A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya while hearing the Writ Petition Appeal No.14161 of 2024 filed by the All India Trinamool Congress against the Election Commission of India for its inaction on the complaints of TMC over the allegedly slanderous and derogatory advertisements published by the Bharatiya Janta Party in violation of MCC.

The writ petition was filed against the derogatory impugned advertisements dated May 4, 2024, May 5, 2024, May 10, 2024 and May 10, 2024 published by the ruling party BJP in violation of the letter and spirit of the MCC.

Arguments made by the Counsels of TMC, ECI and Newspapers:

On behalf of TMC “petitioner”, senior counsel placed reliance on the provisions of the Manual of Model Code of Conduct and Media Compendium issued by the Election Commission of India. TMC counsel argued that during the election period, the print media should refrain from publishing any unverified allegation against any candidate or political party, either directly or impliedly, as per guidelines issued by the Press Council of India’s election reporting (1996) and further guidelines issued on July 30, 2010 to be followed during election. Further added that, no political party or candidate or any other organization or person shall publish any advertisement in the print media on poll day and one day prior to poll day (silent period).

TMC alleged that despite repeated complaints having been lodged with the ECI, the Commission has not been taking any steps. It is argued by the TMC that virtue of such slanderous advertisements, respondent no. 3 “Newspaper” and other newspapers have been carrying an agenda from the respondent no. 2 “Bharatiya Janata Party”, which is diametrically contradictory to the MCC and demanded injunction which would be facilitate free and fair elections.

Appearing for the ECI, counsel submits that the ECI has power to look into the matter to ensure compliance of its advisories and the MCC. It is contended by the ECI that Article 324 read in conjunction with Article 329 of the Constitution of India which debar the intervention of courts in matters pertaining to the conduct of elections.

On behalf of the Respondent No. 3, counsel submits that the respondent no. 3 is a part of the media, and it falls within the domain of functioning of the media to carry advertisements. Upon due payments having been made and all compliances by the concerned entity, the respondent no. 3 has a right to carry such advertisements and has role to play in the allegations made by the petitioner. There are other newspapers and media platforms which are carrying the advertisements complained of by the petitioner, who have not been impleaded in the present writ petition. Thus, such selective allegation against the respondent no. 3 vitiates the present challenge.

Findings of the High Court on MCC:

In weighing the contentions of the parties, the bench concluded that the said advertisements being directly contradictory to the MCC which operate as guidelines as well as being violative of the right of the petitioner and all citizens of India to a free, fair and untainted election process. The MCC clearly prohibits all participants in the election process from criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion.

Rejecting contention of ECI, the bench held that power of issuance of injunctions by writ courts in the context of ensuring free and fair election process is beyond the limited power of the ECI to deal with the complaints.

As per the MCC, during the election period, the print media should also refrain from publishing any unverified allegation against any candidate or political party either directly or impliedly as per guidelines issued by the Press Council of India. The court directed that Bharatiya Janata Party ought to be restrained from further publishing the same until further orders.

Election Commission grossly failed, the High Court slams ECI for inaction:

The bench held “it is also clear that in the garb of advertisements, the present impugned allegations and publications made against the petitioner are outright derogatory and definitely intended at insulting the rivals and levelling personal attacks against its functionaries”.

Further, the court directed that “the ECI has grossly failed to address the complaints raised by the petitioner in due time. This court is surprised that no resolution worth the name has been arrived at regarding the said complaints till date, more so, since most of the phases of the electoral process are already over and only two phases are left and the entire election process shall be concluded by June 04, 2024”.

Decision of the High Court on May 20, 2024:

The single bench of High Court held that the BJP is hereby restrained from further continuing with the publication of the offending advertisements dated May 04, 2024, May 05, 2024, May 10, 2024 and that dated May 12, 2024 till June 04, 2024 or until further order, whichever is earlier.

The Court further restrained BJP from publishing advertisements in any form of media which is violative of the MCC issued by the ECI during the aforesaid period.

