be used for providing necessary health and medical facilities

06 May 2021

Jignesh mewani

 

Two applications have been filed before the Gujarat High Court seeking health care facilities and utilisation of MLA funds for providing necessary health and medical logistics for treatment of Covid-19 patients. 

One application has been filed by the Vadgam (Gujarat) MLA and Convener at Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manchand, Jignesh Mevani and the other plea has been filed by President of Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee, Amit Ajitbhai Chavda and Leader of the opposition, Gujarat Legislative Assembly, Pareshkumar Dhirajlal Dhanani along with 63 other Congress members, reported LiveLaw.

According to an Indian Express report, the total MLA fund amounts to 99 crores and the MLAs have sought the amount may be used for providing necessary healthcare facilities such as Remdesivir injection, ventilators for designated Covid-19 hospitals in the State.

Mevani’s application states that although Vadgam Constituency has primary health centres and community health centres, Covid treatment is not possible because adequate oxygen, ventilators and necessary medicines are not available. He has also contended that the area lacks private hospitals.

His plea reads, “If the funds meant for the applicant as an MLA are utilized towards setting up an oxygen plant with the help of competent and suitable agency, and if primary and community health centres are equipped with ventilators and other necessary medical logistics and equipment, besides the oxygen, the constituency of the applicant will have an effective corona hospital.”

Mevani’s application prays for direction to the State Government to set up an oxygen plant in the Vagdam constituency at a strategic location, provide ventilators and ensure other necessary drugs including Remdesivir and Tocilizumab Injections with the MLA Funds.

His prayer also reads, “In the alternative, allow the applicant to suggest a competent and suitable agency with the necessary experience to set up an oxygen plant and be further pleased to direct respondents and concerned District Administration to directly pay from the MLA funds meant for the applicant and ensure setting up of an oxygen plant within the stipulated period of time to cater to the needs of corona patients.”

Similarly, the Congress leadership, on behalf of its 65 MLAs, as per LiveLaw, have sought a direction from the court to utilise the entire amount of MLA Fund to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores per constituency for the accounting year 2021-22 “for purchase of and setting up of health and medical infrastructure, equipment and other medical items.”

All 66 represented by Advocate Anand Yagnik submitted before the court that at present the State has permitted the usage of only Rs. 25 lakh of the total MLA funds which is “insufficient.”

Related:

Are obituaries in Gujarat newspapers a better indicator of real Covid-deaths?

Gujarat HC directs State to be honest about Covid data

State should have done more: Gujarat HC on Covid crisis

65 Congress MLAs, Jignesh Mevani move Gujarat HC to utilise MPLAD funds for medical facilities

The MLAs have sought the amount of around 99 crores be used for providing necessary health and medical facilities

Jignesh mewani

 

Two applications have been filed before the Gujarat High Court seeking health care facilities and utilisation of MLA funds for providing necessary health and medical logistics for treatment of Covid-19 patients. 

One application has been filed by the Vadgam (Gujarat) MLA and Convener at Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manchand, Jignesh Mevani and the other plea has been filed by President of Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee, Amit Ajitbhai Chavda and Leader of the opposition, Gujarat Legislative Assembly, Pareshkumar Dhirajlal Dhanani along with 63 other Congress members, reported LiveLaw.

According to an Indian Express report, the total MLA fund amounts to 99 crores and the MLAs have sought the amount may be used for providing necessary healthcare facilities such as Remdesivir injection, ventilators for designated Covid-19 hospitals in the State.

Mevani’s application states that although Vadgam Constituency has primary health centres and community health centres, Covid treatment is not possible because adequate oxygen, ventilators and necessary medicines are not available. He has also contended that the area lacks private hospitals.

His plea reads, “If the funds meant for the applicant as an MLA are utilized towards setting up an oxygen plant with the help of competent and suitable agency, and if primary and community health centres are equipped with ventilators and other necessary medical logistics and equipment, besides the oxygen, the constituency of the applicant will have an effective corona hospital.”

Mevani’s application prays for direction to the State Government to set up an oxygen plant in the Vagdam constituency at a strategic location, provide ventilators and ensure other necessary drugs including Remdesivir and Tocilizumab Injections with the MLA Funds.

His prayer also reads, “In the alternative, allow the applicant to suggest a competent and suitable agency with the necessary experience to set up an oxygen plant and be further pleased to direct respondents and concerned District Administration to directly pay from the MLA funds meant for the applicant and ensure setting up of an oxygen plant within the stipulated period of time to cater to the needs of corona patients.”

Similarly, the Congress leadership, on behalf of its 65 MLAs, as per LiveLaw, have sought a direction from the court to utilise the entire amount of MLA Fund to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores per constituency for the accounting year 2021-22 “for purchase of and setting up of health and medical infrastructure, equipment and other medical items.”

All 66 represented by Advocate Anand Yagnik submitted before the court that at present the State has permitted the usage of only Rs. 25 lakh of the total MLA funds which is “insufficient.”

Related:

Are obituaries in Gujarat newspapers a better indicator of real Covid-deaths?

Gujarat HC directs State to be honest about Covid data

State should have done more: Gujarat HC on Covid crisis

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Hauling up officers won’t bring oxygen: SC stays Delhi HC’s contempt notice to Centre

The Supreme Court noted that Delhi is in a critical situation, but the Centre has not supplied 700 MT of oxygen as directed  

06 May 2021

oxegen


A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah has stayed the Delhi High Court order issuing a show cause notice for contempt to the Central government for its failure to supply oxygen to the National Capital.