Order of the High Court can be read here:

Related:

SEC M’tra agrees to make weekly reports to CEC public, assures action on hate speech, urges every citizen to become alert voter: Vote For Democracy Delegation

LAPRI files 37 complaints to authorities as on 12 May for violations of MCC and RPA

Disclose authenticated record of voter turnout, citizens tell ECI

The post Calcutta High Court slams ECI for inaction, restrains BJP from publishing ads in any form of media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The plea was filed by the petitioner as the state government had suggested an alternative route for the procession to avoid repetition of violence which had taken place last year during the Ram Navami yatra on the same route, LiveLaw reported. 

In another plea filed in the Bombay High Court by Aftab Siddique, (pending for over a month) in which the petitioner was seeking registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against BJP legislators Nitesh Rane, Geeta Jain and T. Raja for allegedly delivering hate speeches during communal clashes in Mira Road in January, as per LiveLaw. During the hearing of the same petition, the issue of carrying out Ram Navami rally in communally sensitive areas was also taken up for the discussion. The bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande while granting permission for the rally to be taken out in Mumbai’s Malwani area for Ram Navami celebration directed the police to take all necessary measures to prevent any potential breaches, and take action against speakers and organizers for violating the law, irrespective of political affiliations.

The petitioners had maintained that the rallies were carried out in communally sensitive areas and were stopped just behind the mosques to deliberately provoke them. Allaying the concerns of the petitioners, even as the bench permitted the rally for Ram Navami celebration, it asked the police to change the route and provide alternative options instead. In balancing freedom of expression and association and reasonable restrictions for the purpose of public order, the court noted that “We cannot stop any public rally, but we expect your officers will take appropriate action in accordance with the law if there is any breach, irrespective of political party. If the speaker says something in breach, they (police) can take action.”, Indian Express reported. In addition, it cautioned the police and said, “Ultimately, a law-and-order problem comes, you (police) will face problems.”, LiveLaw reported quoting the bench. In response, counsel for the state, Binrendra Saraf, informed the court that the Commissioners of Police (CPs) will review the speeches made by the speakers and decide within a week whether FIR(s) for hate speech should be lodged.

Additionally, the court expressed its displeasure over the incident in which Nitesh Rane gave a press conference from the Police Commissioner’s office during which he allegedly delivered a hate speech and asked the state to ensure that it is not repeated, as not anyone can hold a meeting with press from the Commissioner’s office. 

Spate of violence due to religious processions 

Historically in India, religious processions carried out through communally charged routes have often turned violent and resulted in loss of lives, livelihoods, damage to property, and polarisation of neighbourhoods. Whether it is Ram Navami, Eid, Muharram, Shobha Yatra, or any other any occasion for these religious processions to be taken out, it has been observed that in the absence of close monitoring by the authorities and proper planning of the routes, the possibility of flare up and violence is quite normal. Moreover, this has amounted in the past and present to a breach by both the jurisdictional police and district magistracy of statutory laws and guidelines, we tested and laid down.

Often, these processions at times have caused violence in the areas or themselves have come under attack from neighbourhoods they pass through, especially in cases where such yatras are mobilised by fringe political forces or extremist groups. In addition, these processions, when unregulated, have resulted in political actors and religious leaders delivering hate speeches, brandishing weapons, and inciting violence against members of other communities. Now, with the deployment of loud DJs and music system on the processions, the instances of playing hate songs targeting minorities have also increased. In recent years, these factors have cumulatively contributed to processions turning violent, or being attacked (for example, see here, here, and here).

CJP’s initiative for framing guidelines for the processions

In order to ensure that (religious) processions are carried out in a peaceful and non-violent manner, moreover to ensure that statutory law and guidelines are observed, Citizens for Justice and Peace had moved the apex court through a writ petition to issue definitive guideline and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing the processions, including looking at the question of whether or when a procession should be allowed or not.  Though the petition was dismissed citing the jurisdictional issues, it is pertinent to highlight some of its demands.

In a petition that was filed by CJP in May 2022, soon after the violence that erupted in several cities following Shobha Yatra, the organisation prayed for directions from the Supreme Court to pass guidelines, SOPs, and issue directions to the Union and States to strictly implement and follow statutory provisions of law and act on recommendations of several Judicial Commissions of Inquiry that have dealt with the regulation of such religio-political processions (that have thereafter erupted into bouts of communal violence) in the past. The PIL was filed on the principles of secularism, equal protection of law, and protection against violence, which the State is bound to guarantee to all its citizens. The petition relied on a series of judicial precedents, statutory laws, Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an Advisory by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Punjab Police Guidelines, and reports of Commissions of Inquiry, especially, the report of Justice DP Madon Commission of Inquiry. 

Citing the MHA advisory, issued separately in both 2018 and 2019, CJP highlighted the need to ban arms in the processions. The relevant portion of MHA advisory reads, “It is once again requested to ensure that strict legal actions are taken…against the person(s) indulged in the illegal practices of celebratory firing in marriages, public gatherings, religious places / processions, parties, political rallies etc. so as to curb such incidences. Further, licenses of such perpetrators…to be cancelled in accordance with the law”. 

Similarly, the Punjab Police Guidelines 2018 requires videotaping of the processions and undertaking from the organisers to maintain lawful behaviour and conduct. The guideline notes that the organisers are required to ensure that “no inflammatory speech or any unlawful activity is done at the venue of procession or assembly, which may cause tension in the area or create mutual hatred…amongst different communities, castes, groups, religions etc.”

The petition also referred to the judgement of the apex court in the case of Praveen Togadia v. State of Karnataka (2004) 4 SCC 684, which upheld the administrative order of the state government issued in order to restrict a gathering which could turn violent. 

Finally, CJP’s petition also highlighted the recommendations made in the reports of various Commissions of Inquiry, most importantly, the Justice DP Madon Commission, which was constituted in the aftermath of communal disturbances which took place in Bhiwandi and other places in the State of Maharashtra in May 1970. DP Madon Commission had specifically recommended that processions likely to provoke trouble stand on a special footing and before granting permission for such processions, the police should do a proper assessment of the routes and possible exit and entry points, including the bottles, to ensure that nothing untoward happens during the procession. 

Additionally, while the PIL in this case was dismissed, an Intervention Application (IA) in a separate but related case, related to the Shobha Yatra being unlawfully conducted at Jahangirpuri, Delhi is still pending along with the original petition. This IA also prays for directions from the Supreme Court to pass guidelines, SOPs, and issue directions to the Union and States to strictly implement and follow statutory provisions of law and act on recommendations of several Judicial Commissions of Inquiry that have dealt with the regulation of such religio-political processions (that have thereafter erupted into bouts of communal violence) in the past.

This week, CJP has compiled an easy-to-read Handbook, titled, “Towards a Hate Free Nation” which it has despatched to the police and administrative authorities in 36 districts in Maharashtra to ensure that they implement recent Supreme Court (SC) and Bombay High Court (HC) judgements on how to distinguish controversial speech from hate speech (speech that causes harm). Apart from excerpts and references to the recent judicial precedents, the Handbook also contains references to Circulars issued in 2023 by the Director General of Police (DGP) Maharashtra strictly instructing police stations to ensure preventive measures, investigate and prosecute hate speeches fairly. The Handbook may be accessed here 

As part of its continuing campaign to ensure a hate free neighbourhood and nation, CJP has urged the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) to issue an advisory to all district authorities in light of the scheduled, Ram Navami observed on Wednesday, April 17. 

Related:

Ram Navami: Violent Clashes in many states of India 

Majoritarian Politics via Ram Navami Processions and Opportunist Muslim Elites 

Study reveals 668 hate speech cases in 2023, BJP major player

The post As courts grant permission for Ram Navami processions, they strictly caution administration to ensure no arms displayed, no DJs, no untoward incidents take place appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“As far as law is concerned you cannot prohibit peaceful protest. Can state proceed on the assumption that every protest will be violent?”

-Justice Abhay S Oka, the then Chief Justice of Karnataka

On February 14, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Jay Sengupta set aside orders prohibitory orders imposed in West Bengal’s Sandeshkhali in the wake of unrest due to alleged sexual harassment of women and illegal land grabbing in the area by miscreants allegedly from the ruling political dispensation. The said order had been issued under Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits assembly of four or more people in an area.