According to Bar & Bench, the court observed that hauling up government officers for contempt of court will not solve the oxygen crisis in Delhi. “We stay the operation of the contempt notice issued by Delhi High Court….this stay will not be a restraint on Delhi High Court to monitor the on ground situation on other heads,” the Bench reportedly said.

The Central Government had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order yesterday through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter before Chief Justice NV Ramana on May 5.

Bar & Bench also quoted the Bench saying, “At the outset, it needs to be clarified that why this Court is hearing this plea is because exercising powers under contempt jurisdiction will not solve the problem faced by Delhi. When a country is facing a humanitarian crisis court must aim at problem solving.”

Delhi High Court pulled up the Central government

The Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli had noted on May 4, that the Centre had not complied with the Supreme Court and it’s own directions regarding oxygen supply to Delhi. The Bench had remarked, “Are you living in ivory towers? Where are you living?... What you’re saying is that because the Delhi Government didn’t raise the demand people should be allowed to die now? Is this what it’s come to? You want to quibble while people are losing lives?”

Earlier on May 1, the Delhi High Court had directed the Central Government to ensure that Delhi receives the allocated quantity of 490 metric tons of oxygen today (May 1) itself “by whatever means”. The Bench had noted that although the said quantity has been allocated by the Centre to the Delhi government, it has merely been a “paper allocation” since the state has not received the supply.

The Supreme Court had also directed the Centre to ensure that the deficit in Delhi’s demand for 700 metric tons of oxygen per day is rectified on or before the midnight of May 3, as SabrangIndia had reported earlier. It urged the Centre and State to cooperate on the issue and make sure the supply remains steady. “In the battle of shifting responsibility of supplying/off taking of oxygen, the lives of citizens cannot be put in jeopardy”, recorded the order.

During the hearing yesterday, according to a LiveLaw report, Justice DY Chandrachud took very strong exception to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma’s response to Delhi High Court yesterday that the Supreme Court had not directed the supply of 700 metric tons per day of oxygen to Delhi.

“Why does your ASG say we have not directed 700 MT? The problem is when your ASG argues this before Delhi High Court...you are getting into cross-fire,” Justice Chandrachud told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. To this, Mehta said, “I am not getting into it. I will stand by my colleague.”

The SG then informed the court that the Centre is in the process of reaching the figure of 700 metric tons. He also told the Bench that yesterday, 585 metric tons was already allocated, reported LiveLaw.

On the same issue of allocation, the SG explained to the Bench that the allocation of medical oxygen quota for each state is on the basis of a ‘formula’ evolved by experts. The demand of each state is dependent on the number of hospital beds and covid cases. On the basis of this, Mr. Mehta argued that Delhi’s demand for 700 metric tons of oxygen was not justified.

The SG said, “50% of ICU beds need 10 litres per minute and 100% needs 20 per minute. I’m not going back from my statement. The figure by Delhi Govt for 700 is not justified. Every State has demanded more, but allocation is based on this formula,” tweeted LiveLaw.

But Justice Chandrachud said that this formula of the Centre is based on assumptions and does not fit in Delhi’s situation. “The formula is based on assumptions. That 100% ICU beds require oxygen and 50% beds require oxygen. This is not the case in every State. What’s happening in Odisha may be very different from the state of the pandemic in Maharashtra or Delhi. You cannot have a general assessment for the entire country, irrespective of the state of the pandemic. The pandemic is peaking at different times in different states. The pandemic in Delhi is very critical. Our order was on 2nd of May. We are on the 5th of May. What you need to do is tell us how much you have allocated over the past few days,” said Justice Chandrachud.

 

 

In its order, the Supreme Court recorded, “..it would be necessary for the Central Government to look at the formula afresh and to determine as to whether it needs to be altered having regard to the specific requirements of areas such as NCT of Delhi which have been seriously affected by the second surge of the pandemic. Apart from the requirement of oxygen in a formal institutional framework, oxygen is also being made available to individuals who are unable to get beds in hospitals. Hence, it would not be adequate to make an assessment of the quantity of oxygen required based exclusively on the formula which has been used thus far by the Central Government.”

The SG informed that on May 3 the allocation was 433 MT and May 4 it was 585 MT. But the Bench said that Delhi requires more oxygen. LiveLaw quoted Tushar Mehta saying, “According to me, if they have 500, they will be able to manage. We don’t have unlimited oxygen; we will have to rationalize.”

The Bench refuted this argument and said, “We are answerable to the citizens. As Judges we don’t have contact with as many people as you are. But, officers in my office tell, lawyers are crying, asking for help. 550 is not sufficient. The ground situation shows that.” It then directed the Centre to comply with the 700 MT supply order.

Adopt the Bombay model, SC to Centre

According to some news sources, the apex court also suggested that the Centre should take note from the Bombay Municipal Corporation as the civic body had done a good job in managing oxygen supplies.

LiveLaw quoted the Bench saying, “There is wealth of information coming in every day. Bombay Municipal Corporation is doing some great work, with no disrespect to Delhi. What they are doing, how they are managing. We can learn from them. I also understand that Maharashtra also produces oxygen which Delhi cannot do.”

The Central government has been directed to place a comprehensive plan for allocation, supply and distribution of oxygen to meet the requirements of GNCTD. The matter will be heard today on May 6.