While quashing the said order, the single bench held that using such powers that have an effect on the fundamental rights of the citizens of India should be done with extra caution and concrete reasoning. As per a report in the LiveLaw, in the order, the bench stated that “The atrocities on the villagers by three prime miscreants belonging to the ruling political dispensation, as alleged, are absolutely repulsive and heart wrenching. Non-arresting of the prime miscreants and their accomplices coupled with restriction on free movement of the villagers, at least in terms of Section 144 of the Code, may pose undue harassment to the inhabitants of the area and make them more vulnerable to further atrocities, especially in view of the peculiar geography of the place. Such promulgation has to be done by exercising more care and circumspection and surely, with a better reasoning. After all we are dealing with the rights of the citizens of the country.”

Furthermore, in dealing with the 144 CrPC order, the Court particularly noted that the same order broadly referred to the tension in the area while not mentioning the exact nature of the illegality or apprehended danger had not been discussed, making the same “bald and ritualistic reference to the possibility of breach of peace.”

Observing the aforementioned, the bench also held that based upon the Supreme Court precedents on the test of promulgating S.144 CrPC orders, the High Court could find no such proper satisfaction of tests having been recorded in the present case.

As per the order, the court noted that no material had been placed on record stating why the entire Sandeshkhali police station area should be covered with the order. According, the Calcutta High Court bench then set aside the order imposing restrictions under Section 144 CrPC.

Notably, on February 13, a separate single judge bench of the High Court comprising Justice Apurba Sinha Ray had also taken suo moto cognizance of newspaper reports on the matter of alleged sexual harassment of women living in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal, and tribal lands that had been forcibly taken over.

No setting aside of prohibitory orders, only calls for amicable settle by Punjab and Haryana High Court

Sadly, the same stand was not taken by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with the petition filed over the use of excessive obstructive actions by the State and Union governments in dealing with those farmers planning to participate in the farmers protest taking place in Delhi. The bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji rather urged the petitioners and the respondents to try “for an amicable settlement”.

The hearing of this petition took place on February 13, the day that farmers from the states of Punjab and Haryana were supposed to travel to Delhi as a part of their ‘Chalo Delhi’ march to raise demand for  a law guaranteeing minimum support price (MSP) for their produce along with six other demands, which include implementation of the Swaminathan Commission’s recommendations that provide for safeguarding the interest of small farmers and addressing the issue of increasing risk overtaking agriculture as a profession, pensions for farmers and farm labourers, farm debt waiver, withdrawal of police cases and “justice” for victims of the Lakhimpur Kheri violence also form a part of the demands made. To prevent the farmers from joining this protest, the state of Haryana employed many tactics, from sealing of borders, putting up cement barricades on National Highways, to imposing prohibitory orders, deploying para-military, imposing internet shutdowns and even withholding ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) accounts. Yesterday, videos of Haryana police firing rubber pellets, using water cannons and dropping tear gases through drones at the farmers also surfaced.

Notably, two PILs (Public Interest Litigations) had been filed in the High Court. in one of the petitions, the petitioner had assailed Haryana government’s decision to seal its borders in order to prevent the agitators from entering the State and moving to Delhi. On the other hand, the second PIL was against protestors, stating that they have unauthorisedly blocked state and national highways.

In the said hearing, the bench emphasised that the protestors were granted the right to move around freely in the country through Article 19 of the Constitution, while, in the same breath, it added that State government also has the duty to protect its citizens and ensure that no inconvenience is caused to them.

As per a report in the LiveLaw, the bench then observed “There has to be balance in fundamental right to speech and expression, none of the rights are in isolation. The cautionary should be kept in mind and issue should be resolved amicably…All parties in the present dispute should make efforts to sit down and solve the problem and area should be identified by states to protest.”

With this, the division bench issued notices to the Union government as well as the governments of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. Additionally, the bench asked the State governments to determine protest sites until then.

No interim relief to the protesting farmers was granted by the bench. The next hearing in the matter has been set for February 15, 2024.

Related:

Farmers Protest: Braving tear gas, blockades, state obstructions, farmers journey towards Delhi to demand law on MSP

Farmers’ Protest: Physical repression, prohibitory orders, Delhi entry blocked – Déjà Vu?

Farmer leaders detained in Madhya Pradesh, made to sit at police stations, saw police raids at night- attempts to stop farmers from joining protest intensify

The post Section 144 order set aside in Calcutta High Court, no such relief by Punjab and Haryana High Court in farmer’s protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in July.

Advocates Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Saptarshi Banerjee, Purbayan Chakraborty, and Kuntal Banerjee represented the petitioners in the case.

Background

The petition has been filed by Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, representing the MGNREGA workers seeking compensation. They have sought release of payments of Rs. 2,76,484.47 lakh along with statutory interest @ 0.05% of the unpaid wages per day of delay beyond the sixteenth day of closure of muster roll. They have not received their wages since December 2021. They also sought direction from the court to the state government to implement MGNREGA upon due sanction of funds.

MGNREGA is a social security and employment generation program initiated in 2006, and was enacted to provide for enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteered to do unskilled manual work.

The dispute arose when the central government of India stopped releasing funds for the MGNREGA scheme by order dated March 9, 2022, instructing the state government of West Bengal to pay the wages from its own resources until a satisfactory Action Taken Report (ATR) was submitted. As a result, daily-wage workers claimed that they had not received their wages since December 2021, amounting to a total of Rs. 2,76,484.47 lakh in unpaid wages over an 18-month period.

The state government submitted a new ATR on February 2, 2023, and requested the revocation of the March 2022 order. The court directed the central government to respond to the new ATR to ensure that workers who had satisfactorily completed their work under the MGNREGA scheme are entitled to receive their wages according to the principles of the Act. The court emphasized that the scheme should not be used to the detriment of workers and called for the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism at the block and district levels.

The court also considered the contention of the state government that the directions given by the central government were beyond the provisions of the MGNREGA.

In December last year the civil rights network NREGA Sangarsh Morcha, in alliance with the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS), held Black Day on December 27, with workers holding black flag demonstrations, thaala bajao, road blockade and public meetings marking one year of the Government of India withholding the release of over Rs 7,500 crore MGNREGA funds to West Bengal.  Out of this amount, the pending wages are touching a staggering figure of Rs. 2,744 crore. According to the report called Status of MGNREGA Employment & Wages in West Bengal FY (April to December 2022-23), there is around Rs  3,891 crores of perceived loss in NREGA wages from pre-Covid years (average of 2018-19 and 2019-20) and Rs 6046 crores in comparison to post-Covid years (average of 2020-21 and 2021-22)

The court’s directions

The court has directed the Central government to respond by specifically stating as to what is the decision taken on the State’s ATR.

The court held that, “it should be the endeavour of all the concerned authorities to ensure that the benefits under the Act of 2005 as well as the schemes, which have been formulated under the Act of 2005 are implemented.” The court added that if the Central government believed there has been misappropriation of funds, “the endeavour of the authority should be to separate the chaff from the grains.”

“If genuine persons have offered themselves for employment under the provisions of the Act of 2005 and they have satisfactorily completed the work, then it goes without saying that those employees and workmen are entitled for disbursement of wages in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder,” the court said (para 11)

“Therefore, the inquiry to be conducted has to proceed in an appropriate manner so that the persons, who have actually worked are not denied the wages for the labour, which they have contributed,” the court added. (Para 12)

The court has sought precise affidavits from central and state governments by June 20 and replies by June 27.

Further, the court has also directed the state government to state in its affidavit whether it has complied with the mandate under section 19 of the Act whereby it is required to set up grievance redressal mechanisms at block level and the district level for dealing with any complaint by any person in respect of implementation of the scheme and whether any procedure has been laid down for disposal of such complaint.

The order may be read here:

Related:

West Bengal farm workers protest Centre withholding Rs 7,500 crore MGNREGA budget

With Demand for MGNREGA Work Increasing in Sept 2022, Activists Warn About Rural Distress

‘Grossly inadequate’: NREGA allocation 0.29% of GDP, World Bank recommended 1.6%

MGNREGA ‘Under Attack’? Rural Workers Demand Increased Budgetary Allocations

The post Calcutta HC: Even if MGNREGA funds misappropriated, genuine workers need to be compensated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Calcutta High Court, in a writ petition filed by a person whose property was razed by the administration, ordered that the authorities pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000 to the petitioner.  The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya left it up to the respondents to decide who will bear the costs to pay the compensation. One of the respondents was SDO of Jangipuri, Murshidabad.

The court was deeply perturbed by the facts of the case and deemed that the respondents acted maliciously.