The order may be read here: 

 

Related:

Show cause why contempt action should not be taken for failing to supply oxygen to Delhi: HC slams Centre

Enough is enough: Delhi HC after 8 Covid patients dead due to oxygen shortage in Batra Hospital

In the battle of shifting responsibility of supplying oxygen, citizen’s life cannot be jeopardised: SC

Hauling up officers won’t bring oxygen: SC stays Delhi HC’s contempt notice to Centre

The Supreme Court noted that Delhi is in a critical situation, but the Centre has not supplied 700 MT of oxygen as directed  

oxegen


A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah has stayed the Delhi High Court order issuing a show cause notice for contempt to the Central government for its failure to supply oxygen to the National Capital.

According to Bar & Bench, the court observed that hauling up government officers for contempt of court will not solve the oxygen crisis in Delhi. “We stay the operation of the contempt notice issued by Delhi High Court….this stay will not be a restraint on Delhi High Court to monitor the on ground situation on other heads,” the Bench reportedly said.

The Central Government had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order yesterday through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter before Chief Justice NV Ramana on May 5.

Bar & Bench also quoted the Bench saying, “At the outset, it needs to be clarified that why this Court is hearing this plea is because exercising powers under contempt jurisdiction will not solve the problem faced by Delhi. When a country is facing a humanitarian crisis court must aim at problem solving.”

Delhi High Court pulled up the Central government

The Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli had noted on May 4, that the Centre had not complied with the Supreme Court and it’s own directions regarding oxygen supply to Delhi. The Bench had remarked, “Are you living in ivory towers? Where are you living?... What you’re saying is that because the Delhi Government didn’t raise the demand people should be allowed to die now? Is this what it’s come to? You want to quibble while people are losing lives?”

Earlier on May 1, the Delhi High Court had directed the Central Government to ensure that Delhi receives the allocated quantity of 490 metric tons of oxygen today (May 1) itself “by whatever means”. The Bench had noted that although the said quantity has been allocated by the Centre to the Delhi government, it has merely been a “paper allocation” since the state has not received the supply.

The Supreme Court had also directed the Centre to ensure that the deficit in Delhi’s demand for 700 metric tons of oxygen per day is rectified on or before the midnight of May 3, as SabrangIndia had reported earlier. It urged the Centre and State to cooperate on the issue and make sure the supply remains steady. “In the battle of shifting responsibility of supplying/off taking of oxygen, the lives of citizens cannot be put in jeopardy”, recorded the order.

During the hearing yesterday, according to a LiveLaw report, Justice DY Chandrachud took very strong exception to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma’s response to Delhi High Court yesterday that the Supreme Court had not directed the supply of 700 metric tons per day of oxygen to Delhi.

“Why does your ASG say we have not directed 700 MT? The problem is when your ASG argues this before Delhi High Court...you are getting into cross-fire,” Justice Chandrachud told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. To this, Mehta said, “I am not getting into it. I will stand by my colleague.”

The SG then informed the court that the Centre is in the process of reaching the figure of 700 metric tons. He also told the Bench that yesterday, 585 metric tons was already allocated, reported LiveLaw.

On the same issue of allocation, the SG explained to the Bench that the allocation of medical oxygen quota for each state is on the basis of a ‘formula’ evolved by experts. The demand of each state is dependent on the number of hospital beds and covid cases. On the basis of this, Mr. Mehta argued that Delhi’s demand for 700 metric tons of oxygen was not justified.

The SG said, “50% of ICU beds need 10 litres per minute and 100% needs 20 per minute. I’m not going back from my statement. The figure by Delhi Govt for 700 is not justified. Every State has demanded more, but allocation is based on this formula,” tweeted LiveLaw.

But Justice Chandrachud said that this formula of the Centre is based on assumptions and does not fit in Delhi’s situation. “The formula is based on assumptions. That 100% ICU beds require oxygen and 50% beds require oxygen. This is not the case in every State. What’s happening in Odisha may be very different from the state of the pandemic in Maharashtra or Delhi. You cannot have a general assessment for the entire country, irrespective of the state of the pandemic. The pandemic is peaking at different times in different states. The pandemic in Delhi is very critical. Our order was on 2nd of May. We are on the 5th of May. What you need to do is tell us how much you have allocated over the past few days,” said Justice Chandrachud.

 

 

In its order, the Supreme Court recorded, “..it would be necessary for the Central Government to look at the formula afresh and to determine as to whether it needs to be altered having regard to the specific requirements of areas such as NCT of Delhi which have been seriously affected by the second surge of the pandemic. Apart from the requirement of oxygen in a formal institutional framework, oxygen is also being made available to individuals who are unable to get beds in hospitals. Hence, it would not be adequate to make an assessment of the quantity of oxygen required based exclusively on the formula which has been used thus far by the Central Government.”

The SG informed that on May 3 the allocation was 433 MT and May 4 it was 585 MT. But the Bench said that Delhi requires more oxygen. LiveLaw quoted Tushar Mehta saying, “According to me, if they have 500, they will be able to manage. We don’t have unlimited oxygen; we will have to rationalize.”

The Bench refuted this argument and said, “We are answerable to the citizens. As Judges we don’t have contact with as many people as you are. But, officers in my office tell, lawyers are crying, asking for help. 550 is not sufficient. The ground situation shows that.” It then directed the Centre to comply with the 700 MT supply order.

Adopt the Bombay model, SC to Centre

According to some news sources, the apex court also suggested that the Centre should take note from the Bombay Municipal Corporation as the civic body had done a good job in managing oxygen supplies.