The writ petition was filed on April 18 and notice was served upon the respondents. The matter was mentioned on April 19 and the respondents were informed of the same, yet the structure was demolished on the same day as the order, on March 29. The order mentioned that the plot in question was a land under dispute for being a road. However, the court pointed out that the order was passed under West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, which excludes “road” from the definition of “public land”.

The court read down the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, while assuming that the authorities had powers under this Act to act against the disputed land. The court found that section 3 and 4 of the Act  were not complied with by the SDM, wherein he/she is required to give a show cause notice to the occupant and take action only after considering the reply to the show cause notice.

The impugned order in the present case reflects that the SDM jumped Sections 3 and 4 of the 1962 Act and proceeded straightaway to direct removal of the encroachment under Section 5(1) of the Act.

The court said that even if the March 29 order was to be considered as a notice, the documents placed before the Court do not indicate that the procedure to be followed under Sections 4 and 5 were complied with. The court noted that the documents do not mention the word “demolition” anywhere.

The court also took note of a letter from BDO, Murshidabad seeking urgent steps for completion of a Government project on the concerned land. The letter was also sent to the M.P., Jangipur and the M.L.A., Suti for sending a representative on the stipulated date and time.

“The action of the State authorities in failing to comply with the statutory mandate of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, − assuming that the Act is applicable in the present case− and disregarding the filing of the writ petition before this Court amounts to “Malice in Law”.”

The court held that malice in law “involves an intention on the part of the authorities to do a wrongful act with full knowledge not only of the commission of the act but also of the consequences which would necessarily follow as a result of the act”.

The court also deprecated the practice of calling upon the political functionaries. The court said, “Calling upon political functionaries to lend support to an act which is ex facie illegal aggravates the malice and is evidence of the premeditated nature of the act thereof. The State respondents have disregarded a pending judicial proceeding and have sought to frustrate the same.”

The court thus directed the respondents to pay Rs. 80,000 as compensation for the loss caused to the petitioners.

The order may be read here:

In a similar unauthorised and unlawful fashion, a section of a 250-year-old mosque which also had a madrassa that housed more than 100 orphans was razed to the ground in Delhi’s Bengali Market. When Advocate Mehmood Pracha reached the site and asked for demolition orders, the authorities and the police refused to provide the same. As per the mosque management, they were not served any notice of demolition. There is clearly no accountability from the authorities who come and demolish structures without giving notice to the occupants/residents. Many such incidents have been recorded this year and this direction of the Calcutta High Court to make good the loss to the petitioner by way of monetary compensation can become a major deterrent for such errant authorities. While in some cases, courts stressed upon the need for rehabilitation of those who are evicted and rendered homeless, in cases where due process is not followed, penalising the authority can certainly reduce the number of such incidents.

The most unfortunate of these recent incidents was the one from Kanpur Dehat where a mother and daughter were burnt alive as they were inside their hutment when the bulldozer came for them. While the police at first claimed that they set themselves on fire, eventually a case of murder was registered against the SDM and others.

In Assam’s Sonitpur, 2,500 Bengali Muslim families were rendered homeless as a demolition drive was conducted, displacing these families for their lands where they were cultivators.

In UP’s Ghaziabad, in Sahibabad people’s homes were being demolished, allegedly without any notice. In a video posted on social media, a woman can be seen pleading to the police and other people present, to not go ahead but she was being dragged.

Related:

250-year-old mosque in Delhi partially demolished in “anti encroachment drive”

Evictions are at an all-time high as bulldozers gain momentum in the country

UP: Demolition drive goes awry, mother daughter burnt alive

MP: In CM’s Home District, Bulldozers Reduce 20 Homes Built Under PMAY to Rubble

The post Calcutta High Court sets an example, orders Rs. 80,000 compensation for illegal demolition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has withdrawn its appeal against the Calcutta High Court order granting the liberty of house arrest to four senior All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders in the Narada bribery case.

On May 21, the Calcutta High Court had said, “Considering the age and health issues of the accused, three of whom are said to be admitted in hospital, instead of custody in jail, all the accused persons can be put under house arrest in their own homes.”

Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai opined during the hearing that the “liberty of a person is the first thing to be seen” and that the issue of personal liberty cannot be mixed with other issues such as Chief Minister’s dharna and public protests against the CBI arrests, reported LiveLaw.

The Bench clarified that all other parties also have liberty to raise such contentions before it, and that their order to allow CBI to withdraw their appeal was not based on merits. Bar & Bench quoted the Bench saying, “We are not passing anything on merits. SG (Tushar Mehta) has accepted that the issues are being looked into by a 5-judge bench of Calcutta High Court. Thus, permission is sought to withdraw the plea and raise all such issues before the High Court. All other contentions remain open. All other parties shall also have liberty to raise such contentions before the High Court. It is clarified that we are not passing any order on merits.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (appearing for CBI), reportedly contended that the conduct of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other top leaders of TMC after the CBI arrested Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee, Madan Mitra and Sovan Chatterjee, had ‘vitiated the atmosphere’ and the order of special CBI court granting bail could not be sustained on that ground. Mamata Banerjee had visited the Nizam Plaza office of the CBI and stayed there till the men were granted bail by a special CBI court. On the same day, CBI moved the Calcutta High Court, and the High Court stayed the CBI court’s bail order.

The top court Bench, however, disagreed with the Solicitor General stating that those incidents involving actions of TMC ministers have to be seen separately and cannot influence grant of bail to the accused.

Bar & Bench quoted Justice Gavai saying, “We have to see if bail has to be granted or not. For other issues, other remedies are there. Take action against such officials. We also have been pressured. I was hearing an anticipatory bail plea in Aurangabad in 2013 and mahila morcha people came inside court…police asked me not to pass orders but I passed orders in an open courtroom.”

The Calcutta High Court has been hearing this matter since May 19 and since the judges on the Division Bench, Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee, disagreed on the issue of grant of interim bail to the four accused leaders, it decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench for consideration.

In the meanwhile, the Division Bench directed that the four TMC leaders be placed under house arrest, directing, “During their house arrest, while being in home comfort, they shall be entitled to all medical facilities and shall be bound by all applicable restrictions, however, it shall be the duty of the jail authorities in the State to enforce the conditions.”

The jail authorities have also been directed to instal CCTV cameras at the entry point of the houses in which the accused persons reside and the recordings shall be kept for record to ascertain the persons who visit the accused.

Related:

CBI arrests TMC leaders in Narada sting case
Calcutta HC stays bail to Narada sting accused
Narada case: House arrest for four accused, HC divided on bail

The post Narada case: CBI withdraws appeal against Calcutta HC order granting house arrest to TMC leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Calcutta High Court has ordered house arrest for four of the accused in the Narada sting case. The Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee, was reportedly split on the subject of granting bail.

TMC ministers Firhad Hakim and Subrata Mukherji, TMC MLA Madan Mitra and ex-Kolkata mayor Sovan Chatterjee who was previously a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had all been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday. Following their arrests, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had visited the Nizam Plaza office of the CBI and stayed there till the men were granted bail by a special CBI court. But the CBI moved the Calcutta High Court, which in turn stayed the CBI court’s bail order late on Monday itself.

Since then, the HC has been hearing the matter, even as Mukherjee, Chatterjee and Mitra were admitted to the SSKM Hospital’s Woodburn Ward, while Hakim remained in Presidency Jail. During the hearing at the High Court, the matter of Mamata Banerjee’s presence at the CBI office and the Law minister’s presence in the CBI Special Court’s complex were repeatedly brought up, as was the matter of protests outside the CBI office and the Governor’s residence. Hearing could not take place on Thursday due to “unavoidable circumstance”, but resumed on Friday.

According to LiveLaw, while Justice Banerjee was in favour of granting interim bail, ACJ Bindal was in favour of placing the accused under house arrest. The matter was therefore referred to a larger bench while the accused were placed under house arrest, where they will be provided all medical amenities. However, the bench declined the request made by the counsel for the accused to be released on interim bail until a larger bench decides on the subject.

According to LiveLaw, senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued, “These are ministers, MLAs. There is no flight risk,” and that they have hitherto cooperated with the investigation. But Justice Banerjee reportedly responded saying, “One of the members of this bench thought it fit to grant interim bail. The other member of the bench did not agree. So, this point of interim bail has to be considered by the larger bench. In the meantime, considering pandemic situation, house arrest has been given.”