LiveLaw quoted the Bench saying, “There is wealth of information coming in every day. Bombay Municipal Corporation is doing some great work, with no disrespect to Delhi. What they are doing, how they are managing. We can learn from them. I also understand that Maharashtra also produces oxygen which Delhi cannot do.”

The Central government has been directed to place a comprehensive plan for allocation, supply and distribution of oxygen to meet the requirements of GNCTD. The matter will be heard today on May 6.

The order may be read here: 

 

Related:

Show cause why contempt action should not be taken for failing to supply oxygen to Delhi: HC slams Centre

Enough is enough: Delhi HC after 8 Covid patients dead due to oxygen shortage in Batra Hospital

In the battle of shifting responsibility of supplying oxygen, citizen’s life cannot be jeopardised: SC

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Expression of mere hostile point of view not hate speech: Bom HC

The high court quashed the FIR and observed that the State’s approach was hypersensitive as the petitioner’s intention was not to cause disorder or incite people to violence

06 May 2021

Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR filed against Sunaina Holey who was charged for promoting enmity through her tweet. The bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik held that the petitioner only expressed a hostile point of view and the State’s approach towards the tweet was hypersensitive and over cautious. The court held, that just because the point of view of the Petitioner is extreme or harsh, it is not hate speech.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR filed against her for a tweet she shared pointing out a video where the crowd is seen blaming the Covid pandemic on Prime Minister Modi. The tweet in question read:

“Crowd shouting Yeh ALLAH KE TARAF SE NAHI HAI YE MODI KE TARAF SE HAI- What’s going to happen next @ ofceofut @ AUThackeray @priyankac19? PR karona ab. Blame it on @narendramodiji. Hain? Bandra Masjid Location Hai. Ab aur kuch bolu? Single Source Kaaf Hai. @ Dev_Fadnavis Help”.

The counsel for the petitioner, Abhinav Chandrachud contended that the ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) IPC are not made out. He further contended that she is not the author of the video and merely referred to it.

The respondents argued that from the tweet made by the Petitioner, it becomes explicitly clear that she has deliberately distorted facts. The petitioner claimed in her tweet that the entire crowd was blaming the Hon’ble Prime Minister whereas if the video is seen it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain as to who amongst the crowd said his name. He urged that the Petitioner has deliberately amplified the weakened voice of a single individual and has projected in her tweet that the entire crowd is shouting the name of the Prime Minister.

Before making a decision on quashing the FIR, the court made some inferences from the cases cited by the petitioner as well as respondent, some of which are mentioned below:

  • The intention of the accused must be judged on the basis of the words used by the accused along with surrounding circumstances

  • The statement in question on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the accused must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong minded persons will think of the statement, and not on the basis of the views of hypersensitive persons

  • In order to constitute an offence under Section 153A of the IPC, two communities must be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract the section

  • The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused

  • A citizen or even an influential person is under no obligation to avoid a controversial or sensitive topic. Even expressing an extreme opinion in a given case does not amount to hate speech.

The court observed that the petitioner in her tweet has expressed her disapproval to the view point of the person in the crowd who blamed the Prime Minister of India for the pandemic. The court opined that the State is reading too many things between the lines to come to the conclusion that an offence under Section 153A IPC is made out.

“The tweet in question, if judged on the basis of what a reasonable and strong minded person will think of it, leaves little manner of doubt in our mind that the same is only expressing a hostile point of view. The Respondent's approach towards the tweet is hypersensitive and over cautious thereby trying to scent danger in the hostile point of view expressed by the Petitioner,” the court observed.

The court further observed that the video was already in circulation and the petitioner merely reposted it while objecting the view point of the person seen in the video. The court stated that it is difficult to form an opinion of likelihood of harm arising from the tweet made by the Petitioner as the same is too remote, conjectural or far-fetched.

“The intention on the part of the Petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be said to cause disorder or incite people to violence which is sine qua non for the offence under section 153A of IPC,” the court held.

While upholding right to express one’s views, the court held that “Merely because the point of view of the Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expressing a different point of view”.

“Assuming that the said tweet is an extreme view expressed in retaliation to the view expressed by one of the member of the crowd who was blaming the Prime Minister of India for the outbreak of the pandemic, the said tweet has still to be judged from the standpoint of what the reaction of a strong minded, reasonable or a prudent person would be. It is material to note that reading of the contents of the tweet would reveal that neither any community nor any religion is named,” the court observed.

Applying the test of a strong or prudent person, the court concluded that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said tweet created hatred or enmity between two communities.

The court held that even if all materials are taken at face value, they do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner and thus quashed the FIR filed against her.


The complete judgement may be read here:

 

Related:

Bom HC issues notice in Fr. Stan Swamy’s bail plea; grants liberty to appear before vacation bench

Bhima Koregaon case: Bom HC seeks State’s response in Shoma Sen and Rona Wilson petitions

District Collector is trying to protect BJP MP Sujay Vikhe Patil: Bombay HC

Expression of mere hostile point of view not hate speech: Bom HC

The high court quashed the FIR and observed that the State’s approach was hypersensitive as the petitioner’s intention was not to cause disorder or incite people to violence

Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR filed against Sunaina Holey who was charged for promoting enmity through her tweet. The bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik held that the petitioner only expressed a hostile point of view and the State’s approach towards the tweet was hypersensitive and over cautious. The court held, that just because the point of view of the Petitioner is extreme or harsh, it is not hate speech.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR filed against her for a tweet she shared pointing out a video where the crowd is seen blaming the Covid pandemic on Prime Minister Modi. The tweet in question read:

“Crowd shouting Yeh ALLAH KE TARAF SE NAHI HAI YE MODI KE TARAF SE HAI- What’s going to happen next @ ofceofut @ AUThackeray @priyankac19? PR karona ab. Blame it on @narendramodiji. Hain? Bandra Masjid Location Hai. Ab aur kuch bolu? Single Source Kaaf Hai. @ Dev_Fadnavis Help”.