As Madan Mitra is an MLA, the court has granted him permission to access files and hold meetings via video-conferencing with officials, so that he can continue to discharge his duties.

TO BE UPDATED WITH ORDER COPY

Related:

CBI arrests TMC leaders in Narada sting case
Calcutta HC stays bail to Narada sting accused

The post Narada case: House arrest for four accused, HC divided on bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Calcutta High Court has directed competent authorities to decide remission applications within the stipulated time of 45 days. The bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee stated that the government, the Convicting Court and the Confirming Court have to push through remission application in the most expeditious manner having regard to the larger framework of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and has spent 29 years in prison. His application for premature release was considered by the government but on the basis of police inputs, rejected it. The appellant then challenged it before a Single judge bench of the High Court stating that the co-convicts in the case were already released but it was dismissed by the court

The court observed that all that is to be done is requisite action under section 432 of CrPC is to be put in motion if the appellant makes an application for remission of sentence. The court stated that an application under section 432 of CrPC cannot be kept pending for long. “If a person is entitled to relief by way of remission of sentence in terms of section 432, that needs to be considered within the shortest period and earliest point of time,” the court said.

The court thus, gave the appellant the liberty to file an appropriate application for remission of sentence and directed the authorities to process the application while following due procedure under section 432 CrPC. The court further directed the authorities to give utmost priority to such application and dispose the same within 45 days from the date of receipt. The court has directed the competent authority to communicate the order to the appellant and the Superintendent of the Correctional Home within a week from the date of the order.

Related:

NHRC asks MP Chief Secy Bains to report on the 28 tortured prisoners in six weeks

Punjab: Life convicts can avail remission under revised remission policy

Uttarakhand HC raises concern over “medieval age” condition of prisons, calls for report

The post Cal HC directs authorities to decide remission applications expeditiously appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee has directed the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to submit a report by May 5 on the progress of investigation into the firing by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel at Sitalkuchi during the West Bengal assembly polls that claimed the lives of four people. 

It is noteworthy that on April 10, while polling was on for the fourth phase of assembly elections, four people were killed when paramilitary forces opened fire at polling booth number 126 in Amtali. They have been identified as: Noor Alam Mian (20), Manirujjaman Mian (25), Samiul Haque (21) and Hamidul Mian (31). In a separate incident on the same day, another young man identified as 18-year-old Ananda Barman, was killed by unknown gunmen at booth number 85 in Panthauli, also in Sitalkuchi.

The order read, “We expect a statement to be placed on record by the CID as to the progress of the investigation by the next date of hearing. The office of learned Advocate General will instruct the investigator concerned in this regard since we do not see any CID or any particular officer of CID in the array of respondents.”

The Bench noted that investigation into the incident is already being carried out by the CID. The court said, “Now investigation is being carried on by the CID of the State of West Bengal. We record these submissions.”

The court was hearing two writ petitions filed before it, seeking investigation into the firing by the central forces during polling in the Sitalkuchi Assembly segment of Cooch Behar district on April 10. The court recorded that the allegation behind the death of people was the “police firing in the course of electioneering”.

The High Court was informed by the Advocate General for the State and Additional Solicitor General for the CISF as well as counsel for the Election Commission of India that two FIRs have been lodged – one at the instance of an officer of the CISF and another at the instance of an individual. The petitioners have also reportedly asked for a direction to provide monetary compensation to the kin of the people killed in the shooting.

Reacting to this incident, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee expressed her anger and told media persons, “This was genocide. The central force just sprayed them with bullets. They fired at the upper part of the body,” adding, “They should have fired below the waist, but the bullets were fired at the neck and the chest.”

She raised the question of whether CISF personnel are trained to control mobs by firing bullets without any warning. Besides an independent probe into this incident, she has also demanded the resignation of Union Home Minister Amit Shah. 

The matter will be heard on May 5.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Battleground Bengal: Five killed in Sitalkuchi, EC and Central forces under scanner again
Sitalkuchi killings: This blood won’t wash easy…

The post Sitalkuchi firing: Calcutta HC seeks status report from CID appeared first on SabrangIndia.