The counsel for the petitioner, Abhinav Chandrachud contended that the ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) IPC are not made out. He further contended that she is not the author of the video and merely referred to it.

The respondents argued that from the tweet made by the Petitioner, it becomes explicitly clear that she has deliberately distorted facts. The petitioner claimed in her tweet that the entire crowd was blaming the Hon’ble Prime Minister whereas if the video is seen it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain as to who amongst the crowd said his name. He urged that the Petitioner has deliberately amplified the weakened voice of a single individual and has projected in her tweet that the entire crowd is shouting the name of the Prime Minister.

Before making a decision on quashing the FIR, the court made some inferences from the cases cited by the petitioner as well as respondent, some of which are mentioned below:

  • The intention of the accused must be judged on the basis of the words used by the accused along with surrounding circumstances

  • The statement in question on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the accused must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong minded persons will think of the statement, and not on the basis of the views of hypersensitive persons

  • In order to constitute an offence under Section 153A of the IPC, two communities must be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract the section

  • The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused

  • A citizen or even an influential person is under no obligation to avoid a controversial or sensitive topic. Even expressing an extreme opinion in a given case does not amount to hate speech.

The court observed that the petitioner in her tweet has expressed her disapproval to the view point of the person in the crowd who blamed the Prime Minister of India for the pandemic. The court opined that the State is reading too many things between the lines to come to the conclusion that an offence under Section 153A IPC is made out.

“The tweet in question, if judged on the basis of what a reasonable and strong minded person will think of it, leaves little manner of doubt in our mind that the same is only expressing a hostile point of view. The Respondent's approach towards the tweet is hypersensitive and over cautious thereby trying to scent danger in the hostile point of view expressed by the Petitioner,” the court observed.

The court further observed that the video was already in circulation and the petitioner merely reposted it while objecting the view point of the person seen in the video. The court stated that it is difficult to form an opinion of likelihood of harm arising from the tweet made by the Petitioner as the same is too remote, conjectural or far-fetched.

“The intention on the part of the Petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be said to cause disorder or incite people to violence which is sine qua non for the offence under section 153A of IPC,” the court held.

While upholding right to express one’s views, the court held that “Merely because the point of view of the Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expressing a different point of view”.

“Assuming that the said tweet is an extreme view expressed in retaliation to the view expressed by one of the member of the crowd who was blaming the Prime Minister of India for the outbreak of the pandemic, the said tweet has still to be judged from the standpoint of what the reaction of a strong minded, reasonable or a prudent person would be. It is material to note that reading of the contents of the tweet would reveal that neither any community nor any religion is named,” the court observed.

Applying the test of a strong or prudent person, the court concluded that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said tweet created hatred or enmity between two communities.

The court held that even if all materials are taken at face value, they do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner and thus quashed the FIR filed against her.


The complete judgement may be read here:

 

Related:

Bom HC issues notice in Fr. Stan Swamy’s bail plea; grants liberty to appear before vacation bench

Bhima Koregaon case: Bom HC seeks State’s response in Shoma Sen and Rona Wilson petitions

District Collector is trying to protect BJP MP Sujay Vikhe Patil: Bombay HC

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

If drastic step is not taken, Covid situation will worsen: Patna HC

The court observed that despite repeated directions to the state, most of them have remained on paper

06 May 2021

covidImage: Vijay Pandey / SabrangIndia


At the outset, the court expressed total dissatisfaction over the progress made by the Health Department, Bihar in fighting the Covid crisis. The court pointed the many orders passed by the court since April 15, and opined that if some drastic step is not taken, the situation in Bihar which has already gone beyond control, is likely to deteriorate to immeasurable proportions.

“This Court will be failing in its duty if necessary, orders are not passed befitting the present situation, in the larger public interest, to ensure protection of right to life of the people in the State of Bihar,” the court stated. The court pointed out that on April 23, the government had assured the court that 60 oxygen beds at ESIC Hospital, Bihta were being enhanced to 500 beds. However, on May 3 the court was informed that the State Government has not been able to ensure proper utilisation of even 60 oxygen beds, let alone enhancing the number of beds.

The court has granted time until May 6 for the state to file an affidavit as Advocate General Lalit Kishore submitted that the state be given an opportunity to inform the court how it has done its best in tackling the Covid crisis. The court stated that the State shall keep in mind various facts emerging from the orders passed by this Court from time to time in this matter, while filing the counter affidavit.

“We refrain from issuing any direction today, despite the fact that in spite of repeated directions issued by this Court, in the Court’s opinion, most of them have remained on paper and have not been complied with, awaiting the response of the State Government,” the court stated.

The case will now be taken up on May 6.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

Did Gujarat get preference over other states in Covid vaccination for 18-44 year olds?

Karnataka HC slams Centre for not increasing oxygen quota despite state’s request

Death of Covid patients due to oxygen shortage is not less than genocide: Allahabad HC

If drastic step is not taken, Covid situation will worsen: Patna HC

The court observed that despite repeated directions to the state, most of them have remained on paper

covidImage: Vijay Pandey / SabrangIndia


At the outset, the court expressed total dissatisfaction over the progress made by the Health Department, Bihar in fighting the Covid crisis. The court pointed the many orders passed by the court since April 15, and opined that if some drastic step is not taken, the situation in Bihar which has already gone beyond control, is likely to deteriorate to immeasurable proportions.

“This Court will be failing in its duty if necessary, orders are not passed befitting the present situation, in the larger public interest, to ensure protection of right to life of the people in the State of Bihar,” the court stated. The court pointed out that on April 23, the government had assured the court that 60 oxygen beds at ESIC Hospital, Bihta were being enhanced to 500 beds. However, on May 3 the court was informed that the State Government has not been able to ensure proper utilisation of even 60 oxygen beds, let alone enhancing the number of beds.

The court has granted time until May 6 for the state to file an affidavit as Advocate General Lalit Kishore submitted that the state be given an opportunity to inform the court how it has done its best in tackling the Covid crisis. The court stated that the State shall keep in mind various facts emerging from the orders passed by this Court from time to time in this matter, while filing the counter affidavit.

“We refrain from issuing any direction today, despite the fact that in spite of repeated directions issued by this Court, in the Court’s opinion, most of them have remained on paper and have not been complied with, awaiting the response of the State Government,” the court stated.

The case will now be taken up on May 6.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

Did Gujarat get preference over other states in Covid vaccination for 18-44 year olds?

Karnataka HC slams Centre for not increasing oxygen quota despite state’s request

Death of Covid patients due to oxygen shortage is not less than genocide: Allahabad HC

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Offence of attacking public servant cannot be invoked merely because Police Officer is in uniform: Kerala HC

The court granted bail to lawyers arrested for assaulting a police officer while he was in court premises, but was not discharging his duty

06 May 2021

Kerala HC

Kerala High Court has observed that offence of using assault to deter public servant cannot be invoked simply because the policeman was wearing his uniform. The bench of Justice PV KunhiKrishnan granted bail to the applicants who were accused of assaulting the complainant, a police officer, who was not discharging his duty when he was attacked.

The case is that the complainant, Circle Inspector of Police, Backel Police Station had come to the High Court in connection with an enquiry being conducted against him. The enquiry was based on an incident where one of the accused in this case, a lawyer, was ill treated after taken in custody. After the enquiry, on his way out of the High Court premises, by the Police Officer, the lawyers including the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, committed riot armed with deadly weapons, hurled abuses at him and assaulted him.

The counsel or the petitioner argued that the only non-bailable offence was section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of IPC which is not made out. He argued that section 353 was invoked with a malafide intention to implicate the lawyers in non-bailable offence.

The court observed that to attract Section 353 IPC, one of the main ingredients is that the assault or criminal force should be to deter the public servant who was discharging his official duty. “At no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defacto complainant was in lawful discharge of his duty as a public servant, at the time of the alleged incident. Simply because he is in uniform, Section 353 IPC will not attract,” the court held.

The court found some force in the argument of the petitioners that Section 353 IPC is added just to implicate lawyers in non-bailable offence and opined that superior officers should look into this matter and take appropriate action in accordance to law.

The court thus allowed the bail application on executing a self bond for Rs. 50,000.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

Preventive detention is “jurisdiction of suspicion”: Kerala HC

Release prisoner arrested due to mistaken identity, pay 3 lakhs compensation: NHRC to UP gov't

J&K admin terminates gov't employees in interest of “security of the state”

Offence of attacking public servant cannot be invoked merely because Police Officer is in uniform: Kerala HC

The court granted bail to lawyers arrested for assaulting a police officer while he was in court premises, but was not discharging his duty

Kerala HC

Kerala High Court has observed that offence of using assault to deter public servant cannot be invoked simply because the policeman was wearing his uniform. The bench of Justice PV KunhiKrishnan granted bail to the applicants who were accused of assaulting the complainant, a police officer, who was not discharging his duty when he was attacked.

The case is that the complainant, Circle Inspector of Police, Backel Police Station had come to the High Court in connection with an enquiry being conducted against him. The enquiry was based on an incident where one of the accused in this case, a lawyer, was ill treated after taken in custody. After the enquiry, on his way out of the High Court premises, by the Police Officer, the lawyers including the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, committed riot armed with deadly weapons, hurled abuses at him and assaulted him.

The counsel or the petitioner argued that the only non-bailable offence was section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of IPC which is not made out. He argued that section 353 was invoked with a malafide intention to implicate the lawyers in non-bailable offence.

The court observed that to attract Section 353 IPC, one of the main ingredients is that the assault or criminal force should be to deter the public servant who was discharging his official duty. “At no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defacto complainant was in lawful discharge of his duty as a public servant, at the time of the alleged incident. Simply because he is in uniform, Section 353 IPC will not attract,” the court held.

The court found some force in the argument of the petitioners that Section 353 IPC is added just to implicate lawyers in non-bailable offence and opined that superior officers should look into this matter and take appropriate action in accordance to law.

The court thus allowed the bail application on executing a self bond for Rs. 50,000.

The order may be read here:

 

Related:

Preventive detention is “jurisdiction of suspicion”: Kerala HC

Release prisoner arrested due to mistaken identity, pay 3 lakhs compensation: NHRC to UP gov't

J&K admin terminates gov't employees in interest of “security of the state”

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

K’taka HC directs Centre to increase state’s oxygen quota

The court has given two days’ time to the Centre to reconsider allocation of Remdesivir drug to the state

06 May 2021

KarnatakaImage: PTI

 

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Centre to increase oxygen allocation to Karnataka to 1200MT with immediate effect. On May 4, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar had given notice to the Centre that it will be passing such orders.

The court, with due regard to grave situation faced by the state, where already two incidents had occurred, reportedly, due to shortage of oxygen. The court stated that it had no option but to issue a mandatory direction to consider the consider the state’s requisition made on April 30 and meanwhile directed the state to submit a fresh representation on requirement for the 7 days. The court has directed to increase the allocation to 1200MT on ad hoc basis until the Centre reconsiders its decision.

The court stated that depending upon the Centre’s decision and the state’s representation, the court will pass orders accordingly in the next week. LiveLaw reported that the court also stressed upon the urgency of the matter, “The reason being there are a number of reported incidents in the state of death of covid-19 affected patients due to lack of availability of Oxygen. For upholding rights under Article 21 of Constitution this is the minimum requirement to be complied with by the state."

The Centre had increased the state’s allocation basis its representation made on April 30, from 802MT to 865 MT and after the court’s notice on May 4, the allocation was increased to 965MT.

The court also questioned the Centre why no buffer stock was created even after Supreme Court’s directions. "Scenario that emerges is such that notwithstanding the facts and figures, not only no buffer stock is created for the state of Karnataka, but minimum requirement is also not met with. We must note here that Bengaluru city has had the highest number of cases in the country for the last several days,” LiveLaw reported the bench saying.

Remdesevir allocation

The Centre informed the court that decision on reconsideration of Remdesivir allocation to Karnataka will be taken within two days. The court had observed on May 4 that the state had mentioned that requirement was of 35,000 vials per day, but Centre had made allocation of about 15,800 vials per day.

Further, the court directed the state government to put in place helpline number for people in Bengaluru urban district considering the rising number of cases.

Inquiry in deaths due to oxygen shortage

The court has directed the Chief Secretary to seize the records of the hospital in Chamarajnagar where 24 covid patients died between May 3 and May 4. The court has also directed seizure of records pertaining to oxygen supply with Deputy Commissioner Chamarajnagar as well as Mysuru.

When the Advocate General informed the court that the cabinet had ordered an inquiry headed by a Judge, the court responded that the choice of judge should be left up to the court. “You cannot pre-judge a matter like this,” the bench reportedly said.

The Court was inclined towards having the incident inquired into by Committee appointed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority headed by a retired judge.
 

The case will next be heard on May 6.

Related:

Karnataka HC slams Centre for not increasing oxygen quota despite state’s request

Death of Covid patients due to oxygen shortage is not less than genocide: Allahabad HC

Did Gujarat get preference over other states in Covid vaccination for 18-44 year olds?

K’taka HC directs Centre to increase state’s oxygen quota

The court has given two days’ time to the Centre to reconsider allocation of Remdesivir drug to the state

KarnatakaImage: PTI

 

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Centre to increase oxygen allocation to Karnataka to 1200MT with immediate effect. On May 4, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar had given notice to the Centre that it will be passing such orders.

The court, with due regard to grave situation faced by the state, where already two incidents had occurred, reportedly, due to shortage of oxygen. The court stated that it had no option but to issue a mandatory direction to consider the consider the state’s requisition made on April 30 and meanwhile directed the state to submit a fresh representation on requirement for the 7 days. The court has directed to increase the allocation to 1200MT on ad hoc basis until the Centre reconsiders its decision.

The court stated that depending upon the Centre’s decision and the state’s representation, the court will pass orders accordingly in the next week. LiveLaw reported that the court also stressed upon the urgency of the matter, “The reason being there are a number of reported incidents in the state of death of covid-19 affected patients due to lack of availability of Oxygen. For upholding rights under Article 21 of Constitution this is the minimum requirement to be complied with by the state."

The Centre had increased the state’s allocation basis its representation made on April 30, from 802MT to 865 MT and after the court’s notice on May 4, the allocation was increased to 965MT.

The court also questioned the Centre why no buffer stock was created even after Supreme Court’s directions. "Scenario that emerges is such that notwithstanding the facts and figures, not only no buffer stock is created for the state of Karnataka, but minimum requirement is also not met with. We must note here that Bengaluru city has had the highest number of cases in the country for the last several days,” LiveLaw reported the bench saying.

Remdesevir allocation

The Centre informed the court that decision on reconsideration of Remdesivir allocation to Karnataka will be taken within two days. The court had observed on May 4 that the state had mentioned that requirement was of 35,000 vials per day, but Centre had made allocation of about 15,800 vials per day.

Further, the court directed the state government to put in place helpline number for people in Bengaluru urban district considering the rising number of cases.

Inquiry in deaths due to oxygen shortage

The court has directed the Chief Secretary to seize the records of the hospital in Chamarajnagar where 24 covid patients died between May 3 and May 4. The court has also directed seizure of records pertaining to oxygen supply with Deputy Commissioner Chamarajnagar as well as Mysuru.

When the Advocate General informed the court that the cabinet had ordered an inquiry headed by a Judge, the court responded that the choice of judge should be left up to the court. “You cannot pre-judge a matter like this,” the bench reportedly said.

The Court was inclined towards having the incident inquired into by Committee appointed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority headed by a retired judge.
 

The case will next be heard on May 6.

Related:

Karnataka HC slams Centre for not increasing oxygen quota despite state’s request

Death of Covid patients due to oxygen shortage is not less than genocide: Allahabad HC

Did Gujarat get preference over other states in Covid vaccination for 18-44 year olds?

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Sabrang

Formulate medical scheme for migrant workers: Delhi HC to gov't

The court held that the situation called for a structured response and directed the government to formulate a scheme in two weeks

06 May 2021

migrants

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to formulate a scheme for migrant and unorganised sector workers under The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and to ensure registration of migrant workers. The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Asha Menon took cognisance of the current crisis and stated that a structured response by the administration is required to provide relief to migrant workers.

The petition was filed seeking registration of all migrant workers of Delhi under Section 10 of The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and to provide free medicines and medical facilities to them. The petition also seeks directions to the respondents to fulfil its obligations under The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and to pay monies under the income transfer scheme to all migrant workers of Delhi.

The petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar Pandey, also relies upon Article 43 of the Constitution which comes under Directive Principles of State Policy and binds the respondents to protect the welfare of the people, especially that of the working class. The petitioner suggested that the respondents can make use of central and state funds under the Disaster Management Act to ensure the migrant workers are taken care of during this crisis.

The petitioner also emphasised that no plan has been formulated for setting up a database of the migrant workers even after the migrant crisis of 2020 after the national lockdown was announced. He stated that this was the reason why they have been unable to reach out to all the workers and their families.

Gautam Narayan, on behalf of Delhi government accepted notice but also submitted that the Delhi government is taking various steps to ameliorate the condition of the migrant workmen as well as those working in the unorganised sector and that provisions for free shelter, food and medicare have been made with over Rs. 98 crores disbursed to over 2 lakh workers in April.

The petitioner retorted stating that these steps were taken with respect to workers under The Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 only and no relief has been given to workers under The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and furthermore there is no database of migrant workers.

The court took the view that given the crisis situation, a structured response by the administration is required so that the voiceless and the marginalised sections of the society can be given proper and adequate relief.

The court, thus, directed the Chief Secretary, Delhi to frame a Scheme incorporating a structured response for the ‘home-based worker’, ‘self-employed worker’ and ‘unorganised worker’, as defined under The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008, within two weeks.

The court further directed that while formulating the scheme, the government should keep in mind the prayers sought for in the present writ petition, including the prayer for payment of ex gratia amount to the unorganised workers and the migrant workers and shall also ensure that the registration process under Section 10 of The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 is simplified and is implemented.

The court suggested that the Chief Secretary involves elected representatives as well as the civil society in forming the scheme and directed that a status report be filed in two weeks.

The case will be heard on May 20.

The complete order may be read here:

 

Related:

Karnataka HC slams Centre for not increasing oxygen quota despite state’s request

Delhi: The National Capital, is now a city mourning its dead, watching the dying gasp for air

Show cause why contempt action should not be taken for failing to supply oxygen to Delhi: HC slams Centre

Formulate medical scheme for migrant workers: Delhi HC to gov't

The court held that the situation called for a structured response and directed the government to formulate a scheme in two weeks

migrants

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to formulate a scheme for migrant and unorganised sector workers under The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and to ensure registration of migrant workers. The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Asha Menon took cognisance of the current crisis and stated that a structured response by the administration is required to provide relief to migrant workers.

The petition was filed seeking registration of all migrant workers of Delhi under Section 10 of The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and to provide free medicines and medical facilities to them. The petition also seeks directions to the respondents to fulfil its obligations under The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and to pay monies under the income transfer scheme to all migrant workers of Delhi.

The petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar Pandey, also relies upon Article 43 of the Constitution which comes under Directive Principles of State Policy and binds the respondents to protect the welfare of the people, especially that of the working class. The petitioner suggested that the respondents can make use of central and state funds under the Disaster Management Act to ensure the migrant workers are taken care of during this crisis.

The petitioner also emphasised that no plan has been formulated for setting up a database of the migrant workers even after the migrant crisis of 2020 after the national lockdown was announced. He stated that this was the reason why they have been unable to reach out to all the workers and their families.

Gautam Narayan, on behalf of Delhi government accepted notice but also submitted that the Delhi government is taking various steps to ameliorate the condition of the migrant workmen as well as those working in the unorganised sector and that provisions for free shelter, food and medicare have been made with over Rs. 98 crores disbursed to over 2 lakh workers in April.

The petitioner retorted stating that these steps were taken with respect to workers under The Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 only and no relief has been given to workers under The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 and furthermore there is no database of migrant workers.

The court took the view that given the crisis situation, a structured response by the administration is required so that the voiceless and the marginalised sections of the society can be given proper and adequate relief.

The court, thus, directed the Chief Secretary, Delhi to frame a Scheme incorporating a structured response for the ‘home-based worker’, ‘self-employed worker’ and ‘unorganised worker’, as defined under The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008, within two weeks.

The court further directed that while formulating the scheme, the government should keep in mind the prayers sought for in the present writ petition, including the prayer for payment of ex gratia amount to the unorganised workers and the migrant workers and shall also ensure that the registration process under Section 10 of The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 is simplified and is implemented.

The court suggested that the Chief Secretary involves elected representatives as well as the civil society in forming the scheme and directed that a status report be filed in two weeks.

The case will be heard on May 20.

The complete order may be read here:

 

Related:

Karnataka HC slams Centre for not increasing oxygen quota despite state’s request

Delhi: The National Capital, is now a city mourning its dead, watching the dying gasp for air

Show cause why contempt action should not be taken for failing to supply oxygen to Delhi: HC slams Centre

Related Articles


Theme

Campaigns

Videos

Archives

IN FACT

Podcasts

Podcasts

Podcasts

Analysis

Archives

Podcasts

Subscribe to Rule of Law